Two excellent articles by the Dominican Fathers of Avrille:


 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Revolutions are part and parcel of our human existence. Ever since the very first Revolution in the Garden of Eden – the first turning away from God – every human being must either choose or reject God. All subsequent Revolutions are merely variations of mankind turning away from God.
And because God instituted the Roman Catholic Church to be the ark of salvation for mankind, the goal of the Revolution right from the beginning has been to destroy the Church. And in order to destroy the Church, Christendom had to be wiped out first. Therefore, beginning with the Protestant Revolution, all Catholic States, one by one, suffered political take-overs and saw the installation of masonically inspired regimes. This goal was completed with the Russian Revolution and the death of the last Emperor, Charles I of Austria.
But God never leaves us orphaned and always provides remedies. God uses human instruments – prophets and saints – to turn us back to God.
History is replete with examples of how God used human instruments to perform marvelous restorations. For example, God provided Moses when the Jews were about to turn to the worship of the false gods. Later on, when charity waxed cold, God sent the Poverello to bring the love of God to the sick and the weary. Later again, when atheism was taking over the world, God provided the Curé d’Ars to restore the Faith of the people.
In the 1960’s, the Revolution was finally ready to destroy the Church. But instead of destroying the Church (the gates of hell will not prevail), all that the Revolution achieved was the creation of a false conciliar structure (with new theology, new mass, new canon law, new devotions) that would ape the true Church.
At that time, the remedy was Archbishop Lefebvre.
There is no doubt that God raised the heroic and the uncomplicated Archbishop Lefebvre to protect the people and to guide them through the Vatican II Revolution. The Archbishop kept the Faith when most of the clergy fell into the conciliar apostasy. He patiently and clearly explained the errors of the conciliar new theology, explaining to the people why they must stay away from the new mass (including the Indult mass). He was uncomplicated in that he did not give in to heretical or schismatic musings. Like the Curé d’Ars, the Archbishop was saintly because he kept the complete Deposit of Faith and passed it on to the next generation.
Today the Archbishop would be consistent and would once again tell us to stay away from all groups (including the SSPX) – however traditional they may appear – who seek recognition/regularization with the conciliar structure. The Archbishop would explain that priests who accept any part of Vatican II new theology run the risk of falling into apostasy and breaking with the Church of All Time. In his simple and clear words, the Archbishop, like the Curé, the Poverello, and Moses, would tell us to keep the Faith of our fathers.
But the Revolution goes on: Vatican II is not over. The heresies of the conciliar structure are multiplying. The Master of the Revolution – the mass Manipulator – uses all modern means – and there are plenty!! – to fuel the mass hysteria. The goal is, needless to say, to destroy the Faith that still remains and to send people to the illusory consolation of Quietism (the pray-only cop-out), the SV (the emotional bail-out), the Indult (the NO with Latin accent)….
This time, however, the Master of the Revolution has overstepped himself. It is one thing to take on the world (he is, after all, the Prince of this world); it is altogether another to take on the Bride of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And because God has always used human instruments and because He gave us His promise in Genesis (which He reiterated throughout history), we can expect an extraordinary remedy.
This time, the remedy will be the Saint of All Saints and the Mother of All Saints and the Queen of All Saints.
This time, it will be the Woman who will put the Revolution to shame!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Pax et Bonum


Sister Constance TOSF


 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

You may download Lenten sermons of the Church Fathers in audio format at this link:

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

“Who’s Minding the Store?”


I went to church the other day to free my soul from sin.

I was looking for the preacher, but the preacher wasn’t in.

The Sexton there assured me that there’d be no use waiting.

“The preacher’s gone away,” he said, “to do some demonstrating.”

“What I want to know,” I said, “and I will make myself quite clear:

While they’re all demonstrating, who’s running things down here?

Who’s taking care of sinners, who’s leading us in prayer?

Who’s feeding all the lost sheep that wander by right here?

Who’s baptising babies, and another thing,” I said,

“Who’s looking out for the sick folk, and blessing all the dead?”

The Sexton was a wise old man, with a twinkle in his eye.

