You evil woman and your chapel veil! How dare "you people" kneel before your God! You are ruining the Church!

In a bizarre statement from the Dicastery for Divine Worship given to the Bishops of Panama during their recent ad limina visit, women who wear chapel veils and people who kneel for Holy Communion are "extremists" and cause "division and confusion." They continued that these terrible people are instrumentalization of the eucharistic celebration."

Advaticanum has the full report.

Dicastery for Divine Worship warns against liturgical ‘extremism’ following meeting with Panama’s bishops | Advaticanum

Roche and his lot are just so gay.

Dutch Bishop Robert Mutsaerts responds to Cardinal Roche's attack on Catholics who favour the traditional Latin Mass!

Paarse Pepers: Dreigende taal van kardinaal Roche: Ga niet naar TLM! Maar waarom? De Kerk hoeft haar verleden niet te verbieden om haar toekomst veilig te stellen.

Cardinal Roche's Threatening Language: Do Not Attend the TLM! But Why? The Church Need Not Forbid Its Past to Secure Its Future.

By Bishop Robert Mutsaerts

Auxiliary of’ s-Hertogenbosch

October 24, 2026 

The Catholic Church prides itself on its universality, cherishes an impressive diversity of liturgical traditions, and regards that diversity as an expression of its riches. A Catholic may attend the divine liturgy according to the Byzantine tradition, the Maronite tradition, the Armenian tradition, or the Chaldean tradition. No one finds this in itself a threat to ecclesial unity. But the moment a Catholic wishes to attend Mass as it was celebrated for centuries in Rome, Paris, Amsterdam, and virtually the entire Latin Church, certain ecclesial authorities in Rome begin to grow uneasy. 

Suddenly, liturgical diversity becomes a problem. Suddenly, attachment to tradition becomes suspect. And suddenly, the unity of the Church must be protected against people who wish to pray as their ancestors did. This raises a question that is by no means unreasonable: why is virtually every ancient Catholic liturgical tradition a treasure — except the ancient Roman liturgy? 

Cardinal Roche stated recently, in an interview with AdVaticanum published on October 13, 2026, that traditionalist groups sometimes use the earlier liturgy to resist the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. According to the Cardinal, such an attitude can harm ecclesial unity. He warned that those who reject the Council distance themselves from the center of Catholicism. He also stated that Catholics ought not, in his view, to attend exclusively the old Mass. An important distinction is necessary here. 

One who on principle denies the validity of the new Mass, rejects the papal authority, or maintains that the Catholic Church after Vatican II is no longer the Catholic Church does indeed adopt a problematic position. But one who loves the traditional Mass, deepens his faith through it, accepts Catholic doctrine, and remains loyal to the Pope cannot simply be accused of the same. Attachment to a liturgical tradition is not identical to a rejection of the Magisterium. It is precisely this distinction that threatens to be lost in the current discussion.

 The Catholic Church encompasses twenty-four Churches sui iuris: the Latin Church and twenty-three Eastern Catholic Churches. They possess different liturgical traditions — Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and East Syriac, among others. Within the Western Catholic world as well there exist particular liturgical usages, including the Ambrosian Rite in Milan. And no one fears for the unity of the Church when a Byzantine Catholic priest stands before the iconostasis, the incense rises abundantly, and the faithful experience a liturgy that differs from the ordinary Roman Mass on numerous points. For Catholic unity has never been identical with liturgical uniformity. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council states explicitly in Sacrosanctum Concilium that all legitimately recognized rites are of equal dignity and that the Church wishes to preserve and promote them. That is a remarkable statement in light of Cardinal Roche's pronouncements. If liturgical diversity does not necessarily harm the unity of the Church, why would the centuries-old Roman liturgy do so? The Catholic faith is not, after all, a collection of customs whose expiration date is determined by an ecclesial commission.

 Post-war liturgical practice has revealed a shift from the transcendence of God toward the community as the focal point. When the Eucharist comes to resemble increasingly a common meal, a celebration of human togetherness, or an occasion for pastoral creativity, the sacrificial dimension risks fading into the background. It is precisely against this tendency that the traditional liturgy, with its consistent orientation toward God, constitutes a visible counterweight. And perhaps there lies part of the discomfort: the TLM continues to proclaim something ancient that is easily forgotten today. Pope Benedict understood something essential: the Church cannot credibly claim that what it considered holy yesterday ought today to be regarded as a danger. 

Is the Second Vatican Council being used as a point of rupture? Here the discussion touches upon a deeper problem. A council stands within Tradition. It does not inaugurate a new Church. Vatican II provided for a reform of the liturgy, but at the same time determined that Latin was to be preserved in the Latin Rites and that Gregorian chant holds a position of primacy. Much of what is today considered typically traditionalist was therefore entirely self-evident to the conciliar Fathers. It is therefore remarkable when attachment to the older liturgy is presented as resistance to the Council itself. 

Criticism of certain aspects of the post-conciliar liturgical reform is, after all, not automatically equivalent to a rejection of the Second Vatican Council. The liturgical reform was largely elaborated and introduced after the Council. That does not mean all criticism is correct. It means only that such a discussion can legitimately be conducted. 

When a council is in practice treated as an absolute watershed between an old and a new Church, precisely the rupture arises that one claims to wish to avoid. The Catholic Church is not an institution refounded in 1965. She is the same Church that received the Apostles, produced the Church Fathers, built the medieval cathedrals, convened the Council of Trent, and called together the Second Vatican Council. One who truly believes in the continuity of the Church need not fear her past. 

Cardinal Roche appeals constantly to the unity of the Church. That is in itself entirely correct. Unity is not an incidental property of the Church but belongs to her very essence. The question is only what we understand by unity. Unity in the Catholic faith, in the sacraments, and in communion with the Successor of Peter is something different from uniformity in ritual expression. The official line of reasoning is that the TLM, unlike the Eastern liturgies, has for certain groups become a symbol of resistance to the reform and the authority of the Church. That argument deserves serious attention. But the problem with that reasoning is that it easily moves from a judgment about particular abuses to a general judgment about an entire liturgical community. Why should families, young people, priests, and religious who desire nothing other than to celebrate the traditional liturgy in full ecclesial communion bear the consequences? 

