Sequence for Easter by Adam of St Victor

According to Abbot Gueranger, "of all the sequences composed by Adam of St Victor, the following is the richest in its allusions to the types of the Old Testament, which refer to Christ's victory over death. The chant to which it was sung, was taken afterwards as the basis of that of the magnificent Lauda Sion."
(Liturgical Year, Pascal Tide, vol. 1, p263)

XIV. PASCHA.

Zyma vetus expurgetur

Ut sincere celebretur

Nova resurrectio.

Haec est dies nostrae spei,

Huius mira vis diei

Legis testimonio.

Haec Aegyptum spoliavit

Et Hebraeos liberavit

De fornace ferrea,

His in arto constitutis

Opus erat servitutis

Lutum, later, palea.

Jam divinae laus virtutis

Jam triumphi, jam salutis

Vox erumpat libera:

Haec est dies, quam fecit Dominus,

Dies nostri doloris terminus,

Dies salutifera.

Lex est umbra futurorum,

Christus, finis promissorum,

Qui consumat omnia,

Christi sanguis igneam

Hebetavit rompheam

Amota custodia.

Puer nostri forma risus,

Pro quo vervex est occisus,

Vitae signat gaudium;

Joseph exit de cisterna,

Christus redit ad superna

Post mortis supplicium.

Hic dracones Pharaonis

Draco vorat, a draconis

Immunis malitia,

Quos ignitus vulnerat,

Hos serpentis liberat

Aenei praesentia.

Anguem forat in maxilla

Christus, hamus et armilla,

In cavernam reguli

Manum mittit ablactatus,

Et sic fugit exturbatus

Vetus hospes saeculi.

Irrisores Elisaei,

Dum conscendit domum Dei,

Zelum calvi sentiunt,

David arreptitius,

Hircus emissarius

Et passer effugiunt.

In maxilla mille sternit

Et de tribu sua spernit

Samson matrimonium,

Samson Gazae seras pandit

Et asportans portas scandit

Montis supercilium.

Sic de Juda leo fortis

Fractis portis dirae mortis

Die surgens tertia

Rugiente voce patris

Ad supernae sinum matris

Tot revexit spolia.

Certus Jonam fugitivum,

Veri Jonae signativum,

Post tres dies reddit vivum

De ventris angustia;

Botrus Cypri reflorescit,

Dilatatur et excrescit,

Synagogae flos marcescit

Et floret ecclesia.

Mors et vita conflixere,

Resurrexit Christus vere,

Et cum Christo surrexere

Multi testes gloriae.

Mane novum, mane laetum,

Vespertinum tergat fletum,

Quia vita vicit letum,

Tempus est laetitiae.

Jesu victor, Jesu vita,

Jesu, vitae via trita,

Cuius morte mors sopita,

Ad paschalem nos invita

Mensam cum fiducia.

Vive panis, vivax unda,

Vera vitis et fecunda,

Tu nos pasce, tu nos munda,

Ut a morte nos secunda

Tua salvet gratia. Amen.

XIV. EASTER.

Purge away the former leaven,
That true thanks may now be given
On the day which saw Christ rise!
Hope to us this great day yieldeth;
Mighty is the power it wieldeth,

As the Law's word testifies.

Egypt's sons this day were plundered;
Israel's tribes, their fetters sundered,
From the kilns were freed to-day;
Servile was the occupation

Of this bounded captive nation,
Making bricks of straw and clay.

Of God's goodness let laudation,

Songs of triumph and salvation,
Burst forth now in accents clear
This is the day the Lord Himself hath made,

The day our sorrows all to rest are laid,
And which brings salvation near.

Things to come the Law's type veileth;

Christ the promises fulfilleth,

Who doth all things consummate;
Christ's own blood, for us outpoured,
Making blunt the flaming sword,
Drives the warders from the gate.

Life's joy he, that lad, implieth,

Who our laughter typifieth,

In whose stead the ram was slain:
Joseph from the pit ascendeth,
Back to heaven His way Christ wendeth,
Having died His death of pain.