He looked at me and scratched his head, and this was his reply:

“Son, what I’m going to say to you might strike you kind of odd,

But since no one’s here to help you, put your question up to God.”

So I asked Him all those things last night, when I bent my knee in prayer:

“O Lord,” I prayed, “please tell me, who’s running things down here?”

The Lord sent down an Angel, it was enough to make me sob,

When the Angel said: “The Devil! And he’s doing a darn good job!”


by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen



Contributed by Sr Michaela Raphaela


 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |


Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer


Date and Time:

Sunday February 22nd–Mass at 12 noon


Location: Italian Canadian Club of Milton

104 Tremaine Road, Milton, ON L9T 2W9


Note: Father will also offer Mass in St. Catharines (at 21 Walters Court, St. Catharines) on February 22nd at 8:30 am and in Quebec at 7 pm.

 | Posted by | Categories: Mass Schedule |


For sale. 1 toad for sale! 1 toad for sale!

1 prying and pining young croaking toad for sale!

I’m really not kidding, so who’ll he be missing?

Do I hear a cricket? A ripple? A little kissy?

Oh, isn’t there, isn’t there any one fly who will stop on by this old toad for sale,

This prying and pining young toad for sale?


By Christine

A Lenten Poem for Children

18 February 2015
Dear God, I wonder, when You climbed
The hill of Calvary—
Where were the children that You used
To take upon Your knee?
Where were they?  In among the
And did they, too, not care
What happened to You God, dear God,
But only came to stare?
Where were the children that You
They do not seem to be
Around as You begin to climb
The hill of Calvary!
O God I wish that I had been
A child that day! I might
Have done some little thing for You
To make the Cross more light!
I might have given You a glass
Of water on the way—
I might have whispered, as You
“I love You so today!”
I might have done this—and yet—O!
Perhaps I would have hid
Among the people and done just
What other children did?


By Mary Dixon Thayer

The January/February 2015 issue of the Recusant is now available here for download.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: |

It has the makings of a modern day love story filled with fanciful images and garnished with sentimental undertones. It appears designed to evoke a longing for something that seems just beyond one’s reach. Words woo to this effect: “We are Roman Catholics because St. Peter lived and died in Rome, because our Faith, our morality, our liturgy, our Catholic history, all of these come(s) from Rome.” Sigh!


Such were the words that ended a recent conference held in Toronto at the Church of the Transfiguration. The conference was given by the newest district superior, Father Daniel Couture.


Before going any further, it must be acknowledged that Archbishop Lefebvre noted in his book, Spiritual Journey, the following: “We will conclude that one cannot be Catholic without being Roman.” (page 72) The Archbishop, in this same book, noted, on the same page as the above quote, the following: The “. . . occupation of Rome by the Masons permitted infiltration of the Church by Modernist clergy and Popes who hasten to destroy every vestige of Romanitas (1) : the Latin language, the Roman liturgy.” It seems fair to say that this occupation remains in effect to this day and it has, without a doubt, left a lengthy path of destruction, which includes the dilution of the Faith and morality, a constant tinkering with the liturgy and many needless mea culpas for our Catholic history. In fact, it has even become much more publicly brazen through the words and actions of the latest pope, Pope Francis – you know, the “who am I to judge” and “you don’t have to breed like rabbits” person.


Within this same conference, Father Couture lays the blame for a lot of the Church’s woes at the foot of enculturation. He states: “Enculturation has really de-Romanized the church.” Really? That is like saying that the paintbrush painted the house. There is not a single mention of Masons, infiltrators or Modernists here; but, then again, we would not want to offend any of the current occupants of Rome. That might be a bit embarrassing for Bishop Fellay on his next sojourn to Rome.


As the infiltrators, umm, of Conciliar Rome we speak of here, have yet to raise the white flag and cease their destructive toils, then it is fair to say that the occupation of which His Excellency spoke remains an active force for the dissolution of the Roman Church. Yet, Father Couture did not qualify his lament for Rome in any manner similar to the many strident condemnations of Conciliar Rome by Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) of which Father Couture remains a member.