A father who brings his children to the old Mass because he experiences there the holiness of the Eucharist with particular intensity is not engaged in Church politics. He is simply going to Mass. 

The history of the Church is characterized not only by renewal but also by preservation. Traditio means transmission: receiving what one has not oneself invented and passing it on to the next generation. It is therefore remarkable that in an era in which one speaks constantly of listening to the faithful, the desires of traditionally oriented Catholics so often meet with so little understanding. A Church that wishes to listen to the world ought also to listen to its own children — unless synodality means something else. Certainly when those children are asking not for less Catholic doctrine but for its undiminished proclamation. Or is that precisely the problem? 

A prudent approach would make room for the older liturgy wherever it is sincerely desired, while at the same time asking for fidelity to ecclesial communion and correcting abuses in all liturgical forms. For that last point also deserves attention. One who strictly regulates the old Mass out of concern for the holiness and unity of the liturgy must act with the same seriousness against abuses in the new Mass. 

Perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon is that the Traditional Latin Mass exerts an attraction not only upon those who grew up before the Council. Young Catholics too feel drawn to it. When young people consciously choose silence, Gregorian chant, ritual precision, and a liturgy that makes virtually no concession to the contemporary preference for spontaneity and immediate comprehensibility, that says something. It suggests that modernization is not always the best path to evangelization. Perhaps modern man sometimes longs precisely for what is not modern. Perhaps he is not seeking a liturgy that resembles as closely as possible the world in which he lives daily and has nothing new to offer him, but a liturgy that helps him to rise above that world. This is not an argument against the new Mass. It is an argument against the assumption that liturgical renewal necessarily coincides with adaptation to the spirit of the age. 

It would be a pity if the Traditional Latin Mass were ultimately to become the victim of an ecclesial struggle in which the debate is no longer genuinely about worship but about the interpretation of the past sixty years. For in that case, a liturgy that has formed saints across centuries and sanctified countless faithful would be treated as a problem to be solved. Less suspicion, more historical honesty, more theological depth, and above all more pastoral magnanimity would be desirable here. 

The Catholic et-et — the celebrated Catholic principle of both-and — could be a fruitful starting point here as well. Tradition and legitimate development. Unity and diversity. Fidelity to the Council and reverence for the centuries that preceded it. The new Mass and room for the transmitted Roman liturgy, within the communion of the Church.

 Your Eminence, the Church need not forbid its past to secure its future. A Church that truly trusts in the living Tradition can afford to love its own history. A Church that receives with joy a Byzantine, Maronite, and Armenian liturgy in its midst need not feel too threatened by a Roman Mass that was so dear to it for so many centuries. The Traditional Latin Mass is, after all, no foreign intruder in the Catholic Church; it comes from her own house. And a mother Church ought not to treat her own children as strangers because they prefer to pray in the language of their grandparents. 

† Rob Mutsaerts

Diane Montagna - Letter confirms Vatican barred Catholic pilgrims! UPDATED ON OCTOBER 29

 And new letters emerge!

Newly Published Letters Refute Vatican Claim That TLM Pilgrimage Failed to Specify Its Request

Letter Confirms Vatican Barred Annual TLM Pilgrimage from Entering St. Peter’s Basilica

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, "It was a scandal!"

I must really say that the Vatican apparatchiks have just shot themselves in the foot. They really are this stupid and, I dare say, wicked. They can only be wicked and evil, or they would not do this. If they truly believed they would not do this. 

I laugh at these fools. Do they not understand how bad they look? Do they not yet understand that this is not 1970? Their revolution is dead; it is over; they failed; their life's work has been straw! Blogs, Substack, social media, video platforms- all let us communicate instantly and expose them as fools and devils.

Pope Leo XIV, it’s high time you acted to resolve this situation and restore access to the traditional Mass—unless, of course, you want this division to continue, and you hate us as much as these demons do.

We're not going anywhere. 

Christ is King! In the here and now and the hereafter

First published October 25, 2015

This last Sunday in October in the traditional Roman Rite, is the Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King. In the new rite it, as you know, it was moved to the last Sunday of the liturgical year in the flurry of liturgical changes issued by Pope Paul VI in his motu proprio Mysterii Paschalis. 

At this time of year in both the traditional and revised liturgy, the Mass begins to focus on the four last things and the eschatological theology that is a reality for humanity. This last Sunday of October was the date chosen for this relatively new Feast, it was instituted by Pope Pius XI in his 1925 encyclical letter Quas Primas in response to growing nationalism and secularism and to the radical and violent anti-Christian secularism of communism. The title of the feast was "D. N. Jesu Christi Regis" (Our Lord Jesus Christ, King) and preceded the Feast of All Saints and then All Souls, intentionally. Christ comes as King, is joined by His Holy Saints and then all the Holy Souls, where He reigns for eternity. The last Sunday in October is also known in protestant circles as "Reformation Sunday" and the Pope was providing with clarity, the Social Kingship of Christ in this world through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and to reject the blasphemy, apostasy and heresy of Martin Luther.

From a few years ago ....

Liturgically speaking, the sung Proper of the Mass, the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory and Communion of both Missals are the same. The Collect, Secret/Super Oblata and the Postcommunion are quite different, and Father Z takes these apart and highlights the change emphasis as a result of these changes. 