'Tis this serpent that devoureth
Pharaoh's serpents, and o'erpowereth,
Scatheless, the old serpent's spite.
He provideth an escape,
In a brazen serpent's shape,

From the fiery serpent's bite.

Christ the hook and thorn appeareth,
Which the serpent's jaw-bone teareth:

On the cockatrice's den
When His hand this weaned child layeth,
Driven off, no longer stayeth
That old dweller amongst men.

Mocking children, insults throwing
At the seer to Bethel going,

Feel the bald-head's righteous wrath:
David, by feigned madness stirred,
The scapegoat, the "living bird,"
From the haunts of men flee forth.

Samson with a jaw-bone slayeth
Thousands, and contempt displayeth

For a wife from 'mongst his own:
Samson Gaza's bolts unfastens,
And, its gates uplifting, hastens

With them to the mountain's crown.

Judah's lion by this token

Boldly, death's dread portals broken,

Rises the third day once more:
Back to Heaven rich fruits of daring
To our mother's bosom bearing,
When He hears the Father's roar.

Jonah, from his duty flying,
Three days in her belly lying,
Our true Jonah typifying,
Doth the whale restore alive.

Clustered camphire fresh life showeth,

Spreads abroad and larger groweth:
Blight alone the Law's bud knoweth,
And the Church doth bloom and thrive.

Death and life's long strife is ended!

Christ hath risen indeed, attended

By a witness crowd, ascended

With Him, who His glory show.

Morning new, morn gladness reaping!
Wipe away our eve of weeping;
Life o'er death is triumph keeping,

Tis the time for joyance now!

Jesu Victor, life bestowing!

Jesu, Way to true life going!

Through Thy death death's self overthrowing!

At Thy Paschal feast o'erflowing
Grant us in full trust a place!

Bread of life and Water living!
Vine, the true Vine, much fruit giving!
Feed us, cleanse us from sin's striving,
That, at second death arriving,

We escape it through Thy grace! Amen.

(The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St Victor, from the text of Gautier, translated into English by Digby S. Wrangham, 1881. Vol 1, pp80-87)

"O foolish, and slow of heart." Some suggestions on who Pope Francis might be referring to ...

"O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken."
St Luke 24:25

Pope Francis has today paid tribute to his predecessor, on the birthday, and offered Holy Mass for him. The Pope has also spoken about being open to the influence of the Holy Spirit, and has referred to those who resist the influence of the Spirit.

"... we do not want to change. And there is more: there are voices wanting to move back. This is called being stubborn, this is called wanting to tame the Holy Spirit, this is called becoming fools and slow of heart." Pope Francis, Homily at Mass, 16th April 2013.

Pope Francis has not been explicit about who he is referring to - and probably just as well - but it occurs to me that the following 'voices' in the Church might well be referred to as "foolish and slow of heart" -

1. Those who persist - against all evidence - in regarding the changes ushered in by Vatican 2 as being wholly or even mainly beneficial.

2. Those who obstinately maintain the doctrinal correctness of all the official documents of Vatican 2, in all respects, being in denial about what might charitably be called "imprecisions".

3. Those who pertinaciously maintain that the 'Novus Ordo Missae' is in all respects beyond criticism, and not in clear need of reform.

4. Those who hark back to the spirit of the 1960s and 1970s, in their desire to continue the revolution in that Church that was so prominent at the time, or who wish to restore the deservedly obsolete practices and symbols from that benighted era.


5. Those who maintain doctrines - for example concerning Salvation through Christ alone, or the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, or the Eucharistic sacrifice, or the inerrancy of Holy Scripture - which are not in faithful continuity with the constant organic Tradition of the Church.

Of course, there are other groups and individuals who are "foolish and slow of heart." In fact, most of us fall, to some extent, under those strong words of reproach. Which of us is fully open to the Spirit, and in all respects obedient to His inspirations? Even popes have no guarantee in that respect - far from it. The Pope does go on, in his homily, to call on us all to examine our consciences in this respect.

Catholic Traditionalists could also, of course, apply these words to ourselves as Traditionalists ...

But why go to such an implausible interpretation, when the "foolish and obstinate" of heart are clearly the pertinacious members of the Vatican 2 generation, who do not observe "the signs of the times" and "believe in all the things that the prophets have spoken."