Instead, Father Couture references His Excellency with a quasi-quote to further his Roman-ticising, where he states: “And what did Archbishop Lefebvre do? He taught us to be Romans. He said stick with the encyclicals of the Pope. Stick with the teaching of Rome, with the liturgy of Rome, with the chant of Rome, with the language of Rome. Stick with Rome.”


The position of His Excellency on the above matters is well known through his many public presentations and writings. Father Couture’s emphasis is always on an unqualified Rome. Father Couture uses the singular for Pope – so, the encyclicals of which Pope? The teaching of Rome? Pre or post Vatican II? The liturgy of Rome? Again, pre or post Vatican II? So on and so forth. Unfortunately, Father Couture is not precise in his discourse and these are times where precision is a priority to maintain the integrity of his argument. It is either sloppy or intentionally moving toward Modernism. One is left to wonder then if Father Couture has deviated from the position of His Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre? Perhaps, the omission of these qualifications was an oversight? Time will tell.


We may not be able to be Catholic without being Roman, but it is implicit that the Roman aspect must be truly Catholic – not modernist, not ecumenical, not conciliar, not mere geography, not a bundle of fanciful dreams, and definitely not a cohabitation within a den of a traitors.



1) Roman Catholics have used the word Romanitas for centuries to express their adherence to the Apostolic See of St. Peter and the Popes, as well as to Roman ecclesiastical culture. As such it was often used by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Traditionalist Roman Catholic Society of St. Pius X, who called Romanitas a virtue.


Sister Michaela Raphaela TOSF

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

From Australia Feb 8, 2015, 3 parts



Please note: one document Father refers to is posted here:
A message from Father summarizes the key points:
We reproduce it below.


Thankfully, Fr. Cekada has replied:

“Fr. Chazal’s ‘Open Letter’ on the True Trad site is simply incoherent, and contains no discernible theological argument. Fr. Chazal doesn’t like what I said about Fatima, and believes that his private understanding of Fatima somehow ‘refutes’ sedevacantism.

The reason Fr. Chazal follows this course is that the ‘recognize and resist’ line he takes on the false Popes of Vatican II cannot be reconciled with the standard principles of traditional ecclesiology which teach that a catholic must submit in doctrine to the Roman Pontiff.

To defend his complete rejection of these principles, Fr. Chazal must turn to his private interpretation of a private revelation, neither of which are a proper basis for a theological argument.

I have repeatedly laid out the argument for sedevacantism, citing text after text from Catholic theologians to support my conclusion. Fr. Chazal, a typical product of the SSPX, offers nothing but hysterical yammering, covered by a veneer of smug piety.

Let him go through my article ‘Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope’ or ‘Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Franken church’ and refute me point by point, citing theologians of equal stature to those I cited.
Until then, those who read Fr. Chazal’s comments on sedevacantism should know that he is spouting nonsense.”
Feel free to post this letter wherever you see fit.
Fr. Anthony Cekada.

Dear Father Cekada,
Thank you for not replying to my argument, that Fatima was made public in front of at least 70,000 witnesses, was publicly approved by the Church as “A great sign from heaven” (Apoc. XII), and concerns the fate of nations at the hands of a POPE.

