Monthly Archives: September 2016

Defend us in battle


Image result for st. michael the archangel

As evil continues to increase in the world, it would be beneficial and efficacious to pray the prayer to St. Michael, the great defender of the Church, daily.   Let us pray for his intercession, that St. Michael will do battle for us and scatter our enemies, both those in the world and in the Church.

“Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.  The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”  ~Apocalypse 12:7-9

Now is the time when St. Michael will rise up to protect the children of light, the children of the Church, those faithful to his master and captain, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

“But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book.”  ~Daniel 12:1

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.


~Damsel of the Faith


Joseph Lefebvre, brother of Abp. Lefebvre, passes away



Joseph Lefebvre, the youngest brother of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, has died at the age of 102.

We post for our readers below this article regarding the passing of Archbishop Lefebvre’s younger brother, Joseph.  Joseph, having lived a long, prosperous life as father of a good Catholic family,  was assisted before his death by a priest of the providential Order his own brother had founded.

What a beautiful privilege – to be the brother of Archbishop Lefebvre!  To see all of the wonderful fruits of Tradition today and realize that this was made possible by Divine Providence working through your own brother, who was a great champion and defender of the Traditional Catholic Faith, the Mass of All Time and the Catholic Priesthood!  May the world be granted many holy Catholic families like the Lefebvres for the restoration of Christendom and the Catholic Church!

R.I.P. Joseph Lefebvre!

September 24, 2016

Joseph, a brother of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, died a holy death at the age of 102.

Joseph Lefebvre, a brother of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, passed away on Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at the age of 102. Lucid until the end, he died a holy death, assisted by Fr. David Aldalur, SSPX, who was able to give him the last rites and the Apostolic Benediction in articulo mortis.

Joseph was the 6th child of the Lefebvre family, five of whom were religious: René, the eldest (Holy Ghost Father); Jeanne (Sister of Mary Reparatrix); Marcel (Archbishop Lefebvre); Bernadette (Holy Ghost Sister and co-founder of the Sisters of Saint Pius X); Christiane (Carmelite); Joseph, Michel, and Marie-Thérèse.
For nearly 40 years, from 1947 to 1989, the Archbishop took no vacation except three or four days at his brother Joseph’s home in southern France each year.
Marie-Thérèse Toulemonde, born in 1925, is now the last survivor among Archbishop Lefebvre’s siblings.

The funeral will take place at Notre-Dame des Naufragés, a Society of St. Pius X chapel near Bayonne, France, on Monday.

~Damsel of the Faith & Knight of Tradition

Multiculturalism and “diversity”



Image result for multiculturalism

If any of our readers, particularly in the West, have attended a state university or have considerable experience in today’s modern workforce, then there is a very good chance that you have stumbled upon what is known as “diversity training.”  Usually these training sessions will consist of a presenter “challenging” those present to have a more “inclusive” mindset, so that we may “respect” each other and be able to better “work together”.  Certain points of emphasis will certainly include that we must “value” all “faiths” and “belief systems” and be accepting of “equality” and everyone’s “sexual orientation”.  Perhaps a whole panel of “diverse” members will be present so that everyone may offer his own unique perspective.

This “multicultural” mindset, which is so very accepting, except when it comes to truly Christian doctrine and morals, has been harvested in our universities and spread throughout our workforce and even to the most simple aspects of our day-to-day life.  It is obvious that the real purpose of this modern “multicultural” school of thought is to undermine and destroy the Christian West.  I post below for you all this article from, written by the great Dr. Peter Chojnowski, which excellently describes and explains this pandemic.  


What is anti-Catholic multiculturalism?

March 04, 2014

Under the guise of “diversity”, a surge against Western Christian culture has been steadily on the rise in an attempt to eradicate the last vestiges of Catholicism in secular society.

We re-offer this article from Dr. Peter Chojnowski, in which he examines the continuing anti-Western culture campaign, its roots, errors and the Catholic solution against this anti-Catholic revolution.

Multiculturalism: “Diversity” for the Culturally Clueless

Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go!” The year is 1988. The site is the campus of Stanford University. The originators of this clever little slogan? Aboriginal pygmies dressed in tribal garb? Orientals with samurai swords? Indian matrons in saris? Not quite.

Rather, angry white upper-middle class co-eds uniformly vested in the standard garb of American academia, blue jeans, Los Angeles Lakers T-shirts, Reboks, baseball caps, Vuarnet sun glasses, and Rolex watches. The despised object of their vehemence? Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other “dead white males” whose thought continued to dominate the “core curriculum” at Stanford University.[1]

This particular protest, which, by the way, was successful, is merely one instance of a phenomenon which, in the last decade, has swept through and fundamentally transformed the content of higher education in the US. The movement, which is most prominent in academia, is referred to as multiculturalism.

