A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!

Saturday 20 November 2021

Kyle Rittenhouse

Kyle Rittenhouse has been found by a jury of his peers to be not guilty on all counts. The jury acted justly. They did not rush in their verdict, they clearly studied it and the evidence and spoke with clarity.

Justice has been done. I expect that he will sue the media and politicians for their outrageous defamation.

May God heal this man from the obvious pain he endures. May Kyle seek Him in all things.


Every Dutchman needs to be out on the streets. Today!

End this tyranny. 

Nuremburg II. Now!

Friday 19 November 2021

Austria's new "Anschluss" - Facism has returned

Dear friends of the St. Boniface Institute,

Austria is descending into a dictatorship.

Since Monday the 15th of November, unvaccinated people are officially second-class citizens in Austria, they are confined to their homes and are not allowed to visit their relatives, whereas the vaccinated continue with their lives. This has been implemented despite the fact that the vaccine does not contain the spread of the virus. This is done solely to create division and to paint the unvaccinated as the public enemy in order to distract from the government's complete failure in leadership.

But this wasn’t enough for them, today they announced that Austria will be the first western country to implement forced vaccinations for its citizens. In his announcement, the Austrian chancellor Alexander Schallenberg referred to the unvaccinated as “assassins to the health system” and declared that every Austrian will have to be vaccinated by February 2022.

We as Austrians know, that this is not the first time in our recent history that citizens have to present their health status on request (Gesundheitspass), a practice that was officially condemned and forbidden at the Nuremberg trials.

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

When one reads the introduction to the code, it is extremely clear, how everything the Austrian government is implementing at the moment, is in direct contradiction to this.

The past months have already been a challenge for the unvaccinated, with the pressure to get the vaccine rising and rising, the 3G turning to 2,5G and 2G (referring to the conditions one has to fulfill to participate in normal life, “Geimpft, Genesen, Getested” -> vaccinated, recovered, tested).

Just as we have been repeatedly lied to over the past months, whether it was the Covid-death toll, the lockdowns, the masks and so much more, those, that cracked under the pressure and got the vaccine involuntarily will realize, how they have been betrayed, when one or two or three or four shots are not enough.

We have decided to actively fight against this morally depraved tyranny in any way possible. We will not give up, the more the government tries to back us into a corner, the more we will stand up for our rights and liberty! We are very aware, that we have to fight the fight here in Austria. If Austria falls and implements these rules, the insanity will spread and many more governments will follow suit.

We urge you to join the resistance by supporting the fight for freedom in your country and protest in solidarity in front of the Austrian embassies.

Thank you and God bless,

Alexander Tschugguel

PS: for live updates feel free to follow me on Twitter



Wednesday 17 November 2021

Bergoglio calls St. Paul a liar together with Our Lord Himself!

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ said, "Go into all nations preaching the good news and baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is known as The Great Commission. "Dialogue" must be about preaching Christ and Salvation through the Church. This action and others by Bergoglio are humanistic and masonic.

Tuesday 16 November 2021

Morality of "vaccines" and ...

The most recent Letter to Friends of  Benefactors" of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada has a worthwhile section on a matter recently addressed on this blog. I urge you to visit the link and read it in its entirety. If only we heard such logic and clarity from our bishops.

I point to the matter of wearing a mask over one's nose or mouth in the church where, as in the case of the Province of Ontario, the government's medical authorities and Premier have commanded it and in our churches, our Catholic bishops have affirmed it and even police it. 

"If the unjust law goes against God's law, I may not obey it. But if it is not directly against God's law, I am not bound to obey it, but I must make a judgement. If submitting to the law would lead to a greater good, then I may submit to the unjust demand."

If one peruses my posts on this matter, this is the very logic that I used to describe the matter.

The mask is not against the Laws of God, it is not a matter of morality or conscience. While one can ignore the masking request in those things under their own control that is the person's right. In a church, public space and owned completely under corporation sole by the bishop, one may consider the matter unjust. Yet, submitting to the annoying and bothersome and perhaps, inane and insane request does fulfill a "greater good" to the "unjust demand." That is, the very survival of the parish no matter what form of the Mass is at stake.

The matter of the injection is something completely different. It can be good and charitable and necessary, notwithstanding the abortion question and the health effects we see. For example: in one case, a person takes the injection out of charity to one's elderly parents who have taken the injections and have a real fear of the disease. The charity is to take it so one can assist, visit or live with them and relieve them of the stress and concern. This is particularly charitable when the person would have not taken it if the circumstances were different. Another is a man that must provide for his family whose employer has used unjust threats and coercion. He must survive, he must support his family, he cannot allow them to suffer and cannot find a new appointment or receive government insurance due to the evil actions of his employer and the government. Both are cases known to me. Both are justified.