So I went on ‘CathInfo’ & ‘ArchbishopLefebvreForums’ and tried to find the best Sede argument. It was hard because for the most of them, those replies veered off on side issues or details about “the errors of Russia.” The best I could find is that “yes, there is no Pope now, but when need be, one will pop and consecrate Russia”. My guess is that it is the CMRI position. But this means that Heaven requested something impossible to happen for 57 years (1958-2015); That Sister Lucy [Real (Fr. Gruner)/Fake (M.A. Horvat)] was wrong to beseech John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II.
Mr. Putin is asking Pope Francis to consecrate. Has he in fact no one to turn to, to obtain the conversion of his country??
I wont elaborate on the ludicrous belief that Pius XII sucessfully performed the consecration. (St Benedict Center).
So let’s move on your next and biggest antimony.
Interestingly my “hysterical yammering” resembles your booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope”: it is an induction. One accumulates particular facts to conclude inductively one truth: Our Lady uses a Pope (my yammering)/ there is no Pope (your booklet).
An induction is false or sophistic, if it leaves out or fails to mention contrary particular facts. And it is especially sophistic if it leaves out a majority of facts.
You contend, Reverend Father, that there are no “Theologians of equal stature to those I cited”, nay, you challenge us to give us any, with great chutzpah, with this great theological self confidence which is so typical of dogmatic Sedevacantism…
and many have been led to believe that indeed this is the case; that the vast majority, nay, the unanimity of theologians, canonists, experts and ecclesiologists are all arguing in favour of the immediate and ipso facto loss of office of a heretical Pope.
But in fact, you have just taken profit of our negligence, because:
(1). Many and quite authoritative theologians argue the contrary: Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Azorius, Banez, The Carmelites of Salamanca, Suarez, Billuart, Journet, Garrigou-Lagrange, St. Alfonsus of Liguori…..etc.
(2). Many others think it is impossible or never even ask themselves the question, The king of them all is our common doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Yet they provide embarassing supporting arguments (eg. commentary on Timothy).
(3). Some authorities which you cite to support your argument do not indeed teach the automatic, immediate and ipso facto, loss of office of a public heretical Pope.
(4). Others might, but never beyond a probable sentence [either probabilist or probabiliorist]. For the most they are XXth century manuals, often labouring under juridical positivism, like Billot, whom you do not dare to quote. They dealt with the question hurriedly, unfortunately: Manuals.
V: Then there is the question of Cum Ex and can.188.4 with respect of “Vacante Sede” of St. Pius X and “Vacantis Sedis” of Pius XII, IVth Constantinople can.X & the Decree of Gratian (I Dist 40), after and before Cum Ex.
VI: Then the consistent traditional reaction in case of doctrinal errors of previous Popes (Liberius, Honorius, Symmachus, Paschal II, Marcellinus, John XXII, Alexander VI [accused of heresy by Savonarola]).
VII: Then, after Tradition, Scripture: there are obvious reasons why Sedevacantists fail to support their argument with Sacred Scriptures.
So, as your booklet indicates, the question of automatic loss of office is the main axis of your efforts;
hence, if you care to reply, do stay on course, because all too often Sedevacantists veer off on other aspects instead of replying to what is objected to them.
I am happy to see that you want to go “point by point” and let’s see if you stick to the seven course menu…..



In page 11 of your booklet you claimed that Cajetan says that “a Pope may become a heretic and thus lose the Pontificate”.Not only this is false; but Cajetan is the father of a long line of Theologians that states the opposite of Sedevacantism. You do quote the “De Comparatione” on the question of the General Council, but you stay clear from chapter XX that refutes you by proving:
(A). Two extremes are false: The Pope is deposed by the mere fact of being heretic – the Pope can be judged.
(B). Tertium Datur. The Church can only declare him heretic, separate herself from him and wait for Christ to deposed him Authoritatively (we shall explain this later).
I leave it to you, read it up.
Even Bellarmine, your main authority, does not agree with Fr. Cekada’s way of reading Cajetan (“De Romano Pontifice”, Chapter XX). Bellarmine says he disagrees with Cajetan. So please, do yourself the favour of quoting rightly those authorities who agree with you to some extend, perhaps.
Therefore, the famed Cardinal Cajetan, and great commentator of St. Thomas is set, and at great length, against Sedevacantism.