Its stated aim is to equalize all cultures in the estimation of the student. A student achieves this new state of consciousness, when he no longer views one culture or cultural outlook as superior to another culture or cultural outlook. The main effort of the multiculturalists is to induce the student to both view his own culture (i.e., Western, Christian culture) as one culture among many equally valid cultures and, consequently, assume a mental stance of “openness” to “values” present in other, non-Western cultures.

As in all egalitarian efforts, this process of “equalization” amounts to an attempt to “level” that which has traditionally been considered to be superior and exalt that which has normally been considered to be inferior. The multiculturalists believe that they can achieve this result by introducing courses into the curriculum which both make mention of other cultures and, most importantly, focus on the sinister avenues taken by Western, Christian man in his struggle to suppress into a position of inferiority, those non-Western cultures which are of an equal, if not superior value.

You might think that the multiculturalists would be frustrated in their attempt to familiarize the student with “suppressed” non-Western cultures, on account of the fact that the average co-ed knows little or nothing about foreign cultures and, normally, cares even less. Moreover, a realist would have to see their efforts to lessen the impression the great books and ideas of Western civilization are making on young minds as somewhat ridiculous, since it has been decades since the great works and great ideas of Western, Christian man have made any impression whatsoever on the young American mind. To spend time trying to convince a student that Aristotle was “really” a “racist” is tantamount to trying to convince a ten-year-old that the Copenhagen school interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is an example of epistemological relativism. She/He would be clueless.

This somewhat harsh judgment concerning the cultural awareness of the average American undergraduate is, however, supported by solid statistics. According to the statistics gathered by Lynne Cheney, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, it is possible to graduate from 37% of American colleges without taking a course in history, from 45% without taking a course in American or English literature, from 62% without taking any philosophy, and from 77% without studying a foreign language.[2] Cheney also reports that it is now “extremely rare” to find students exposed to a core curriculum in Western civilization, even at major state universities and the elite colleges of the Ivy League.[3] Not only is the average American undergraduate seemingly unfit, and definitely uninterested, in such expanded cultural “awareness,” but the very purveyors of multiculturalism, the university faculties, are themselves obviously uninterested in any serious study of the ideas, habits, and customs which make up the content of either Western Christian or non-Western cultures.

I became intensely aware of this fact while teaching in New York City. During these years, the only visual manifestation of the multiculturalist idea then pervading the classrooms was the donning by certain black male students of “African clothing” which somewhat resembled a “Nehru suit.” That Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian nationalist leader, did not seem to dawn on these devotees of neo-African romanticism.

The professors which were most committed to the “multiculturalist idea” showed no interest whatsoever in uncovering the philosophical, theological and social reality of other cultures. In fact, from my own experience, I can say that, generally speaking, the “multiculturalists,” whether professor or graduate student, were the academics most disliked by those students who were of non-European origin. Of course, as most people know already, in American graduate schools this means Orientals. Normally, the Orientals maintained close friendships with the conservative, white graduate students and professors who still existed as a besieged minority on campus. If, therefore, the underlying task of the multiculturalists is not to “enlighten” their students concerning the true content of non-Christian cultures, what is the nature of their activities? It is to attack and denigrate the cultural heritage of Christendom and to vilify everything associated with it. This vilification will even extend to overt racism, as long as that racism is directed against peoples of European origin. I think here of the well-publicized visit to my New York university campus by Dr. Leonard Jeffries. Dr. Jeffries, chairman of the Afro-American Studies Department at City College of New York, is well-known for his claim that whites are biologically inferior to blacks. Dinesh D’Souza in his book Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus cites the college newspaper The Campus as stating:

African American scholar Leonard Jeffries claims that whites are biologically inferior to blacks…. Adopting an evolutionary perspective, Jeffries told his class that whites suffer from an inadequate supply of melanin, making them unable to function as effectively as other groups. One reason that whites have perpetuated so many crimes and atrocities, Jeffries argues, is that the Ice Age caused the deformation of white genes, while blacks were enhanced by ‘the value system of the sun.'”[4]

There were no protests of Dr. Jeffries visit. Moreover, you could not help but believe that protests against his visit would be treated as “racist.” Dr. Jeffries’ popularity during this time, 1991, is shown by the fact that he was asked to co-author a multicultural curriculum outline for all New York public schools.