The scripture readings are different. According to the Roman Missal of 1962, we read an Epistle from the Letter of St. Paul to the Colossians, 1:12-20 while the Gospel is that of St. John 18:33-37. In the Revised Lectionary for the Ordinary Form, we read in Year A for the Lesson, Ezekiel 34:11-12,15-17; the Epistle is from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 15:20-26,28 and the Gospel is from St. Matthew 25:31-46. In Year B, our current year as this is written, we will read the Lesson from the prophet Daniel 7:13-14, the Epistle from the Apocalypse of St. John, 1:5-8 and the Gospel is from St. John, 18:33-37. In Year C the Lesson is II Samuel 5:1-3, the Epistle is St. Paul's Letter to the Colossians 1:12-20 (as in the EF, above) with the Gospel from St. Matthew 25:31-46. The Responsory and the Gospel verse vary, if sung from the Graduale Romanum, 1974, they are static as in the Proper referred to above.

The rupture of dates was never asked for or anticipated by the Council Fathers, but nonetheless, accepted. Pope Paul VI's argument change has some sense to it, perfectly so, if it were a new feast and had not already existed on the calendar on the Last Sunday of October.  Christ comes as King at the end of time symbolized by the end of the Church year but that was not the purpose of the feast. Pope Pius XI had a reason for instituting this feast as discussed above and if he believed that it was the eschatological dimension that was necessary to associate with it, he would have done so. In the traditional Roman lectionary, that eschatological event is the Gospel for the Last Sunday after Pentecost and it flows seamlessly into that of the First Sunday of Advent so the debate is moot, it is there. The feast was instituted to tell us, now, in this secular world that Christ is King of the Social Order in the here and now, not just in that which is to come.

In the last paragraph of Father Z's article while finding it hard to "find fault" with the new prayers he goes on to write that 

"The change of placement of the feast and the change of theology of the prayers probably reflect the soft approach to Communism adopted by Rome in those years, called ostopolitik." 

When we compare the prayers, there is a clear reduction of emphasis on "triumphant language and imagery " It was as if "the writers of the newer prayers did not want to give the impression that Christ was to be accepted as Lord and King by political entities in this earthly existence." 

A contemporary John Henry Newman, the founder of the London Oratory and prolific hymn-writer, Father Frederick William Faber, Cong. Orat. wrote that:

"All change is bad from its very nature. It is full of evil; it unsettles and disturbs; it is full of the world; it is the very spirit of the world; and nothing worse can be said of it." 

It is truly unsettling that one Pope would come along only 45 years later and change what a previous Pope had instituted. In so many things over the last 60 years, this is just one more thing that we have endured - a tinker, tinker mentality that had nothing to do with the Second Vatican Council or its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The impact of all of this and the evidence of the failure is all around. Look at our own culture, our own countries -- here in Canada, the United States of America, Europe and what do we see? There is no cure to any of these ills without a return by all of us and what we must proclaim:

Christ Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat!

The attack on Catholics for the traditional Mass by the Church continues - Banned from prayer at St. Peter's Basilica!

Toronto's Church wreckovations - Holy Name on Danforth

Who destroyed Toronto's churches?

One of the great deceptions forced on Catholics was the iconoclastic period immediately following the Second Vatican Council. Lest anyone think this writer rejects the Council, they might first point to where the Council Fathers said this should happen to Holy Name Church on Danforth Avenue in Toronto.

Isn't it so much better now?

I took this photo from the parish website. I congratulate the current pastor, Father Eric Rodrigues, for having the courage to post this on their weekly bulletin now that the parish has been rid of the "CSC's" the Holy Cross Fathers who still possess the historic St. Ann's on Gerard Street, where this abomination occurred back in 2006.

So, let me restate the question. 

Who destroyed Toronto's churches? 

About 15 years ago, I was asked to drive retired Toronto Auxiliary Bishop Pearce Lacey to and from a Knights of Columbus dinner. He was well into his 90's and died shortly thereafter at 98. He kept up a little "ministry" and was the darling of charismatic-type Catholics. On the way home, he was sad as we drove by Loretto Abbey and recalled that he had sisters who were nuns there and was sad that they were no more. He then told me that he was so happy when Latin was gone because he could finally understand the daily Office. How was he praying before that? If Lacey was not taught to read Latin in seminary, having been ordained in 1943, how many other priests prior to the Second Vatican Council could not? How was this allowed to happen at the "master's degree" level of a seminary when Latin was the language and still remains so in the Church? How could he read any document from the Council, which were all written in Latin and in the early to middle 1960's had not yet been translated? Lacey then got excited. He told me, whilst sitting in the passenger seat of my car, how enthused he was as a priest in 1966, when he was appointed by Philip Pocock, the only Archbishop of Toronto since McGuigan not named a Cardinal, as Rector at St. Michael's Cathedral. There, he did such a fine job with the destruction that Pocock put him in charge of doing it across the Archdiocese of Toronto. He waxed on about "this conference" and "that conference" and how the "Dominicans advised this," and then he suddenly became very quiet.

I asked him, "Bishop, are you okay?"

Bishop Lacey responded in his shaky and squeaky voice, "I think we went too far."

My only response could be similar to that of Sir Humphrey Applebee: "Yes, Excellency."

A few years ago, I was recalling this story to a priest ordained during that iconoclastic time. He told me about Pocock's order to Lacey to implement this alleged Vatican II order, and Lacey's zeal to act on it. He described Lacey as "ruthless." He told me that they closed Holy Name after Mass on Sunday for the week. The pastor at the time, who didn't go along, sat in the pews, watching and weeping. He also said that you could go for a walk today in the neighbourhood around Holy Name, north and south of Danforth Avenue, and you will find marble from the communion rail being used in people's gardens as decoration and retaining walls. 

Want the proof?

I posted the picture above on my Facebook page after a friend who posts lots of old church photos posted it. Another friend commented, and I quote:

"That's the parish of my youth. I remember when they started the wreckovation. My aunt was particularly upset. It was in 1967, two years after the council. No other church did this at the time. I believe it was ordered by Archbishop Pocock, as co-adjutor. Cardinal McGuigan was bishop then, but I think Pocock was actually running things. (Nota bene: McGuigan had dementia) They did have a sign on the rubble that read something like "if you would like some lumber, please help yourself. That was the lawn on the east side of Gough Avenue."