In my own case, I have not and will not take the injections. First, I believe I already had SARS-CoV-2 in that mysterious illness in December 2019 and, I have judged, based upon my research, that there is more risk from the injection rather than the virus, should I catch it or catch it again. The matter of abortion and the testing on fetal stem cells is a factor because so many of our medications have been done this way and we do not even know. For example, is my Wigwag prescription tested on some kind of fetal stem lines? It seems so. What is the difference? I need the Wigwag, it is not my fault how it was developed. I do not need any of these injections. This is how we must each interpret it for ourselves. Using Catholic teaching, our own well-formed conscience and logic.

We are in a time of tyrants. Where insanity, literally, has taken over the minds and spirits of our leaders. Where some, out of misplaced fear, have shut themselves up for 18 months in a prison of real or imaginary walls. 

We cannot change them. We must outlast them.

November 2021 - Letter to Friends and Benefactors: "Morality of vaccins" - District of Canada (sspx.ca)

What is the correct attitude towards abuse of power?

We should note first that the power of the state or of the Church is not the same as the power of that of parents. Parents have dominative power over their children. They can command their minor children to do anything except sin. The State and the Church authorities have legal power which is limited. Bob's dad can tell Bob at what time he has to go to bed, but the government can't tell Bob or Bob's dad at what time to go to bed. 

Saint Thomas Aquinas sums up the teaching of the Church on how we should treat an unjust law [1]. The laws of God can never be unjust (for He Himself is the rule) and so we are always bound to obey them. The laws of man however can be unjust either because (ed. they are) opposed to God’s Law or because (ed. they are) damaging to some human good. If an unjust law is opposed to God’s Law, it cannot be observed even if we had to pay with the price of our life. Saint Thomas More was ordered to recognise Henry VIII as head of the Church. This was a lie and therefore against God’s Law. He chose to be put to death rather than to lie. 

If however the law is not directly opposed to God’s Law, but simply very burdensome, or intended by the lawgiver for some ulterior motive, or quite simply, something that the lawgiver has no power to command, this law does not oblige in conscience. If the government required me to have my children take part in secularist propaganda classes and I refuse; although I am disobeying the law, it is not a sin. 

Note the difference: if the unjust law goes against God's law, I may not obey it. But if it is not directly against God's law, I am not bound to obey it, but I must make a judgement. If submitting to the law would lead to a greater good, then I may submit to the unjust demand. This is what our Blessed Lord meant when He said, “if a man were to take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.” (Mt. 5, 40) He gave us the example in this when he submitted to the unjust sentence of the high priests and of Pilate and gave Himself to die in order to save us from our sins.

Monday 15 November 2021

Seriously, Jorge?

Good grief man, You are holding the very Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it really that hard for you? 

”We need to overcome our self-absorption, our interior rigidity, which is a temptation of today’s restorationists, who want an ordered, all rigid, Church. This is not the Holy Spirit. We need to overcome this.”

Let me tell you this. Bergoglio's actions and words are not of the Holy Spirit. What God did before does not change now. God does not change. God does not trick us or play us from one generation to another.

Hold fast.

Saturday 13 November 2021


The comment box is restored.

No Anonymous comments are permitted.

All comments moderated.

Stay on topic.

Got it?

Dominican schools Bergoglio on theology, liturgy and truth.

Jamna, August 17, 2021

His Holiness Pope Francis
Domus Sanctae Marthae
The Holy See
Vatican City

For the attention of:

Rev. General Master of the Order, Gerard Francisco Timoner III OP
Rev. Provincial of the Polish Province, Paweł Kozacki OP
H.E. Bishop of the Tarnów Diocese, Andrzej Jeż
Rev. Superior of the House in Jamna, Andrzej Chlewicki OP

Brothers and Sisters in the Order

Rev. Superior of the Polish District of the Fraternity of St Pius X, Karl Stehlin FSSPX
Omnes quos res tangit

Most Holy Father,

I was born 57 years ago and joined the Dominican Order 35 years ago. I took my perpetual vows 29 years ago and have been a priest now for 28 years. I had only vague recollections from my early childhood of the Holy Mass in its form predating the reforms of 1970. Sixteen years after my ordination, two lay friends (unknown to each other) urged me to learn how to celebrate the Holy Mass in its traditional form. I listened to them.

It was a shock to me. I discovered that the Holy Mass in its classical form:

- directs the entire attention of both priest and faithful towards the Mystery,

- expresses, with great precision of words and gestures, the faith of the Church in what is happening here and now on the altar,

- reinforces, with a power equal to its precision, the faith of the celebrant and of the people,

- does not lead either priest or faithful towards an invention or creativity of their own during the liturgy,

- places them, quite on the contrary, on a path of silence and contemplation,

- offers by the number and nature of its gestures the possibility of incessant acts of piety and love towards God,

- unites the priest and faithful, placing them on the same side of the altar and turning them in the same direction: versus Crucem, versus Deum.

I said to myself: so this is what the Holy Mass is! And I, a priest of 16 years, did not know it! It was a powerful eureka, a discovery, after which my idea of the Mass could not remain the same.

From the beginning it had struck me that this rite is the opposite of the stereotype. Instead of formalism, free expression of the soul before God. Instead of frigidity, the fervour of divine cult. Instead of distance, closeness. Instead of strangeness, intimacy. Instead of rigidity, security. Instead of the passivity of the laity, their deep and living connection to the mystery (it was through the laity, after all, that I was led to the traditional Mass). Instead of a chasm between priest and the faithful, a close spiritual union between all those present, protected and expressed by the silence of the Canon. In making this discovery it became clear to me: this very form is our bridge to the generations who lived before us and passed on the faith. My joy in this ecclesial unity that transcends all time was enormous.

From the beginning, I experienced the powerful force of spiritual attraction of the Mass in its traditional form. It was not the signs in themselves which attracted me, but their significance, which the soul knows how to read. The very thought of the next celebration filled me with joy. I sought every opportunity to celebrate with eagerness and longing. Very soon a complete certainty matured within me, that, were I to celebrate Mass (as well as every Sacrament and ceremony) only in its traditional form till the end of my days, I would not miss the post-conciliar form in the least.

Had someone asked me to express with a single word my feelings about the traditional celebration in the context of the reformed rite, I would have replied “relief.” For it was indeed a relief, one of indescribable depth. It was like that of someone who, having walked all his life in shoes with a pebble in them that rubs and irritates his feet, but who has no other experience of walking, is offered, 16 years later, a pair of shoes with no pebble and the words: “Here,” “Put them on,” “try them!” Not only did I rediscover the Holy Mass, but also the astounding difference between the two forms: that which had been in use for centuries and the post-conciliar one. I had not known this difference because I had not known the earlier form. I cannot compare my encounter with the traditional liturgy to a meeting with someone who has adopted me and has become my adoptive parent. It was a meeting with a Mother who has always been my Mother, yet I had not known her.

I was accompanied in all this by the blessing of the Supreme Pontiffs. They had taught that the missal of 1962 “had never been legally abrogated and remained, therefore, in principle, always permitted,” adding that “what had been sacred for previous generations remained sacred and great also for us, and could not suddenly become completely forbidden nor even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed through the faith and prayer of the Church and to give them their proper place” (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops, 2007). The faithful were also taught: “On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with the honour due to it”; it has been described as “a precious treasure to be preserved” (Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, 2011). These words followed earlier documents which made it possible for the faithful to use the traditional liturgy after the reforms of 1970, the first being Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984. The foundation and source for all these documents remain the Bull of Saint Pius V, Quo primum tempore (1570).

Holy Father, if, without forgetting the solemn document of Pope Pius V, we take into consideration the lapse of time covering the declarations of your immediate predecessors we have a duration of 37 years, from 1984 to 2021, during which the Church said to the faithful, concerning the traditional liturgy, and ever more strongly: “There is such a way. You may walk along with it.”

I, therefore, took the path offered to me by the Church.

Whoever takes this road—whoever wants this rite, which is the vessel of divine Presence and divine Oblation, to bear fruit within his own life—should open himself entirely so as to entrust himself and others to God, present and acting within us through the vessel of this holy rite. This I did, with complete confidence.

Then came the 16th of July 2021.

From your documents, Holy Father, I learnt that the path I had been walking on for 12 years had ceased to exist.

We have affirmations of two Popes. His Holiness Benedict XVI had said that the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V “must be considered the extraordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Roman Rite.” Yet His Holiness Pope Francis says that “the liturgical books promulgated by Popes St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II (...) are the only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The affirmation of the successor thus denies that of his still-living predecessor.

Can a certain manner of celebrating Mass, confirmed by immemorial, centuries-old Tradition, recognized by every Pope, including yourself, Holy Father, until the 16th of July of 2021, and sanctified by its practice over so many centuries, suddenly cease to be the lex orandi of the Roman Rite? If this were the case, it would mean that such a characteristic is not intrinsic to the rite but is an external attribute, subject to the decisions of those who occupy places of high authority. In reality, the traditional liturgy expresses the lex orandi of the Roman Rite by its every gesture and every sentence and by the whole that they compose. It is guaranteed also to express this lex orandi, as the Church has always held, on account of its uninterrupted use, since time immemorial. We must conclude that the first papal affirmation [of Benedict] has solid foundations and is true and that the second [of Francis] is groundless and is false. But despite its being false, it is nevertheless given the power of law. This has consequences about which I will write below.

Concessions regarding the use of the Missal of 1962 now have a different character than earlier ones. It is no longer about responding to the love with which the faithful adhere to the traditional form, but about giving the faithful time—how much time, we are not told—to “return” to the reformed liturgy. The words of the Motu Proprio and your Letter to the Bishops make it entirely clear that the decision has been taken, and is already being implemented, to remove the traditional liturgy from the life of the Church and cast it into the abyss of oblivion: it may not be used in parish churches, new groups must not be formed, Rome must be consulted if new priests are to say it. The bishops are now indeed to be Traditionis Custodes, “custodians of Tradition,” yet not in the sense of guardians who protect it, but rather in the sense of custodians of a jail.

Allow me to express my conviction that this will not happen, and that the operation will fail. What are the grounds for this conviction? A careful analysis of both Letters of July 16th exposes four components: Hegelianism, nominalism, belief in the Pope’s omnipotence, and collective responsibility. Each one is an essential component of your message and none of them can be reconciled with the deposit of the Catholic faith. Since they cannot be reconciled with the faith, they will not be integrated into it either in theory or in practice. Let us examine each of them in turn.

1) Hegelianism. The term is a conventional one: it does not mean literally the system of the German philosopher Hegel, but something that derives from this system, namely the understanding of history as a good, rational, and inevitable process of continuous changes. This way of thinking has a long history, from Heraclitus and Plotinus, to Joachim of Fiore, down to Hegel, Marx, and their modern heirs. The characteristic of this approach is to divide history into phases, such that the beginning of each new phase is joined to the end of the preceding one. Attempts to “baptize” Hegelianism are nothing other than attempts to endow these supposed historical phases with the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is assumed that the Holy Spirit communicates to the next generation something that He has not spoken of to the preceding one, or even that He imparts something that contradicts what He has said before. In the latter case, we must accept one of three things: either in certain phases the Church failed to obey the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is subject to change, or He carries contradictions within Him.

Another consequence of this worldview is a change in how we understand the Church and Tradition. The Church is no longer seen as a community uniting the faithful by transcending time, as the Catholic faith holds, but as a set of groups belonging to the various phases. These groups no longer have a common language: our ancestors had no access to what the Holy Spirit says to us today. Tradition itself is no longer one message that is continuously studied; it consists rather in receiving, again and again, new things from the Holy Spirit. We then come to hear instead, as in Your Letter to the Bishops, Holy Father, of “the dynamic of Tradition,” often with an application to specific events. An example of this is when you write that this dynamic’s “last stage is the Second Vatican Council, during which Catholic bishops gathered in order to listen and discern the way shown to the Church by the Holy Spirit.” This line of reasoning implies that a new phase requires new liturgical forms because the former ones were suited to the previous stage, which is over. Since this sequence of stages is sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, through the Council, those who hold on to the old forms despite having access to new ones oppose the Holy Spirit.

Such views, however, are contrary to the faith. Holy Scripture, the norm of the Catholic faith, provides no grounds for such an understanding of history. Rather, it teaches us an altogether different understanding. King Josiah, having learned about the discovery of the old book of the Law, ordered that the celebration of Passover be conducted in accordance with it, despite an interruption of half a century (2 Kgs 22-23). In the same way, Ezra and Nehemiah on their return from the Babylonian captivity celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles with the entire people, strictly according to the ancient records of the Law, despite many decades have passed since the previous celebration (Neh 8). In each case, the old documents of the law were used to renew the divine worship after a period of turmoil. No one demanded a change in the ritual on the ground that new times had arrived.

2) Nominalism. While Hegelianism influences one’s understanding of history, nominalism affects one’s understanding of unity. Nominalism implies that introducing outward unity (by means of a top-down administrative decision) is equivalent to achieving real unity. This is because nominalism abolishes spiritual reality by seeking to grasp and regulate it with material measures. You write, Holy Father, that: “It is to defend the unity of the Body of Christ that I am forced to withdraw the faculty granted by my predecessors.” But to reach this goal, true unity, your predecessors made the opposite decision, and not without reason. When one understands that true unity includes something spiritual and internal, and thus differs from mere external unity, one no longer seeks it simply by the uniformity of external signs. We do not obtain true unity in this way, but rather, impoverishment, and the opposite of unity: division.

Unity does not result from the withdrawal of faculties, the revocation of consent, and the imposition of limitations. King Rehoboam of Judah, before deciding how to treat the Israelites, who wished him to improve their lot, consulted two groups of advisors. The older ones recommended leniency and a reduction of the people’s burdens: age, in Holy Scripture, often symbolizes maturity. The young, who were contemporaries of the king, recommended increasing their burdens and the use of harsh words: youth, in Scripture, often symbolizes immaturity. The king followed the advice of the young. This failed to bring unity between Judah and Israel. On the contrary, it started the division of the country into two kingdoms (1 Kgs 12). Our Lord healed this division through mildness, knowing that the lack of this virtue had caused the split.

Before Pentecost, the apostles assessed unity by external criteria. This approach was corrected by the Saviour Himself, who, in reply to the words of St. John: “Master, we saw a man driving out evil spirits in your name, and we did not let him do it, because he was not one of us,” answered “Let him do so, for he who is not against you is with you” (Lk 9,49-50, cf. Mt 9,38-41). Holy Father, you had many hundreds of thousands of the faithful who “were not against” you. And you have done so much to make things difficult for them! Would it not have been better to follow the words of the Saviour indicating a deeper, spiritual foundation of unity? Hegelianism and nominalism frequently become allies, since the materialistic understanding of history leads to the conviction that each stage must irrevocably end.

3) Belief in the Pope’s omnipotence. When Pope Benedict XVI granted greater freedom to the use of the classic form of liturgy, he referred to a centuries-old custom and uses. These provided a solid basis for his resolve. The decision of Your Holiness is based on no such foundations. On the contrary, it revokes something that has existed and endured for a very long time. You write, Holy Father, that you find support in the decisions of St. Pius V, but he applied criteria that are exactly the opposite of your own. According to him, what had existed and lasted for centuries would continue undisturbed; only what was newer was abrogated. The sole basis left for your decision is therefore the will of one person endowed with papal authority. Can this authority, though, however great it may be, prevent ancient liturgical customs from being an expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Church? Saint Thomas Aquinas asks himself whether God can cause something which once existed, never to have existed. The answer is no because contradiction is not part of God's omnipotence (Summa Theologiae, p. I, qu. 25, art. 4). In a similar way, papal authority cannot cause traditional rituals that have expressed the faith of the Church (lex credendi) for centuries, suddenly, one day, no longer to express the law of the prayer of the same Church (lex orandi). The Pope may make decisions, but not ones that violate a unity that extends to the past and to the future, far beyond the duration of his pontificate. The Pope is at the service of a unity greater than his own authority. For it is a God-given unity and not one of human origin. It is therefore unity that takes precedence over authority, and not authority over unity.

4) Collective responsibility. Indicating the motives of your decision, Holy Father, you make various and grave allegations against those who exercise the faculties recognized by Pope Benedict XVI. It is not specified, however, who perpetrates these abuses, or where, or in what number. There are only the words “often” and “many.” We do not even know whether it is a majority. Probably not. Yet not a majority, but all those who make use of the above-mentioned faculties have been affected by a draconian penal sanction. They have been deprived of their spiritual path, either immediately or at some unspecified future time. There are certainly people who misuse knives. Should the production and distribution of knives, therefore, be banned? Your decision, Holy Father, is far more grievous than would be the hypothetical absurdity of a universal prohibition against making knives.

Holy Father: why are you doing this? Why have you attacked the holy practice of the ancient form of celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord? The abuses committed in other forms, widespread or universal though they are, lead to nothing beyond words, to declarations expressed in general terms. But how can one teach with authority that “the disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal” (Laudato si 145), and then a few years later, with a single act, destine a great part of the Church’s own spiritual and cultural heritage to extinction? Why do the rules of “deep ecology” formulated by you fail to apply in this case? Why did you not instead ask whether the constantly growing number of the faithful assisting at the traditional liturgy could be a sign from the Holy Spirit? You did not follow the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5). Instead, you struck them with a ban that had not even a vacatio legis.

The Lord God, the model for earthly rulers and, in the first place, for church authorities, does not use His power in this way. Holy Scripture speaks thus to God: “For thy power is the beginning of justice: and because thou art Lord to all, thou makest thyself gracious to all (…) But thou being master of power, judgest, and with great favour disposest of us: for thy power is at hand when thy wilt” (Wis 12, 16-18). Real power does not need to prove itself by harshness. And harshness is not an attribute of any authority which follows the divine model. Our Saviour Himself left us precise and reliable teaching on this (Mt 20, 24-28). Not only has the carpet been pulled, so to speak, from beneath the feet of people who were walking towards God; an attempt has been made to deprive them of the very ground they walk on. This attempt will not succeed. Nothing which is in conflict with Catholicism will be accepted in God’s Church.

Holy Father, it is impossible to experience the ground under one’s feet for 12 years and suddenly assert that it is no longer there. It is impossible to conclude that my own Mother, found after many long years, is not my Mother. Papal authority is immense. But even this authority cannot make my Mother cease to be my Mother! A single-life cannot bear two mutually exclusive ruptures, one of which opens a treasure, whilst the other claims that this treasure must be abandoned because its value has expired. If I were to accept these contradictions I should no longer be able to have any intellectual life, nor, therefore, any spiritual life either. From two contradictory statements, any affirmation, true or false, may be made to follow. This means the end of rational thinking, the end of any notion of reality, the end of effective communication of anything to anyone. But all these things are basic components of human life in general, and of Dominican life in particular.

I have no doubts about my vocation. I am firmly resolved to continue my life and service within the Order of St Dominic. But to do so I must be able to reason correctly and logically. After the 16th of July 2021, this is no longer possible for me within the existing structures. I see with complete clarity that the treasure of the holy rites of the Church, the ground under the feet of those who practice them, and the mother of their piety, continues to exist. It has become equally clear to me that I must bear witness to it.

I have been left no choice now but to turn to those who from the very beginning of the radical changes (changes, let it be noted, that go far beyond the will of the Second Vatican Council) have defended the Tradition of the Church, together with the Church’s respect for the requirements of reason, and who continue to pass on the unchangeable deposit of Catholic faith to the faithful: the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. The SSPX has shown a readiness to accept me, whilst fully respecting my Dominican identity. It is providing me not only with a life of service to God and the Church, a service not impeded by contradictions, but also with an opportunity to oppose those contradictions which are an enemy to Truth, and which have attacked the Church so vigorously.

There is a state of controversy between the SSPX and the official structures of the Church. It is an internal dispute within the Church, and it concerns matters of great importance. The documents and the decisions of the 16th of July have caused my position on this subject to converge with that of the SSPX. As in the case of any important dispute, this one too must be resolved. I am determined to devote my efforts towards this end. I intend this letter to be part of this effort. The means used can only be humble respect for Truth, and gentleness, both springing from a supernatural source. Thus we can hope for the solution of the controversy and the rebuilding of a unity that will embrace not only those living now but also all generations, both past and future.

I thank you for the attention you have granted to my words and beg, Most Holy Father, for your apostolic blessing.

With filial devotion in Christ,

Fr. Wojciech Gołaski, O.P.

Wednesday 10 November 2021

Rome, literally, attacks the Holy Mass and the FSSP while you attack Vox Cantoris

Just a few days after the Cardinal of  Westminster and his buddy at the liturgical congregation in Rome, a know-nothing named Roche distort and literally lie about the ancient liturgy, the Vicar of Rome has declared an outright war, banning the sacraments beyond Mass, sacramentals and the Easter Vigil at the FSSP and the whole Triduum elsewhere. This action by the Vicar of Rome is not exclusive. This writer knows of specific cases close to home with similar decrees. 

Concurrently, Cupich in Chicago has taken on the Mass himself no doubt threatening the very existence of the ICRSS and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. 

Yet, while this evil is going on and this writer has warned about the intransigence of some the so-called faithful Catholic trads have used other blogs to deride this writer. One out there by some guy named Fred which I viewed once and will not again is one. The other is of my good friend Barona at Toronto Catholic Witness who send me these:

Barona won't be publishing these, he sent them to me to do so. You have proven me correct.

You fail to understand ecclesiology. You fail to understand corporation sole and basic property rights. You fail to understand legitimate authority whether you happen to like it or not. You continue at TCW and some guy named Fred and probably others by now to point to this writer while the collapse is all around you. You are no doubt, all Americans, all influenced by evangelical protestant heresy and do not think as Catholics, do not discern as Catholics using the whole body of Catholic teaching and thought of two millennia. 

Let me give some basic facts about the law in Ontario. The Chief Medical Officer of Health has been given extraordinary powers due to a declared pandemic. Many of these powers have existed in the revised Health Protection Act for more than a century, since the Spanish Flu. This masking in public places including churches is a mandate under the Act. The bishops have instructed all to follow the civil law and have made their own commands to ensure it. You may not like it but that is the way it is in Ontario. You may wish to debate the justification of the law, the pandemic itself, that is a different debate.

Let us look at what the Catechism has to say:

Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility: A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. 

Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse. —Catechism of the Catholic Church , nos. 1902-1903 

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29): When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel. —CCC, n. 2242

I suggest that "despotic" acting governments are of grave concern but this is debate on how far some have gone. The "common good" is a debatable point - I have taken Cardinal Collins to task for using this to the promotion of injection, not a mask. A mask in a pandemic is not unreasonable. The obligation of conscience not to follow involves the fundamental right of the person not to receive an unwanted medical intervention, not use fabric to prevent the transmission of a virus - whether or you think it works is not the point.

More importantly, the Mass is worth crawling on broken glass to get to. A mask is a minor inconvenience. People have died for the Mass. You choose to stamp your feet like a spoilt child.

To suggest that it is worth shutting down the Mass rather than wearing a mask proves that you are a faithless and hopeless cretin. To use this logical and moderate series of posts on this matter over a very real situation when the Devil is prowling for destruction as evidenced above proves you are in his control. Sadly, you're proving Bergoglio's very argument in Tradtionis Custodes about those people. You have fulfilled the evil monsters Alinskyite actions and played right into his hands and those of Cupich, Roche and others.

You have proved me absolutely right. 


Be like Daniel

A most salient and relevant recollection by Barona of the Prophet Daniel.

TORONTO CATHOLIC WITNESS: Catholics under persecution: Will we restore in Christ or reset in Satan?

Tuesday 9 November 2021

The Mass or the mask?

Well, well, well, have I created a little dust storm.

Perusing over the inbox notice of today's posts at Canon212, I find that someone with a blog that I've never heard has judged me and found me wanting. 

If you come into my house and I ask you to take off your shoes, will you do it? If a bishop owns a church, which he does, and he says to come into my church you need to follow my direction (based upon legal public health directives which you have the right to disagree with, as do I in most cases) to wear a mask due to a pandemic. You do it. You do it because he is the property owner under Corporation Sole.

If you take the position that you will not attend any Mass where you are "forced to wear a mask" and you don't attend anywhere else because of these same requirements, then you are in an objective state of mortal sin because you willfully missed Mass out of your own accord.

At more than one combox, you have determined it more necessary to mock me than to address the issue. As for debate and that I can't stand it? The answer is, you can't debate the actual problem and how to deal with it. There isn't a layman, cleric or otherwise in all of Canada who has held the feet of our episcopal hirelings to the fire as this writer, and yet, you mock me? You wish to make me the issue? You're so blind and prideful you can't even address the issue. 

Three Latin Masses in Canada shut down over this issue, by pastors with or without the direct order of the bishop!

You would rather defy diocesan authorities, including the bishop, and lose the Latin Mass. For example, here in Toronto amongst other places, these same diocesan officials have decreed no Holy Communion on the tongue. There are Catholics who have not received the Holy Eucharist in all this time because they stand on a point of principle, yet they still go to Mass. You, in your arrogance and pride, wherever you are that you are not in this situation, would now deny them the Holy Mass. You sit there in your mommy's basement in your dirty underwear in front of your computer without a regard for these folks in the peripheries.

You're a fool and a disgrace.

Do my self-righteous American friends not get this? Hey, some advice, worry about your own collapsing country since you have little concrete to add to the issues in some of our dioceses. Have any of you read this blog for the last eighteen months and the No Mass For You posts on Cardinal Collins. 

Nothing, nothing is more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You do what you can do get there. Even it means crawling on broken glass or wearing a mask over your nose and mouth. How can you even think otherwise.

Monday 8 November 2021

How will you bear losing your Latin Mass community because of your pride over wearing a mask?

Seeing how you have now determined to go to other blogs to comment about this writer and the reality you still refuse to address, validates my decision to shut down all comments, I had considered restoring them though without the anonymous trolls. I've now decided that it's just not worth it.

A mask is a minor inconvenience in order to preserve the good. You don't deserve the good.

In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020, gosh, it seems so long ago, I wrote on this blog about the wearing of a mask in church. It was prompted by a specific community that refused to do it even though the pastors in whose churches the Latin Mass community was guest literally begged them to comply. Those two communities were eventually barred from the use of two churches. I spoke with the leadership there as did the President of Una Voce Canada and we both stated the same thing. You will lose the Mass, this is neither the line in the sand nor the sword to fall on. They did not listen.

Right now in the Province of Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer of Health has ordered the wearing of a mask in indoor spaces and municipalities are enforcing it through by-laws (to my American readers, and ordinance.)

This post is not about whether or not masks work to limit the spread of any virus, are good or bad for you or whether this is all a communist plot to turn us into compliant sheep. My own opinion is that they stop droplets which can contain a virus and in some conditions would be a benefit, for a few minutes, maybe an hour (as surgeons wear for many) not a big deal and it can be anything from a communist globalist plot to an irrational fear of death to a legitimate act in a pandemic. Therefore, any comments about the pros and cons of masks or outrage at this writer will not be published. So, I am telling you write now, save your time and move along!

In Canada, and I believe the United States and much of the west, the dioceses exist under the term "corporation sole." The corporation is vested in the actual person of the bishop. The bishop owns the church, the rectory and everything in it from the organ in the loft to the refrigerator in the rectory kitchen, it is his. One may not like it but the owner of the property has the legal right to tell you how to behave on his or her property. If the bishop tells you to come into church you must have on a shirt and shoes, you would not argue. A mask, under the current government diktats for good or ill, is no different. 

It is not a matter of conscience. It is not compelled speech. It does not indicate agreement. It simply follows an order by the State and the owner of the property, (the bishop). While one may disagree, it is within the realm of "legitimate authority." St. Thomas More would have put on a mask to save the Mass and save his life. He would not have, out of sinful pride, jeopardized the survival of a community. He would have acted in charity to the needs of others and offered up the inconvenience of the hour in a mask to preserve something greater. He would "have given the Devil his due" to uphold the rule of law and preserve that which needs preserving.

Even the Society of St. Pius X priests whom I know have made it very clear. You wear a mask in the church so as not to provoke the State to shut them down! If it is good enough for them, in order to preserve their mission, it is good enough for you!

Do not! I repeat, do not give the Devil anything else. Do not put, out of your own pride, the existence of your Latin Mass community at risk of being killed of, particularly in this time of Traditionis Custodes. In fact, if you follow your pride and refuse to put on a mask because you think you are so much holier than those of us who do put it on, you are participating in an evil that will hurt everyone because you will have given the Devil and his minions the sword with which to cut off the heads of your neighbours. In your pride you are committing an uncharitable act against your neighbour because of the suffering that they will endure if the Devil and his minions have their way. Don't do it!

Friend, grow-up, man-up, woman-up, Catholic-up. It is not about you! 


Sunday 7 November 2021

Your right to be a fool

A letter was written by Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster to Arthur Roche, the Archbishop now in charge of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Both Bergoglian minions. I won't comment on it, you can read the actual correspondence and erudite commentary by Father Hunwicke, Father Zuhsdorf and Dr. Joseph Shaw below.

What I will state is this.

If you think there are no enemies to the traditional rite who will pounce to shut it down then you are a deluded idiot. If you think that your "right" not to wear a mask after you've been requested to do by your pastor on orders of the bishop who "owns" the property justifies your defiant political protest whilst putting the continuation of that Mass in jeopardy, you are a stupid fool and in the grave sin of disobedience to legitimate authority. You may not like it but that is a fact. 

If you wish to stick your finger in a light socket, well, you go right ahead. You sin against God because it would be suicide. God set the laws of physics and you know it. God set the power of legitimate authority. You don't need to like it, you need to obey it. The bishop has the right to require your mask.

If you, out of your pride, do this, you are objectively committing a sin. It is not a sin to wear a mask. If it is a sin on the part of the bishop to require it, God will deal with him. If your intransigence causes people to suffer the loss of the Holy Mass, God will deal with you. The lack of respect you show for courageous priests trying to navigate this crisis for the good of your soul is a disgrace.

If this offends you, too bad. You have no right to cause other people the emotional and spiritual suffering that has already hit various communities over this issue and that of the repugnant motu proprio linked below.

They are coming for us. Why would you jeopardize everything? Shame on you. You dare put it at risk for your stupid pride? The sorrow of many will be on you.

I have no sympathy or respect for you. Whether you do for me is not my issue. 

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Archbishop Roche (liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com)

A Letter from the Vatican on Traditionis Custodes - OnePeterFive

Correspondence with the a hostile Congregation for Divine Worship reveals possible future applications of Traditionis custodes. | Fr. Z's Blog (wdtprs.com)

Thursday 4 November 2021

Breaking news: 17 deaths in Canada from CCP of those under 19!

As of October 22, 2021, the number of deaths in Canada under the age of 19 from the CCP Virus was 17. Look at the others starting at the other end. Nearly 18,000 were over 80, all others total 10,068. For this, we are going to inject an experimental "vaccine" in millions and now on children at five years old. This is insanity. Note how the deaths from 79 down, typically half, ore more, by the decade. 

While every death is a tragedy and I don't wish to discount any of these, no doubt, there were circumstances that involved underlying conditions. If one is over 80, one has a 5% chance of dying on any given day. Get real.

For 17 deaths of those under 19 years of age we are about to jab with poison children over five years and dare to stick this up the nose of an infant to keep some baby-booming pagan, allegedly, safe.



To any parent out there that has permitted this or will permit it, you are a disgrace and should be charged, along with the medical tyrant, with assault!