Get with the programme, chaps!

Believe faithfully the fulness of the Catholic faith - as revealed through the Holy Spirit;
Practise the fulness of the Traditional disciplines handed down to us - in the power of the Spirit;
Worship at the Traditional Latin Mass and Office - as inspired by the Holy Spirit;
Adore our Eucharistic Lord - who was conceived by the Spirit;
Honour our Blessed Lady - the spouse of the Spirit;
Practise the corporal and theological works of mercy - with the help and grace of the Spirit.

Veni Sancte Spiritus
Et emitte coelitus
Lucis Tuae radium.

"Ding dong, the Loonie Left is dead!"

If any of us needed reminding why Mrs Thatcher was so necessary to Britain in the early 1980s, we only have to look at the Loonie Left who have decided to make her death a matter of rejoicing. "Ding dong, the witch is dead" they sing, with contorted faces full of typical Socialist hatred. Clearly they are not content with being subscribers to an ideology which has been directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions of patriots world-wide in the last century - Communism, National Socialism, whatever Socialism, they all have in common their lust for the blood of their enemies, especially the workers whose interests they falsely pretend to support.

The Loonies of the Left are today a joke - more the preserve of malingering students and fraudulent benefit claimants than a serious political force. It did not always seem to be the case. In 1979 the Loonies were in the ascendant, with the serious fear that they would subvert democracy and constitutional government. In fact, they were doing so already - Trades Unions that were founded to protect the interests of their members were in the control of radicals whose not-so-hidden agenda was to paralyze the country in the interests of Communist revolution. Power cuts, bread and tea shortages, the "winter of discontent" - had all been brought about by militant and out-of-control unions. Moderate supporters of the Labour party knew this couldn't continue, but were themselves powerless to act effectively, with their own support and funding being so dependent on the Union interest.

Mrs Thatcher acted, and acted effectively. It was never going to be pleasant - the extremism and lunacy of the militant Left saw to that. Moderation and sweet reason had been tried by both Labour and Conservative governments, to be greeted by mockery from the extremists - a mixture of clenched-fist and two-finger salutes, Communist slogans and four-letter words. Mrs Thatcher used the necessary means, and ensured the demise of the militant Left and excessive union power. Politics is far less interesting nowadays, and that is part of her legacy too.

The amount of hatred and venom which is still evoked by Mrs Thatcher, even in death, for than 20 years after she left office, is indicative. The militant Left hate her because she effectively destroyed their influence and power-base in Britain, as well as contributing largely to the conditions that created Glasnost at an international level. They are political eunuchs, having the desire but not the means of fulfilment, and the castrating knife was wielded by Mrs T. No wonder they hate her.

Some have called in the last few days for her funeral to be paid for by the private sector. In fact, an expensive and lavish funeral is the least that the country can do for someone who dedicated so much of her life to its advancement, and with such success. But I hope there will be a chance to donate to a public subscription monument to celebrate the life of such a great Briton - ideally a column as high as Nelson's, with a prominent handbag, and a few Militant Union Leaders being crushed underfoot.

And as for the protesters - let them protest. It's all they can do. Perhaps they could be offered one way tickets to North Korea, where they can enjoy the benefits of the ideology that they would foist on the rest of us?

Vatican II and the "Bad News" of the Gospel

A review of a book by Ralph Martin, originally published at Catholic World Report.

****


Vatican II and the “Bad News” of the Gospel

Ralph Martin’s new book clarifies what the Council actually taught about salvation outside the Church

David Paul Deavel
April 01, 2013

Ruefully observing statistics showing that only 6 percent of American Catholic parishes considered evangelism a priority, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles once lamented, “The Council has often been interpreted as if it had discouraged evangelization.” Ralph Martin’s new book, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization, aims to explain why this interpretation has taken root despite the fact that the Council documents, particularly the keystone document Lumen Gentium (LG), are brimming with talk about evangelization as the Church’s main job. In fact, Paul VI’s encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi stated that the objectives of the Council were summed up in one statement: “to make the Church of the 20th century ever better fitted for proclaiming the Gospel.” Yet the opposite happened.
Martin thinks, and with reason, that the loss of impetus to evangelize is based upon the widespread notion after the Council that almost everybody will be saved—except maybe really evil people like Hitler and Judas. Having the sacraments or an explicit faith in Christ is seen as a nice add-on. But essentially the theology of salvation could be summed up by the 1989 cartoon movie All Dogs Go to Heaven.

Of course this theology had backing from big names. Karl Rahner declared that the Council had a “theological optimism…concerning salvation.” Richard McBrien’s commentary on LG claimed that the Church now considered the human race as “an essentially saved community from whom a few may, by the exercise of their own free will, be lost.” Even the Jesuit scholar Francis Sullivan, author of a very careful study of the teaching on salvation outside the Church, tended in his more popular writings to throw caution to the wind and claim a “general presumption of innocence which is now the official attitude of the Catholic Church.” These claims were never undergirded by any actual citations or close readings from the Council, which marked a doctrinal development indeed, but not one of automatic salvation or “presumed innocence.”

While the question of the salvation of those who have never heard the Gospel has been bubbling up in a new way since the 16th-century discovery of peoples in the New World, it had been coming to a steady boil over more than 100 years before Vatican II. The categories of invincible ignorance (whereby one could not be held accountable for not knowing about Christ and the Christian message) and implicit faith (whereby the invincibly ignorant might embrace as much truth as God has allowed one to receive and thus embrace Christ implicitly) have been around for a while. That arch-traditional pope Pius IX had already given assent to the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church in encyclicals in 1854 and 1863. This view was even included in a draft document of the First Vatican Council (which was never finished because of the Franco-Prussian war’s interruption). The Second Vatican Council’s teaching of this possibility of salvation outside the sacraments and explicit faith, then, was the culmination of a long doctrinal development that had already been given expression by the papal Magisterium a century before Vatican II.

Martin affirms this development, noting that LG 16 very clearly indicates the possibility of salvation outside of the visible Church and explicit faith. That key passages states:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. (LG 16)

Notice, however, that simple ignorance, even ignorance that could not be helped, is not a sufficient condition for salvation—sincere seeking of God, a real attempt to follow the dictates of conscience, and an embrace of whatever truth is given are all necessary. To such people “divine assistance” will be given. But notice also that the Council Fathers said that such people “may” achieve eternal salvation. But what is so striking is that even when this passage is quoted, the final lines which warn of the dangers to those outside of the faith are rarely quoted and even more rarely commented on at length:
But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all of these, the Church, mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG 16)

Far from a human race that is presumed innocent or essentially saved, the Council Fathers see a world in which salvation is neither assured nor easy. It is a world in which, “very often,” rejection of Christ has been a reality, is still possible, and is a main reason for Christian missions. Indeed, the Council also warned about the severe judgment falling on Catholics who do not persist in charity and faithfulness.
The Council’s “optimism,” Martin rightly notes, is about the possibility of salvation outside of the Church, not the probability that everybody inside or outside it will be saved. The Council doesn’t give odds on this question or tell us whether hell is densely populated or not, nor does Martin attempt to do so. But he notes that the “very often” is attached to the negative possibility. In a chapter examining the scriptural references in LG 16 he demonstrates that this “bad news” is indeed biblical. Where, then, did theAll Dogs view of the Council come from? Mostly from two sources: Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

While Martin is clear that he respects both theologians and acknowledges their own pastoral desires, what is demonstrated in the two chapters covering their thoughts is how little backing they had in their own theories. Rahner, while occasionally acknowledging that the Council did not actually say anything new doctrinally on this topic, used the tactic that would later characterize the Bologna school: in Ratzinger’s words, the Council’s texts were interpreted as “a mere prelude to a still unattained conciliar spirit…” Thus, Rahner’s foundations for hope in universal or near-universal salvation were founded upon his own particular theological vision—a vision that gave little attention to the whole witness of either Scripture or Tradition on this point and (as he later acknowledged) underestimated the reality of sin.

While Rahner may have ignored Tradition and Scripture, Balthasar professed to be a man who paid attention to it all. Martin’s brief against him shows, however, that on his professed “theological hope” for universal salvation (best glimpsed in his book Dare We Hope That All Be Saved?), Balthasar has a tendency to ignore and occasionally mischaracterize his sources. Martin offers devastating critiques of Balthasar’s use of Scripture, the Fathers, and indeed logic. Balthasar quotes scriptural passages without even their immediate context, adduces witnesses who do not say what they purportedly say (e.g., Maximus the Confessor’s supposed embrace of universalism), and claims that one cannot love people sincerely if one believes that anyone could possibly reject God—the last a strange claim indeed given his view that the saints stand high as theological authorities. Finally, he seems to back up his positions with rather extravagant extra-biblical speculations about conversions in hell.

Balthasar and Rahner and many of their followers believed that the Church’s missions would be successful only if we could stop telling people the bad news. Whether or not they actually agreed with the speculative views of the theologians, many bishops and pastors embraced the idea that the Church would be better off if it stopped talking about sin and hell and accentuated the positive. As one theologian in 1973 wrote, with this strategy, “men will storm her doors seeking admission.” The result has been less than spectacular. Rare are the people who will spread the faith merely because the Church says so if there is no point to it other than drawing new members into “our community.” To paraphrase Flannery O’Connor, if the Church isn’t a place of salvation, it is simply an Elks Club. And the Elks aren’t doing that well these days either. It was Rahner, after all, whose talk about the “optimism of the Council” yielded at the end of his life to essays on the “winter of the Church.”

Martin does not spare bishops or popes in his criticism of this strategy of talking only about the positives. Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s encyclicals on evangelization, Evangelii Nuntiandi and Redemptoris Missio, are scored for omitting “the traditional focus on the eternal consequences that rest on accepting or rejecting the gospel that motivated almost two thousand years of mission.” Martin calls for an end to this “unwise silence” about a significant part of the Christian message. It is a particularly heartening sign that his book is blurbed by seven US bishops. Perhaps these endorsements are a sign that what Russell Shaw once called the US bishops’ “Potemkin Village” is now being torn down.

Martin’s one misstep is that he too quickly passes by the question of the danger to non-Catholic Christians. While Vatican II’s recognition of the power of salvation at work among other Christians separated from the Catholic Church is accurate, it is perhaps a little too pat. Martin does not mention the dangers to Christians whose baptisms are valid but who do not have the fullness of the sacraments or the guidance of the Magisterium to help them in a world in which, as he notes, the culture’s morality moves further from Christian teaching every day. The bad news is for all of us—Catholics, other Christians, and non-believers. We all need to hear it if the good news is to make sense. And we all need to hear it because it’s true.

About the Author: associate editor of Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture and adjunct professor of Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota).

Margaret Thatcher, Ave atque Vale!

"Thank you so much for everything you have done."

I only once came face to face with Margaret Thatcher, which was at a signing of her recently published book "Statecraft". It must, therefore have been about the year 2002. I queued round the block  of Waterstones bookshop on Birmingham New Street, as I waited to get the precious signature in my copy of the book. When I eventually got to the front of the queue, Mrs T said, "I'm sorry you've had to wait so long." I said, "Thank you very much for everything you have done."

Now I'm sure that I could think of things that Mrs Thatcher did during her long life that I would not agree with. Even things that she did as Prime Minister, which at the time I would have supported, with the passage of years might seem to be questionable. Even if they were right, wasn't the tone rather strident and confrontational?

I see a number of inevitable comments on the Internet rejoicing at her demise, dancing on her grave you might say. She polarized people - some of us supported her strongly, and others opposed her equally strongly. Though I respect the people (or, at least, some of them) who disliked Mrs T, I profoundly disagree with them. For me, she was a hero.

When I went to see the film "Iron Lady" starring Meryl Streep, a couple of years ago - a film about which much could be said - the news clips from the 1980s brought back not just memories but also the emotions that went with them. As clips were shown of Mrs T declaring that "The lady's not for turning," or denouncing the Militant Left, or attacking the out-of-control union bosses, I felt once again the emotions that I had felt at the time. Loyalty, support, admiration, gratitude for someone who was standing up for Britain, and the British, after what felt like a long period of neglect. Respect for someone who was willing to give some leadership to the country, and make tough decisions.

In my view, Mrs T gave back to Britain self-confidence, and the belief that it was not heading for inevitable, inexorable, slow decline. Tough as the times may have been - and no doubt there was hardship especially in the early years of her government - the future was in our own hands.

But my thanks to Mrs T is not just for what she did for the country. I felt a personal inspiration from the values that she brought to the country. For me, the 1970s and early 1980s had often seemed a grey and uninspiring place - not hostile, not unpleasant (usually), not uncomfortable - but wholly lacking in aspiration. My schooling was largely uninspiring - state-processed mediocrity. Mrs Thatcher brought aspiration to me, and others like me - the realisation that we could be aspirational, take control of our own futures, and through hard work and enterprise make things better. The Britain she advocated was one where the aspirational would flourish.

Once again, Margaret Thatcher, thank you for everything that you have done.

The "Broken Cross" is back

Pope Francis has used, on the occasion of his enthronement in his cathedral of St John Lateran, the 'broken cross' staff as used by Paul VI and JP2, and deservedly consigned to history by Benedict 16th.

There's plenty of comment elsewhere on this especially ugly item of kit, which I won't repeat here. For example: http://valleadurni.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-schtick.html

This cross not only is itself bent and distorted, but the image of Christ on the cross is particularly distorted and wretched - pitiful and broken. There are times when it is appropriate to reflect on the brutal reality of crucifixion, and the full horror of what Jesus suffered for our sins. Whether the Paschal season is the right point to do that is open to question. As a work of art, this cross makes a point, and does it powerfully, though anyone would be hard put to describe the item as a thing of beauty.

The image has been criticized on the grounds that it emphasizes and exaggerates the sufferings and wretchedness of Christ, for their own sake, whereas for Christians we glory in Christ's sufferings and death on account that He rose again. The Passion and the Resurrection go together, always being seen in the light of each other. This criticism could be made of many other images, however, especially some of the Spanish representations of the crucified Lord.

Unfortunately, the circumstances in which this cross was adopted by Paul VI were not ideal, and for many of us this broken cross came to signify a broken church with a broken papacy. In the wake of Vatican 2, it seemed that the Church was being broken - often, deliberately broken - and that many senior clerics were at least complicit in this mutilation of the faith and disciplines of the church. The faith, and the vocations, of many Catholics were broken as a consequence. The man who carried the broken cross presided over the broken Church.

I had hoped that, with the abandonment of this broken cross by Benedict 16th, that this was a signal that the Church was in "repair mode" - rebuilding and re-establishing the faith that had been trampled upon. You might call it a resurrection.

The reappearance of the broken cross is, for me, a very, very bad omen, particularly in the season of Resurrection.

Post Script

I can't help being reminded of the book "The Broken Cross" by Piers Compton, published 1983. The text is available on line at http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/brokencross/  It's a fascinating book, with a mixture of material - some plausible, some extraordinary - and should certainly be read with care and discernment if at all.

Piers Compton alleges that the broken cross is a satanic symbol. I'm not sure that he provides sufficient evidence that the inspiration behind this art work was from the prince of darkness. However, this story is repeated across the Internet, and the readoption of this controversial image by Pope Francis will feed paranoid rumours of the Vatican being hand-in-glove with him downstairs.

Our Lady of La Salette, Mother of Sorrows

The Most Holy Virgin Weeps.




"Rome perdra la foi et deviendra le siège de l'antéchrist"

Memorare

Remember, Our Lady of La Salette,
true Mother of Sorrows,
the tears you shed for us on Calvary. 
Remember also the care you have taken
to keep us faithful to Christ, your Son.
Having done so much for your children,
you will not now abandon us.
Comforted by this consoling thought,
we come to you pleading,
despite our infidelities and ingratitude. 
Virgin of Reconciliation,
do not reject our prayers, but intercede for us,
obtain for us the grace
to love Jesus above all else.
May we console you by a holy life
and so come to share the eternal life
Christ gained by his cross. Amen.