*JOHN OF ST THOMAS (“De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disp III, Art II, XVII to XXVIII) goes at great length on the question, and picks up the disagreement of Bellarmine with Cajetan, supporting the latter (XX). John of St. Thomas is a great and famous commentator of St. Thomas, with Capreolus and Cajetan (whose Commentary thrones usually in the reference section of a good seminary library).
Why such blatant ignorance or refusals to even refute him?
It is because of quotes like this (XXVI): “the Pope does not cease to be the Pope before any ecclesiastical sentence by the fact of heresy itself, and before he is proposed to be avoided”. And he is indeed difficult to refute because, prior to Vatican II, he gave the longest and most augmented exposition on the problem.
His position hinges on two points
1. “The Church has a right to separate itself from a heretical Pope in virtue of Divine Right, and, as a result can take all the means for such a separation”. (XIX)
2. The Pope draws his power immediately from Christ. Only Christ can stop him from that power authoritatively.
We more or less agree with you sedevacantists on (1), but total separation is not enough for you. Fr. Oliver Rioult is right to insist that as long as this separation is made, souls are safe, the Faith is safe, and the rest is a point of theological “Finasserie”. John of St. Thomas adds something to the necessity of separation from heretics; the fact that by his heresy, a Pope is disposed to be deposed, ministerially while we await him to be removed from office authoritatively by Christ. He is actually impounded, incapable to exercise his office to prevent him from causing further damage. “He is necessarily rendered impotent from being the head of the Church because he is a member to be avoided by her, and as a consequence cannot have influence on her” (XXIV).
Sedevacantists always assume that if we recognize a Pope we must obey him, or we will follow his heresies, unlike St. Paul who resisted St. Peter, and St. Peter who resisted Caiphas.
They also fail to notice that non sedevacantists believe that a heretical Pope loses his office down the line, nay, is set to lose it like a train is set on his rails, but such happy event does not occur before he is declared heretic by the Church in due process;
while the duty to separate from him is immediate as soon as one knows him to be a heretic. “That (separation) can remain without a superior power formally above the power of the Pope” (XXIII).
John of St. Thomas also quotes an important decree of Gratian (I, Dist 40, D 79, C.11) “Eiectionem summorum sacerdoutum sibi Dominus reservavit, licet electionem eorum bonis sacerdotibus et spiritualibus populis concessisset” [“The Lord has reserved to Himself the deposition of the Sovereign Pontiffs”]. Worth keeping under the sleeve.
And on the question of the separation of a heretic from the Church, because heretics are not members of the Church, John of St. Thomas makes a distinction, Per Se & Quoad Nos:
– Per Se: in itself, yes the Pope is separate, like any other heretic.
– Quoad Nos: “As far as we are concerned such a separation is not understood to take place without such declaration (…..). For us he is not yet declared infidel or heretic, no matter how much he may be manifest according to private judgement. He is still a member of the Church for us [Quoad Nos], and consequently its head. Therefore the judgement of the Church is required by which he is declared as a non Christian and ceases to be a Pope to us”. (XXVI).
Billuart and Garrigou will elaborate from this, but I hope that you realise, dear Father, that John of St. Thomas is a whole arsenal against your proposed automatic and immediate loss of office of the Pope.

*AZORIUS, quoted by John of St. Thomas says “no heretic Bishop, no matter how visible his heresy may be, and in spite of him incurring excommunication, loses jurisdiction and Episcopal power, until he is declared such by the Church and deposed.[……] Only the ‘non tolerated’ and ‘vitandi’, i.e. those who have been nominally excommunicated or have assaulted a cleric, fall under this case”.

*SOTO (4 Sent, D 22, Q 2, A 2) & CANO (De Locis L.4) say that the case must be proven externally, but sorry, I have not been able to lay my fingers on ‘these texts’. TORQUEMADA’s text also eludes me, yet i know him to be a Judge with a certain taste of judging prior acting. For each of these texts, one Mass intention bounty is promised to the finder.

*SUAREZ is not of your liking. “The Church […] would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honours; he would be then ipso facto & immediately deposed by Christ (de Fide, D 10, S 6, N 10).
“If he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be the Pope only when a sentence has been passed against him for his crime by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the Doctors” (id.,D 10, S 6, N 3 – 10)… “as long as a sentence is not passed on him”. (id.).
Dear Father, if this is hysterical yammering to you, why do you put Suarez in page eleven of your “T,I&TP”, right after Cajetan (who also disagree so badly with you)??

As I fly over Australia, an overwhelmingly vacant land, I am wondering that your speech might turn the same on these pointed authorities.

Yet, please agree with me, Reverend Father, that this is an interesting debate, and there are plenty, more facts to come… and surprises.

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal +

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |