Toronto's Church wreckovations - the Chapel at St. Michael's Hospital

St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto holds a special place in my heart. I was born there, but more importantly, it’s where my mother lived for many years in the old residence on Shuter Street. She attended nursing school there in the 1930s and cared for my “Giddo” (grandfather). When he learned she was Lebanese—her parents having immigrated to Fredericton, New Brunswick, from Mount Lebanon—he invited her to dinner a few blocks away, and that’s where she met my dad.

She attended Mass, no doubt prayed many rosaries in this charming chapel and looked up at these stained-glass windows.

Here is the view sometime after the "alleged" implementation of the Second Vatican Council, which never instructed this abomination:

Aside from the liturgical destruction of a sacred space, where was the respect for the architectural design and integrity? Look at the lights and the wretched carpet covering a beautifully crafted terrazzo floor.

At least a more recent photo shows the carpet gone.

Nothing in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and no Pope ever ordered this destruction.

The next time we are called "you people" or accused of "ruining the Church" or told that Gregorian chant is not to be sung, or Latin is not to be used, ask them, "When are you going to accept Vatican II?"

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