Lumber from this altar and marble from that communion rail, "please help yourself."

There were children of the Irish who were the first Catholics in that community who were denied leather shoes or new toys so that their parents could sacrifice to build this beautiful edifice for the worship of God, and someone came along and destroyed it and more in the name of a Vatican II that did not exist. This was done according to the "spirit" of Vatican II. 

It was an abomination.

There is not one communion rail in the Archdiocese of Toronto which survives intact, only a few remnants here and there. Few of these magnificent high altars remain, and many have been modified. But no church suffered the indignity as did Holy Name Catholic Church, which still bears the inscription carved into the stone in the dead language of Latin from St. Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:10-11: (Oh, and then there's St. Paul's Basilica!) 

In nomine Jesu omne genu flecatur ...

 

"You" are the problem! Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery of Divine Worship

I bring to your attention this exclusive interview by Thomas Edwards of ADVATICANUM. 

Exclusive interview: Cardinal Roche to traditionalists: ‘You are edging yourself away from the centre of Catholicism’ | Advaticanum

Exclusive interview: Cardinal Roche to traditionalists: ‘You are edging yourself away from the centre of Catholicism’ | Advaticanum

It is painful to read for two reasons. First, because it reveals the thinking of the Church's current leadership and explains the recent action of Frank Leo of Toronto, the only bishop in Canada to so cruelly and harshly attach the faithful who desire to worship God in the ancient use of the Latin Rite. As this photo shows from June 2026, Frank Leo is doing Arthur Roche's bidding.

Second, it reveals the manipulative and twisted mind of Roche. He makes a ridiculous statement of "amice to amice in 15 minutes" as an excuse. Whatever liturgical abuse was present at the time he served as an altar boy is irrelevant to the issue of the Mass. We can all give examples of liturgical abuse before 1969 or 1965 and most certainly every day today. 

Further, Roche is a liar. He states that "Summorum Pontificum was created to accommodate the FSSPX” This is fundamentally false, as Peter Seewald revealed in 2017 with Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.

Fundamentally, these churchmen hate you. They believe that you and I are ruining the Church. We are the problem. In Toronto, about 1,500 people a week are responsible for ruining the agenda. Yes, that is what this is about. We are ruining their agenda. Next Sunday, Frank Leo has ordered all parishes to count the attendees at Mass. What will he find? We already know. Except in specific suburban parishes filled with Filipino, Hispanic and Asian and some African immigrants, the church in Toronto is dying. At some point, Frank Leo will need to come to the conclusion that he will need to close 20 parishes in the older part of Toronto itself. All of them have failed. The "NO MASS FOR YOU" period of shuttered churches by Thomas Collins was a disaster for parishes; they have never fully recovered. These men have failed us for nearly 60 years.

These men, Roche and his ilk, know they have failed and their time is short. It is not this writer that is "edging away"; it is Roche and his ilk. They are edging away from not only the centre of the faith but from more. They are edging away from life itself. What they tell you, they are. Roche is a classic gaslighter!

They are cruel and wicked. They have no supernatural faith. They hate the Mass, they hate the Church, they hate Our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hate you, dear reader. How do I know? Because if they do not, then they would not do the things they do.

Let's be clear here. Summorum Pontificum actually created unity. It was an act of love, care, kindness and truth. Traditionis custodes and all that has come from it was and remains a cruel document based on lies and a wicked agenda. The division, the anger, the hurt and the sadness now being experienced by Catholics in Toronto at Holy Family, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Lawrence the Martyr and St. Patrick's Schomberg is not our fault. It is the fault of those who did this. The men appointed to be our shepherds are in fact, fully revealed by the Apostle John in the words of Our Lord.

They are effeminate cretins. Hirelings. All of them!

John 10:1-14 

Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. 5 But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke to them. 7 Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. 9 I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.

Frank Leo spox Neil MacCarthy admits the move is to force you to attend the Novus Ordo

The Catholic Register, owned by the "Metropolitan" Archdiocese of Toronto, has finally written about the harsh enforcement by Cardinal Frank Leo of Traditionis Custodes, a cruel and unjustified document based on falsehoods and manipulation. This motu proprio by Pope Francis suspended Summorum Pontificum and has upset the peace and lives of thousands of Catholics who were finally given the concern and fatherly care under our dear Pope Benedict XVI.

Neil MacCarthy, long-time communications director, announced that the reason is not that there are not enough Masses offered according to the Novus Ordo at the four parishes but rather, "to bring those who do not attend the Novus Ordo to begin to do so."

Traditional Mass exception for Toronto comes with a condition | The Catholic Register 

Do these people think those attending the Usus Antiquior of the Holy Mass are foolish or stupid? We know we can attend the new rite and accept it as valid. Yet we have been called by the Holy Spirit to worship God in this form in the manner of our ancestors. It is not preference or a whim or a fetish. Frank Leo and Neil MacCarthy seem unable to grasp this. Despite Frank Leo’s recent eloquent words on stewardship two weeks ago and yesterday on thanksgiving, he has shown no fatherly care or affection for those attending the traditional Mass. No appreciation for sacred music or church tradition. One only needs to look at the music program at the Cathedral now versus five years ago or a decade ago, or the early 1980s, to see what has happened. All the good work done there for a century has been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

The faithful aren’t foolish, even if we’re like sheep; we know the difference between a true shepherd and a mere hireling. We can tell tenderloin from flank. Some may see this as a simple affectation on our part, but it’s far more than that. It’s a calling from God through the Holy Spirit that has guided these Catholics along this path.

Rather than take the attitude that Catholics attending the traditional liturgy are the problem in the Church today or ruining the Church, look around at the damage left by abuse, which comes in many forms. Look around at the dearth of liturgical awareness in 98% of parishes. Shall we consider the lack of proper formation of the faithful and catechesis, the attendance at Mass, the decline, especially since the acquiescence to the gods of Covid. You ask if I accept Vatican II. Yes, do you? How about that part about "Latin is to be preserved." Or how about, "Gregorian chant has pride of place." 

Perhaps His Eminence and Neil might wish to open their bible to Acts, chapter 5, verses 32 to 39.

32 And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. 33 When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death.  34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. 35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. 37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. 38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; 39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.

Catholic faithful from SSPX barred by Cardinal Frank Leo from venerating relics at Martyrs Shrine

Frank Cardinal Leo, an eminent resident of the Metropolitan Lawrence Park neighbourhood, (Vox Cantoris: The new Bishop's Palace in the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Lawrence Park) recently prevented the Society of St. Pius X from entering St. Joseph's Church in Ignace to honour the relics of the Canadian Martyrs, who were executed by the peace-loving, kind and generous indigenous Iroquois, who failed to understand that every soul matters. 

Look, I get it. An "excommunication." But they have filed an appeal under Canon Law, so the "excommunication" is stayed. Can we not show a little kindness and care to our fellow Catholics? Is this cruelty really necessary?

Yes, cruelty—that’s exactly what Frank Leo's decision to restrict the traditional liturgy in Toronto is, and that’s precisely what this is. Cruel, mean, without charity or fatherly care.

How did the Society respond? How did their leadership advise the people?

In an address to the pilgrims, the superior of the Canadian district, Fr. Yves Le Roux, asked the faithful to accept this decision without bitterness: “Without hesitation, without bitterness touching our souls, we fully submit to this decision of the Cardinal. We assure His Eminence of our prayers for him and publicly reiterate our love for the Holy Church, Mother and Teacher of Truth.”

Let us ask ourselves. Where is the real Christian charity?

The faithful deserve more from their Archbishop. 

Canada: Pilgrimage to the Holy Martyrs Despite the Ban by the Cardinal of Toronto | FSSPX News

St. Michael the Archangel - intercede for the faithful in Toronto!

Letter to Francis Cardinal Leo from a young male Catholic in Toronto.

Letter to Francis Cardinal Leo from a young male Catholic in Toronto. Name and parish withheld upon request. 

His Eminence, Frank Cardinal Leo, Archbishop of Toronto

Office of the Archbishop, Archdiocese of Toronto

Catholic Pastoral Centre

1155 Yonge St.

Toronto, ON M4T 1W2 

Mississauga, ON A1A 1A1 

September 17, 2026

 Dear Eminence, 

Greetings, Your Eminence, from this poor sheep. I come to you with great love and respect, as a child approaching his father to discuss important matters. 

It has recently come to my attention, as a resident of the Archdiocese who is attached to the usus antiquor, that You will be implementing Traditionis Custodes as of September 20^th, 2026. Over nine years, I have happily attended Mass following the usus antiquor at Carmel Heights, Holy Family, St. Vincent de Paul, and St. Lawrence the Martyr. Thus, it was with deep dismay and concern that I received the news, and it is with the same dismay and concern I write this letter. 

Much of this concern and dismay stems from how cruel this action is, and how it contradicts Your presentation as a kind, compassionate, and receptive shepherd. Upon Your installation in March 2023, I reflected with happiness on Your devotion to the Blessed Virgin. You seemed to embody those traits common to Her and Our Lord Jesus Christ: generosity, magnanimity, and an encompassing concern for Your flock. Such qualities are embodied particularly well in your pastoral messages. One example I regularly ponder is found in Your Message for the World Day for Grandparents and the Elderly. There, you write, “Can money, comfortable lifestyle, convenience, material wealth, power, expedient use of resources truly constitutes the “be all and end all” of human existence, the summum bonum for which we must strive? […] Redemptive suffering is regrettably not being preached or taught as it should.” You go on to highlight how requesting MAiD in this mindset is a “sin against God’s love.” Reading this, I was pleased to consider You my bishop. As commissioned by Our Lord Jesus, You were making disciples of all nations and spreading the Gospel. Your words were at once generous, challenged me to offer the pains of life with great love, and displayed an awareness of what we in the pews face on a regular basis. It was gratifying to see, and I noted with pleasure Your demonstrated commitment to visit those smaller, less well-regarded parishes in the Archdiocese. Simply, Your Eminence, Your actions gave further weight to Your words. 

Compounding my happiness at Your commitment to the Gospel was how it has trickled down to my local parish. Before Your installation, Your Eminence, (NAME WITHELD) parish in Mississauga was rather reserved in its practice of the Faith. Today, the Holy Ghost is easily discerned there. An Adoration chapel has been installed which sees regular use. The sanctuary has been enriched with a sobering crucifix, flanked by wonderful statues of St. Joseph and Mary. In the rotunda, proper alcoves have been furnished for Our Lady of Mount Carmel and our patronal saint. Last week, our nave doors were replaced and now depict several Carmelite saints. Every Sunday, the priests offer Mass without fuss, and remind us in their sermons of sin, mercy, justice, the importance of living out of the Gospel, and much more. As a consequence, mindful of their – and Your Eminence’s – practice of generosity, I have begun putting money in the collection plate. As you have noted, money is not the “be all and end all” of my life. The parish is livelier, with more community events than in decades prior. It gives me hope for the future. 

Given such evidence, Your Eminence, I am confused by Your decision to implement Traditionis Custodes to the letter. It goes against everything I have noticed in You. It was enacted without warning. No announcement has been made on the Archdiocesan website. I am unaware of any lay consultation. I had to find out through friends, to my great distress. Where was the kindness? Where was the compassion? Where was the awareness of the trials of life? Since Traditionis Custodes was introduced in 2021, I have witnessed a gradual witling down of the usus antiquor’s offerings here in the Archdiocese. The effects of this have been incalculable. To give just one example, people have been going to other dioceses to hear the Mass of the Ages on Sundays. This is not how it should be. As residents of the Archdiocese of Toronto, we should be able to remain close to home to hear Mass. Pushing us to travel long distances on a Sunday to hear the Mass of my grandparents, at the expense of building the domestic church, is an aberration. It defies history, sense, and charity. To his credit, Your predecessor, His Eminence Emeritus Thomas Cardinal Collins, recognized this, and allowed yours truly to attend the usus antiquor any Sunday I wish. Contrariwise, Your decision to severely restrict the offering of the usus antiquor to certain Sundays, instead of every Sunday, is regrettable.

My confusion is multiplied by the fact Your Eminence has not deemed it necessary to ensure the novus ordo Missae is offered well, with decorum, reverence, and precision. While St. PARISH WITHELD offers acceptable Masses, it could be better. Music is often lacking finesse; I have heard guitars on more than one occasion. When laypeople handle the sacred vessels before and after Mass, they do not wear gloves. Against the late Pope Benedict XVI’s injunction, applause is heard during Mass. These and other actions cause me distress. I have left Mass with tears in my eyes at how Our Lord is treated with such ingratitude and disrespect, heaping, of course, the heaviest charge on myself. That You have not issued a pastoral notice addressing such disregard for His Majesty and His Mother at the Mass most people know, but instead focus on the one attended by a mere one thousand souls, is bewildering. Loathe as I am to say so, conscious of addressing Your Eminence, Your decision to implement Traditionis Custodes is cruel. It betrays the Gospel. I pray and hope it was a hastily considered one, and that it will be swiftly revoked, if not for my sake, but for those of my fellow Christians. 

Until then, I will be withholding my donations. This is done without malice. I still consider myself Your sheep until such time as I am not. In addition to revoking Your implementation of Traditionis Custodes, following Canon 212, I respectfully ask Your Eminence to: (a) allow the usus antiquor to be freely offered throughout the whole Archdiocese, every Sunday; (b) permit the other six sacraments to be freely offered in the usus antiquor; and (c) enforce the novus ordo Missae to be consistently offered with decorum, reverence, and precision, as mandated by the Second Vatican Council. Doing so will shower the Archdiocese with untold graces and restore Your reputation as a kind and compassionate bishop. 

In closing, Your Eminence, it pains me to write this letter in such a direct manner, but I have a duty to You as my father to approach you with my worries, my troubles, and my concerns about Your management of the Archdiocese. Again, it is my hope and prayer that Your decision to implement Traditionis Custodes was hastily considered, and that it will be swiftly retracted. May the Blessed Virgin, whom we dearly love, spread Her Mantle over You and shower You with the many graces You need as Cardinal. 

Kissing the Purple,

I remain,

In the Hearts of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,

Your sheep,

"Archdiocese of Toronto" blames Rome and Traditionis Custodes - demands "filial devotion and Christian charity!"

In a bulletin released today in the weekly Archdiocesan Update, an "internal newsletter," chancery bureaucrats are running cover for Cardinal Frank Leo's cruel implementation of Traditionis Custodes, with demands that Catholics attending the Vetus Ordo of the Holy Mass fall in line with "patience, humility, filial devotion and Christian charity," as they "seek to preserve ecclesial unity" whilst ignoring all of that themselves. 

They continue that "These changes have become necessary because the archdiocese had not yet fully conformed to the canonical and disciplinary norms set out in the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes and subsequent documents." (Which does seem to throw Thomas Cardinal Collins under the bus). In so doing, they admit that the Archdiocese of Toronto has not been following the utterly repugnant "law" enacted based on lies and deception by Jorge Bergoglio and his frontman, Arthur Roche, pictured here entering a Roman Trattoria with Cardinal Leo in June.  No doubt, this is where the smackdown for the Archdiocese of Toronto and its multi-year-long disobedience of so-called "law" occurred and rather than protest this injustice, Cardinal Leo's "filial devotion" ranked higher than the sheep on the peripheries who have been thrown under a Roman bus without an espresso, let alone a biscotti.

Interesting that nothing appears on the web page of ArchToronto.org, and no letter of comfort to the hurt, betrayed and suffering faithful has been issued with the Cardinal's signature. No comment at all from Frank Leo, the Cardinal, not Frank Leo the real estate sales superstar. Unlike the Archbishop of Moncton in New Brunswick, who wrote kind words to the faithful after establishing the traditional liturgy with the help of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, there are no kind words of comfort to the souls at Holy Family, St. Vincent de Paul in Toronto or St. Lawrence the Martyr in Scarborough, or St. Patrick's in Schomberg. They don't receive the internal newsletter. 

Let me be perfectly clear about "preserving ecclesial unity."

First, this blogger is not breaking unity. The people in those four parishes have not and are not breaking unity. Unity does not mean the same. Unity means we are united in Christ with the Holy Church under the Pope. Popes can err, Francis did, many times. Traditionis Custodes is a cruel document based on lies, hatred for our faith and vengeance. It is the last desperate cry of generation that knows their time is short, "motus in fine velocior!" They must destroy the Old Rite because they know their work has been less than straw.

Secondly, they are hypocrites. They are not "preserving ecclesial unity." They are chasing people to the Society of St. Pius X (to whom I hold great respect). They are failing at "Christian charity" as they have not shown it to the smelly sheep.

It is far beyond time for Pope Leo XIV to act. 

Traditionis Custodes must be abolished!

St. Aloysius Gonzaga Parish of the FSSP in Thorold, Ontario - spectacular chapel renovation!

 

If I really loved Our Blessed Mother, if I were really "Marian" would I...

If I truly loved Our Blessed Mother and genuinely lived as “Marian” as I claim, what would that look like? Would I be generous and kind, a true friend and leader to those entrusted to me? If I were a priest or bishop, how would I treat those under my care? Would I meet them where they are, venture to the peripheries, live humbly among my brothers, and cherish the little flock’s spiritual welfare? Would I embrace even those who prefer the traditional worship of God, respecting their needs and recognizing unity in diversity, or would I harm and disregard them, ignoring their sincere desire to live according to conscience and raise their families in faith? Would I listen to and answer questions with respect, clarity, and charity, or rule harshly and abuse my authority? Would I be driven by ambition for higher positions, sacrificing the vulnerable to impress superiors, strutting like a peacock? The truth of these questions is laid bare before us.

The new Bishop's Palace in the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Lawrence Park

One of the first things that struck me when Thomas Cardinal Collins became Archbishop of Toronto in 2007 was his choice of residence. Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter lived in a mansion in leafy Rosedale, a well-known "old-money" 19th-century neighbourhood in Toronto. Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic opted for a condominium. Neither had chosen to live in the Bishop's Palace, the oldest building in Toronto still in continuous use for its original purpose. Now, it is not much of a "palace," but that is what it is called. It is a beautiful 19th-century Gothic mansion or "rectory" built alongside and attached to the 1848 Cathedral Basilica of St. Michael the Archangel. The more subdued third-storey is a later addition.

To his credit, not only did Collins decide immediately to live there, but he eventually undertook a dignified restoration of the Cathedral and the Bishop's Palace and Rectory. That rectory did not just house His Eminence but also the Cathedral Rector and Associates (I miss the term, curate), and priests who work in the Chancery or hospital chaplaincy. It was a literal priestly community. There were even some nights of the week when the dinner was communal with the Cardinal present. (No comment from me about the stories I've heard.)

Toronto Catholics may be interested in knowing that we have returned to the regal cardinalate of a Prince of the Church. 

Once a year, for the Christmas Carol concert before Midnight Mass, Emmett Carter would process in and then preside from the throne wearing the cappa magna. He thought his congregation should see him in full princely regalia, but Cardinal Collins saw it differently. In 2015, I was the Director of Music and one of the two main organizers of a “Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate” on the Vigil of Pentecost, honouring Toronto Monsignor Vincent Foy for 75 years of priesthood. Collins presided over the Mass in the usus antiquior, or Vetus Ordo, from the throne, assisted by four deacons, with all the traditional pomp, the debut of the new Metropolitan Cross, and plenty of “smells and bells.” The only thing we didn’t push on him was the cappa, knowing well by then the treatment a few years earlier of poor Bishop Slattery, even by other bishops at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., for donning it at a pontifical mass.

Curiously, the new Metropolitan Archbishop of Toronto, Frank Leo (that's Frank Leo the Cardinal, not Frank Leo, local real estate magnate), has decided against residing in the place intended for him, opting instead for a grand and stylish mansion in Lawrence Park—at the former home no less, owned by the Chief Financial Officer of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Archdiocese of Toronto. Gosh, how much were they paying him? But good on him, eh? It is rumoured to have cost, with renovations, over $7,000,000, or maybe there was a discount from the employee, and not counting whatever lavish renovations followed by a certain amateur architect priest now forced to retire over it. One can’t help but imagine the new Prince of the Church, Frank Leo, sweeping through his opulent halls in a great cape perfectly befitting his majestic new abode. It would just not fit in with the prostitutes, crack-heads, sidewalk defecating homeless, noise, smells and gay-village aspects of Church Street. I mean, what of the "smell of the sheep" or going out to the "peripheries?" Where is the "accompaniment?" 

Naturally, Toronto Catholics wouldn’t dream of begrudging our spiritual leader the privilege of living among the well-heeled in places like Rosedale or Lawrence Park —past and present—like John Tory or world-famous architect Eric Arthur, Group of Seven artist A.J. Casson (I even have a signed print), astronaut Roberta Bondar, athletes like Gary Roberts, and more; enjoying the lap of luxury—at the expense of those in the pews—would we?

Oh, and inquiring minds wish to know: did Frank Leo handle the real estate transaction for Frank Leo?

Lawrence Park, Toronto - Wikipedia

Archdiocese of Toronto suspends Permanent Deacon program

 

Another look back at the betrayal at the Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and the lost Dialogue of Trust

Just over two years ago, I wrote this exposé, finally prompted to release known information by the putrid and sickening public clarity of an "alleged" sexual assault committed by Thomas Rosica, a now-suspended Basilian priest known to readers of this blog in particular for his slap-suit against this writer. I had had more than enough of this filth. I also decided to write it as a literal service to the new Archbishop of Toronto, Francis Leo. Clearly, he did not appreciate the gift.

I had read The Desolate City by Anne Roche Muggeridge in 1987. It was, along with the Ottawa Oratory in Formation at St. Brigid's, my Catholic rebirth and awakening. In that book, she referred to a scandalous memorandum issued by the then Rector of St. Augustine's Seminary, Brian Clough. After that, they removed him, sent him to the Catholic University of America for Canon Law, and returned him to Toronto to serve as Judicial Vicar until he retired a few years ago. That memorandum, called "A Dialogue of Trust," was lost. Well, it was lost until about five years ago, when I found it online in an archived issue of The Body Politic, a defunct sodomite newspaper in Toronto. I gradually transcribed it and sat on it and other information before finally exposing it.  

My reward was to be told that a Toronto priest was threatened with an end to the Latin Mass because of it. That is how these people act. Rather than respond, they threaten. It is not the first time that this writer was threatened by these churchmen. It has happened before, at least twice. It was serious and blatant, and it is not something I can write about here at this time.  

What this did was prove to me that everything I heard over the years was true and it needed to be exposed. You, the Catholics of Toronto, needed to know this history and to somehow hold these scandalous priests and bishops accountable. I was told by the threatened priest that you had no right to know and that I was creating scandal. I mourn the loss of that relationship. I can only recall the quote attributed to St. Gregory the Great: "It is better that scandal should arise than truth be suppressed." 

I invite you to click on the link below to this story, which will remain in the right column for easy access. It is a long read; it is not pleasant. 

Do not let them win. Hold fast to the Truth of Christ. Do not abandon the Church. Go to the Traditional Latin Mass; insist that the new mass be offered properly with the proper music and the proper disposition and following the rubrics. Show them you won't be abused anymore! 

Vox Cantoris: A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

Vox Cantoris: A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

Frank Leo, the "Metropolitan," not the real estate guy, lunches at Roman Trattoria with Arthur Roche

Well, well, well, what have we here? Check out the man trailing on the left, trailing behind Daddy Roche. Frank Leo, “Metropolitan” Archbishop of Toronto, on his way to enjoy lunch at a Roman trattoria with Art Roche. 

Is this where the plan to go after traditional Latin Mass-loving Catholics in Toronto was cooked up? 

Roche was a close and intimate friend of Doug Crosby, the retired Bishop of Hamilton. When Crosby arrived from Labrador, he brought along a couple of intriguing priests and appointed them as “co-pastors” in Hamilton. What was that all about? Crosby also served as co-consecrator and mentor to Frank Leo. Back in 1987, I was living in Ottawa and attended the “Oratory in formation” at St. Brigid’s, which was dismantled by modernists who aggressively targeted the good priests from St. Joseph’s parish. And the pastor at the time? Doug Crosby. So, what does it all add up to?

Let the reader discern. 

Toronto Catholics at St. Lawrence the Martyr Scarborough, St. Patrick's Schomberg and the Oratory parishes!

Dear Friends,

Some of you know me personally, while most do not. This blog has now reached over 15 million readers, with its influence reaching around the world and even read regularly in the chancery in Toronto. It played a big role in exposing a priest guilty of plagiarism and worse, as well as calling out those who have, for decades, abused children and the faithful of Toronto in many ways. “No Mass for You” (see left column) still hits a nerve! 

Want more? 

My exposé on the horrific abuse at St. Augustine’s Seminary in the 1970s and 1980s, along with its dark secrets (see left for The Desolate City and a Lost Dialogue of Trust), brought threats against both you and me. I was told firsthand by a priest who was warned that the Latin Mass would be persecuted because of me and that post. That was nearly two years ago, and here we are. I don’t buy it. They hate us; they hate the old Mass of our ancestors. They flaunt their “Mariology” and Marian devotion, organize Corpus Christi processions—but do they even believe? I say no, because if they did, they wouldn’t act the way they do or commit such cruelty. Further, they would not hate the old Mass; they would recognize its worth, its beauty, its history and its Truth.

They want a fight? They’ve got one!

Are you ready?

They declared war on you and your children? Are you going to take it?  

Do you think that this is where they will stop? If only our parents and grandparents had this little tool. I do. You do. Use it.

Send an email to me at david.domet@outlook.com

Tell me what this persecution by our Metropolitan Archbishop, Francis Cardinal Leo, over your attendance at the traditional Latin Mass means to you—your anger, your hurt, your disappointment, your fears, your tears, your hopes.

I will publish them here, including your name unless you request otherwise.

I’ll make sure Frank Leo (the cardinal, not the real estate magnate) sees them right here.

Oh, and speaking of real estate.

Stay tuned for tomorrow.

Archdiocese of Toronto implements Traditionis Custodes!

Since late spring, we have known that the Archdiocese of Toronto must implement Traditionis Custodes. Under the instruction of Metropolitan Archbishop Francis Cardinal Leo, the Auxiliary bishops met with Father Russell Asch, chaplain for the traditional liturgy in Scarborough (St. Lawrence the Martyr), Schomberg (St. Patrick’s), and the Toronto Oratory (Holy Family and St. Vincent de Paul), to discuss and set future implementation dates. 

Father Asch was required to act in June. The Toronto Oratory continued discussions and is now implementing the instruction effective Sunday, September 20, 2026. 

Our good friend, Toronto Catholic Witness, was at Mass yesterday at St. Vincent de Paul and filed the following report. 

TORONTO CATHOLIC WITNESS: Rome is suppressing the Latin Mass and Traditional Sacraments in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Let us first take a look at some history. 

The Masses at Schomberg and Scarborough have existed for over 40 years under the late Father Liam Gavigan. He had a personal "celebret" and was authorized by the late Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic under the indult permitted according to Ecclesia Dei Afflicta of John Paul II. In the early 1990's, the Oratorians were given charge of a second parish, neighbouring  Holy Family, St. Vincent de Paul. A few years later, the Society of St. Pius X purchased a small Baptist church in the next parish from St. Vincent de Paul and opened a Mass Centre. Cardinal Ambrozic approached the Oratorians, who already offered the Novus Ordo sung in Latin at Holy Family, to begin a traditional liturgy at St. Vincent de Paul on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation to draw people away from going to the SSPX. Cardinal Thomas Collins continued and encouraged the growth. 

The late Very Reverend Jonathan Robinson, Cong. Orat., offering Solemn Mass at Holy Family Church

Effective next Sunday, September 20, one Mass per month scheduled in the usus antiquior must be said according to the Novus Ordo. At St. Vincent, the old high altar will be used, as it is now, and at Holy Family it must face the people. The Mass at St. Vincent will be simply read, along with the earlier one. At Holy Family, it will be sung in Latin, facing the people, with music according to the new rite, as they did there from arriving in Toronto until changing it to the traditional and evolving to Solemn weekly. 

No other sacraments are permitted according to the traditional usage. 

All four parishes have sufficient English-language Masses, and at St. Lawrence the Martyr, Italian Masses according to the new rite. There is no demand to remove these from Latin Mass-goers, and no demand from others to remove the Latin Mass. People are free to choose. 

A rough calculation of numbers is revealing. At these four Masses and the Society of St. Pius X masses at two locations, there are not more than 1,200 people attending, and that is a generous estimate; it may be less than 1,000. 

Let the reader discern.