“My son, why dost thou leave me behind? Take me with thee and leave me not to mine enemies.”

As usual, I’m a bit late, but today’s saint, St. Hyacinth, has prompted me to write about the Enemy’s latest attack on the Holy Rosary.

The execrable publication The Atlantic published an absolutely sacrilegious screed against the Rosary. Frank Walker at Canon 212 first tipped me off to it by linking to a great piece at the One Mad Mom blog. My first thought was that the devil sure does hate the Rosary. The truth will out; the Truth is victorious over the Father of Lies. By this early salvo (not the first, of course) in the globalist freemasonic final push to antichrist, the enemy is compelled to tell us a very important truth: the Rosary is a weapon indeed. It is our weapon to defeat him. He doesn’t want us to use it. As Our Lady herself told us through her many apparitions, the Rosary is a most powerful weapon in the fight against satan and our protection against the loss of our own salvation. Can it be more obvious why satan hates the Rosary than to consider these words of Our Lady to Sr. Agnes at Akita?:

As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.

October 13, 1973

Mary earned and earns God’s favor through her many virtues, but perhaps most of all by her perfect humility. She is the great enemy of satan, who is destroyed through pride. We must pray the Rosary every day.

But, but… Why? Why this means? I don’t “get” anything out of it. It’s dry. I get more out of this or that devotion. Well, how about this? SHE wants it. HER SON wants it. How about we imitate her humility and in gratitude for this clear sign of our salvation, pray the prayer of the Rosary? Every day, as she asked. This powerful prayer (without prejudice to God’s omnipotence) is a sign of election. How many saints have told us so?

The interplay between the need to pray, particularly the Rosary, for our salvation and predestination is a mystery about which Mundabor wrote a thought-provoking post recently. I highly recommend it.

All this leads to our saint of the day, St. Hyacinth. The title of this post are the words she said to this great Dominican saint when the Mongols attacked Kiev. Consider this:

Saint Hyacinth is known to have performed numerous miracles. The one miracle that has been most associated with him was the result of the Tartars siege of the city of Kiev. Hyacinth gained a child-like and tender devotion to the Mother of God from Saint Dominic. To her he attributed his success, and to her aid he looked for his salvation. When Hyacinth was at Kiev, the fierce Tartars sacked the town. Hyacinth was celebrating the Mass and did not know of the onslaught and danger until the Mass ended. Without waiting to unvest, he took the ciborium in his hands and was fleeing the church. It is recorded that as he passed by an statue of Mary he heard a voice say, “Hyacinth, my son, why dost thou leave me behind? Take me with thee and leave me not to mine enemies.” Although the statue was made of heavy alabaster, Hyacinth took it in his arms and carried it away along with the ciborium with the Holy Eucharist. It is for this miraculous moment that Saint Hyacinth is most often depicted. The story continues that Hyacinth and the community that accompanied him came to the river Dnieper. There he urged them to follow him across the river. He led the way, and they all walked dry shod across the waters of the deep river, which then protected them from the fury of the Tartars. Polish historians are in agreement on this marvelous fact, although some of the writers confuse it with a similar crossing of the Vistula which happened earlier. A circumstance, which is recorded in connection with this miracle, renders it all the more remarkable. It is said that the footprints of the saint remained on the water, even after he had crossed the river; and that, when the stream was calm, they could be seen for centuries afterwards.


St. Hyacinth, member of the order of St. Dominic, to whom she gave the Rosary, a Saint invoked in hopeless cases, gives us the advice he himself heard in similarly dangerous times. He urges us to hear the words of Our Lady: “My son, why dost thou leave me behind? Take me with thee and leave me not to mine enemies.”

My own road to the particular judgement fills me with dread, but almost certainly not enough dread. I came late to doing anything to try to pray the Rosary daily. I say it poorly, and I am so easily distracted. But Mary has taken pity on me and patiently cares for me, protects me, and hits me over the head as often as I need it, without tiring. I know for a fact that if it were not for her I would have no chance to make it to Heaven. And yet, here she is, inviting, imploring me to continue to pray the Rosary every day. To go back to confession. To assist at Mass and receive the Sacraments while we have them. Because in the end, the only arms which will remain for us are the Rosary and the sign left by her Son.

The Rosary is a weapon? You better believe it is.

Use it.

Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Signum magnum appáruit in coelo: múlier amicta sole, et luna sub pédibus eius, et in cápite eius coróna stellárum duódecim

Ps 97:1

Cantáte Dómino cánticum novum: quóniam mirabília fecit.

V. Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
R. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculórum. Amen

Signum magnum appáruit in coelo: múlier amicta sole, et luna sub pédibus eius, et in cápite eius coróna stellárum duódecim


A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

Ps 97:1

Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has done wondrous deeds.

V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

—Introit of today’s Mass

I Read This Very Interesting Article over at Frontpage Mag

Update: I have learned to spell.

The momentum is growing all the time. Will enough people stand up before it is too late? Lengthy excerpt:


High caliber intellects whose work I respect are among those who dismiss the thesis that Benedict XVI remains the pope. Perhaps there is something I haven’t accounted for, but to date I haven’t found any adequate rebuttal to the specific claim that Benedict XVI did not fulfill what is required by canon law for a valid renunciation of the Papal office.

There has also arisen a rift of sorts among those who are rightly convinced Bergoglio is an anti-pope.  In one camp are those who feel that Benedict XVI made a “substantial error” in his Declaratio, because he aimed to retain a portion of the Papacy yet also incorporate a successor pope to take over the practical, day to day administrative and governing functions of the universal Church.

In other words, he mistakenly thought he could bifurcate or otherwise expand the Papacy – transform it from a Divinely instituted charge given individually to St. Peter and all his individual successors to a similarly authoritative but more collegial unifying entity.

The relevant canon for this view is 188, which reads:

A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Whether or not Benedict XVI audaciously intended to introduce an unprecedented and inadmissible wrinkle into the nature of the Papacy, it may also be said that the failure to heed the distinction between resigning the office itself and ministries or activities emanating from said office constitutes an invalidating substantial error.

In another camp are those who contend that Benedict XVI did not erroneously attempt to pluralize the papacy, but rather that he specifically and intentionally did not renounce the munus because he intended to remain Pope.  So why such a tack? 

He did this because he felt he could no longer properly function as Pope on account of pervasive opposition from within the Church itself. He was essentially impeded from governing in accordance with his charge in the manner he saw fit.  (Canon 412 delineates the criteria of an impeded See).

By stepping aside the way he did, he judged his unworthy, subversive adversaries would likely jump at the chance to seize power; their nefarious ways would eventually be exposed, thereby hastening a much-needed purification of the Church.

Talk about intrigue! I can appreciate how anyone considering this possibility for the first time might be incredulous. But this is not a movie or a novel; if only the widespread, hostile infiltration of the Church – the rot even at its highest levels – were fictional.

One shudders to ponder the depravity stacked against Benedict XVI, who explicitly mentioned his “fear of the wolves” upon first assuming the Papacy.  So his maneuver may have been a purposeful act of inspiration born out of desperation.

Both of the above interpretations, sincerely held by their proponents, are products of intensive investigation; both are reasonable suppositions, plausible enough at least at first hearing that they cannot simply be dismissed.

In one sense, both explanations cannot be right because they offer conflicting analyses of Benedict XVI’s motivation for doing what he did – a highly important question that awaits an answer in due time. And yet both are correct in what matters most: whatever his motivation or intention, Benedict XVI did not renounce the Papacy in accordance with Canon Law, and therefore Bergoglio is an anti-Pope and everything he has done carries no weight whatsoever because he has never held the Papal munus.

The implications are massive going forward – and not just for Catholics. If the situation is not rectified, the next conclave (regardless of who dies first) would be invalidly constituted, so we’d have another anti-Pope, succeeded by yet additional anti-Popes – who, like Bergoglio, would not likely supply much forceful, indispensable moral and spiritual resistance to the various inhumane agendas menacing our horizon.

Though initially a bit reluctant to look into this matter, I found myself at peace with my conclusion. Sure, it is a distressing, grave situation. But it also provided an interpretive key to so many other things unfolding all around us – primarily the lockdowns. The unprecedented closure of churches. The “Pope” canceled Easter! A pope never does that.

Yes, We Must Pray for Bergoglio and His Salvation

Ann Barnhardt is 100% right, as is often the case, about this matter:


The position that Jorge Bergoglio is beyond redemption and MUST be written-off as lost to hell WHILE HE IS YET VERY MUCH ALIVE is 100% totally contrary to the fundamental essence of Christianity. This is a huge reason why Holy Mother Church has ALWAYS aggressively sought to rectify and end all previous Antipapacies: for the good of the usurper himself, as well as for the good of the Church Militant in toto.

Do we honestly believe that Our Lord, the Good Shepherd, looks upon Jorge Mario Bergoglio, lost sheep as he is, and is saying, “Nah. I don’t give a damn about THAT ONE. Let THAT ONE go. Don’t even try, don’t even bother.” IF that applies to Antipope Bergoglio, if Bergoglio is a total write-off in the eyes of Jesus Christ, I wonder, who ELSE might be declared a “total write-off”? Are we seeing the horrific scandal that this position incites? There are two types of scandal: scandal that incites others to sin, and scandal that incites others to LOSE THEIR FAITH. If churchmen and professional Catholics openly despair a man who has not yet died and COULD EASILY repent, be shriven and totally reconciled to Jesus Christ and His Holy Church before any of us sit down to dinner tonight, then what about anyone else? To say that Antipope Bergoglio has no access to the Sacraments is every bit as absurd as saying… that there are no black cassocks in Rome.