There are many practical consequences of the multiculturalist anti-European ideological outlook. In their drive to implement the mathematical abstraction of equality in the life of their university, college administrators have undertaken a program of “affirmative action” in which professors are hired and students admitted, not because they are the most qualified applicants, but rather, because they happen to be female, black, Hispanic, or “Native American.” Interestingly enough, Orientals rarely “benefit” from “affirmative action” programs. Probably because they are not clients of the American Left.

This systematic disregard for academic qualifications, along with the proliferation of anti-Western “attack” courses (e.g., “Women in African literature in French,” “Harlem Renaissance,” “Ibo I and II,” “Politics of Black Autobiography,” has resulted in a precipitous decline in academic standards and achievement. Nothing else can be expected if students and faculty are not chosen on account of the quality of their minds. In a 1989 survey of 5,000 university faculty members by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching found general agreement about the “widespread lowering of academic standards at their institutions.” This decline was only partially masked by an equally “widespread grade inflation.”[5] Moreover, a review of 25,000 student transcripts by Professor Zemsky of the University of Pennsylvania showed broad neglect of mathematics and science courses, especially at the advanced level, and an overall “lack of depth and structure” in what undergraduates study.6

There is something, however, which the multiculturalists can build on and exploit for their own ends. It is the ingrained relativism and instinctive egalitarianism which characterizes the moral outlook of almost all American undergraduates. Here I do not believe my attribution of relativism and egalitarianism to “all American undergraduates” is extreme or exaggerated. This same judgment has been etched into the contemporary psyche of American academia by Professor Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind. Unfortunately, I have even found that when you meet a student with some type of religious faith, she/he never attempts to defend or support the intrinsic veracity and universal validity of the doctrines which they hold to, but rather, are content to say that “this is what I believe” and “other people believe other things,” therefore, we can never know who is right or wrong. Consequently, the foundational virtue becomes “toleration.” “Toleration,” that is, of all but the “intolerant” (i.e., those Christian believers who refuse to accede to the basic premise that all ideas are equally valid as “personal beliefs”).

Relativism and equality

It is, however, the all-pervasive idea of “equality,” which opens the mental doors of the young American mind to the multiculturalists. I would even assert that the underlying relativist assumption is ultimately traceable to the belief in equality. Having been told from their early years that the goal of all of human history is the application of the mathematical abstraction of “equality” to the concrete realm of men and human societies. The final goal being the complete conformity between reality and abstraction. Why does it, then, seem strange that young people, and not so young people, can so readily accept the idea that all cultures are equally valid, and that if there is one culture which predominates it must be “levelled” while others are exalted.

When we search for the philosophical roots of multiculturalism, we find that it has its origin amongst those who mix together the concepts of “equality” and the “relativity of truth.” Professor Allan Bloom refers to them as the Nietzschean Left. In the US, we might call them the 1960’s New Left. Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher of the last century who discovered the idea of “value” or werte. According to Nietzsche, all “values,” that is, what is considered important, varies from nation to nation, century to century, and culture to culture. Moreover, “values” are simply the projection of a people’s “will to power.” That which increases their strength and power is “valuable” and “good.” That which weakens their power is “bad.”

It is with Nietzsche in the 1880’s that we see the emergence of historical and cultural relativism (i.e., that philosophical position which holds that truth and value are dependent on the time period in which we live and the culture we have). If this be the case, Western Christian culture is nothing more than white, European males solidifying their own power by forming a culture which portrays their particular values as ideal. “Values,” here do not have any universal validity or intrinsic worth. It is interesting to note, that Nietzsche, famous for his statement “God is dead,” insisted that all values are relative, because there is not God. If God existed, He would be the one who gave all truths and values their intrinsic worth and universal validity.

If the ideals and ideas which have guided Western man since the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ are merely surreptitious “power plays” of a dominant elite, the forces of the Revolution, taking their cue, as usual, from the French Revolution, will try to storm this citadel of oppression in the name of the previously exploited. All the multiculturalists whom I have met, heard of, or read about, are leftists (i.e., ideological supporters of the egalitarian revolution begun in Paris in 1789). Their leftism is normally expressed in different ways. The homosexual “life-style” struggles for equality against the dominance and “oppression” of heterosexuality, women struggle against men, blacks against whites. This “social warfare” aspect of multiculturalism has been fostered by academics intellectually attached to Frankfort School Marxism. These thinkers, who “inspired” the radical students of the 1960’s and the academics of the 1990’s, wove together the ideas of relativism, equality, and the “class struggle.” What they advocated was simple. In the words of one of the New Left’s most prominent spokesmen, Theodore Adorno, we must “negate the dominant ideology.”[7]

The dominant ideology which they believe they must overthrow is none other than the dogmas, ideas, customs, habits, social structures, and moral norms packed into the concept and historical reality of Christendom. Ultimately, that is what they are after. Moreover, it is the residue of that, in the minds of America’s youth, which they are successfully eliminating. If you spend most of your academic year studying “Films on popular religion and healing in Peru,” “Reggae lyrics,” and “Rastafarian poetry,” you will not long maintain contact with the foundational truths of Christian civilization.[8] Or rationality, for that matter!

Counterrevolution vs. the counterculture

Can we salvage and nourish in contemporary human minds the traditional culture that the multiculturalists are so cleverly trying to destroy? I believe that we can. There is one problem, however. The very fact that we have to think about the question of how to retain and nourish true culture means, to a large extent, that we have already lost it. Since intellectual culture is like a “second nature,” to consciously have to cleave to it means that it is not had as it should be had. The reason why culture must be possessed as a “second nature,” is on account of the fact that culture is the manner in which a human being responds to the truth of order. A cultured soul is one whose response to order is natural and instinctive. The cultured soul is one which can both appreciate the refined breadth and depth of order, along with responding properly to the specificity and exact worth of being.

Such precise responses to the specificity and refinement of reality are normally the result of an inheritance passed from generation to generation as a deposit of truths and attitudes and adaptations to those truths. This deposit is normally expressed in art, customs, festivals, manners, and behaviors. This inheritance is not merely “behavioral information.” It is the silent spiritual communication of the generations. It says “do this and you shall be right.”

What can be done, then, to form a new generation, immune to multiculturalism, because immersed in the fresh springs of Catholic culture; which, by the way, is the authentic form of “Western” culture. The first thing to remember in this regard is the most fundamental. True “culture” is, in its origins, that which surrounds the “cult.” The true “cult,” of course, has at its core an act of sacrifice to God. An organic culture then, one not artificially engendered, is one which develops out of man’s response to the reality of this act of sacrifice. The most primordial forms of culture, then, are those actions, behaviors, attitudes, and art forms which surround and constitute our participation in the act of sacrifice.

According to this view, culture is not man’s way of expressing inner states of consciousness, as has been suggested by Pope John Paul II in the course of his philosophical career. Rather, it is man’s response to an objective reality outside himself, which is not dependent at all upon his will but upon the will of God. True and authentic culture, as opposed to a “culture” stemming from purely human concepts and needs, is an adequate response to the very specific character of the Holy Sacrifice. True culture must be ultimately based upon God’s revelation of a form of worship acceptable to Himself and one which is a fitting response to the specificity of the Divine Nature.

The first thing that must be done to rebuild a culture which has, ostensibly, left the hearts and minds of men, is to place within young hearts an intimate awareness of the rhythms and values inherent in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This means a cultivation of the proximate and remote externals, such as ceremony and festival, which convey to human minds, dependent as they are upon physical perception, the inner secret of the mysteries being celebrated. Culture can only be regained, when the individual and collective imagination is placed under the yoke of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

After the initial conquest of the imagination, the cultivation of the soul must extend to the intellect. Ultimately, the intellect must come to the defense of this vision of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful if it is to be sustained. The most perfect way to cultivate the intellect is to have it engage itself with meditation on the philosophical and theological truths which underlie and surround the Holy Sacrifice. With this, intellect, imagination, and sensation can be welded together to form an organic whole, a unified outlook on the world. Such a unified outlook, armed with the intellectual arguments, can easily withstand the flaccid and unsubstantial concepts of the multiculturalists.

Finally, those who would possess and cultivate Catholic culture, must identify with those who have possessed and cultivated it in the past. Since culture is meant to be a “second nature” for the mind, an habitual imaginative and intellectual affinity or, perhaps, a connaturality must be established between the intimate lives of our predecessors in the Faith and our own innermost lives. We must “sympathize with” giants upon whose shoulders we stand. I believe that such an agenda can be realized in families, small communities, and in schools dedicated to the integral Catholic Faith. We must know what it means to be Catholic. We must be Catholic, unabashedly, again.


1 See, Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: The Free Press, 1991), p.60.

2 Lynne Cheney, Humanities in America (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Humanities, 1988), p.5.

3 Lynne Cheney, Fifty Hours: A Core Curriculum for College Students(Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Humanities, 1989).

4 Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus(New York: the Free Press, 1991), p.7. Cf. The Campus, City College of New York, April 26, 1989.

5 See D’Souza, p. 14. CfThe Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends, 1989 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).

6 D’Souza, p. 14. Cf. Thomas DeLoughry, “Student of Transcripts Finds Little Structure in the Liberal Arts,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 18, 1989, pp.A-1, A-32.

7 Mae Henderson, ed., Borders, Boundaries, and Frames: Essays in Cultural Criticism and Cultural Studies (New York: Routledge, 1995), p.18.

8 D’Souza, p.70.


However, there is, if you will, a true “diversity” that exists amongst those souls united to the Catholic Church. We all come from differing backgrounds and have our own unique vocations, talents, and characteristics.  God wishes it so as part of His Divine plan.  Nevertheless, we have the greatest force to unite us as one: the Catholic Faith that we cherish and share with each other.  All persons are also, of course, made in the image and likeness of God and are loved equally by Him. 

St. Therese of Lisieux beautifully explains:  

“I had wondered for a long time why God had preferences and why all souls did not receive an equal amount of grace […] Jesus saw fit to enlighten me about this mystery. He set the book of nature before me and I saw that all the flowers He has created are lovely. The splendour of the rose and whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of its simple charm. I realised that if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness and there would be no wild flowers to make the meadows gay.

It is just the same in the world of souls — which is the garden of Jesus. He has created the great saints who are like the lilies and the roses, but He has also created much lesser saints and they must be content to be the daisies or the violets which rejoice His eyes whenever He glances down. Perfection consists in doing His will, in being that which He wants us to be.

I also understood that God’s love shows itself just as well in the simplest soul which puts up no resistance to His grace as it does in the loftiest soul. Indeed, as it is love’s nature to humble itself, if all souls were like those of the holy doctors who have illumined the Church with the light of their doctrine, it seems that God would not have stooped low enough by entering their hearts. But God has created the baby who knows nothing and can utter only feeble cries. He has created the poor savage with no guide but natural law, andit is to their hearts that He deigns to stoop. They are His wild flowers whose homeliness delights Him. By stooping down to them, He manifests His infinite grandeur. The sun shines equally both on cedars and on every tiny flower. In just the same way God looks after every soul as if it had no equal. All is planned for the good of every soul, exactly as the seasons are so arranged that the humblest daisy blossoms at the appointed time.”

May we all reject this “ecumenical”, false concept of multiculturalism and take to heart Therese’s words of the beautiful variety to be found in the garden of Jesus, in the world of souls!

~ Steven C., “The Knight of Tradition”

The Wife as an Inspiration to her Husband


Image result for the wife desired

In continuing with the Damsel’s last post, this post will focus on the role of a wife, namely as an inspiration to her husband.  I post below an excerpt from Fr. Leo Kinsella’s wonderful book, The Wife Desired:

John was dead tired as he left work for home late one Monday afternoon. His physical fatigue partly accounted for his low spirits. He felt that he was on an economic treadmill. He was getting nowhere. Married five years he and Aeleen and the two little ones were still cooped up in a miserable little four room birth control trap of a flat. And worst of all they had saved pitifully little for their own home. It was not like John to quit.

John was not giving up this particular Monday night either. Yet he was worried about the future. He did not seem to be getting any-where. He had cast about in his mind for some solution till he was in a mental whirl. Should he look for a part time job on the side? Should he quit his job, take the plunge, and go in with Joe Burns on that gas station? He hated to vex Aeleen with these problems. She had the housework and the children. His was the responsibility of decision.

As he reached for the kitchen door knob, he paused. A dark cloud passed over his face. Aeleen had no bargain in him. She was the beauty of her whole school. Intelligent and bubbling over with personality she could have done much better.

As the door swung open, Aeleen was wiping a bit of spilled milk from the floor. One knee was on the floor; the other balanced Michael, the culprit whose mess she was cleaning up. Her face came up to meet John’s. It was all smiling. The hug and the kiss told him that no one else in all this world was as welcome to step through that kitchen door. She noticed that he held her just a little longer than usual. “He needs me this evening more than ever.” she sensed. “And what a comfy feeling to know one is needed.”

That evening Aeleen fulfilled with colours flying the greatest function of a wife. She was his inspiration. She quickly drove the black devils of defeatism from his troubled mind. Before bedtime he was ready like Cyrano de Bergerac, to fight giants. Her confidence in him was complete, not that she did not have to chase out disturbing doubts now and then about his capacities. She was much in love with John and knew his love. This mutual love made it easier for her to discipline her mind, so that her whole being evidenced her assurance in him. Come what might John was her man and he was the best in the world for her.

Thoughts constant and deep have a way of manifesting them-selves especially to one spiritually tuned in to the thinker. Aeleen’s faith, quietly evidenced in her husband, renewed his courage. He would not fail her. Aeleen was God’s manifestation to him of all that was good and beautiful. Like David, the psalmist, he felt that, if Aeleen was with him, who was against him?

Aeleen made him conscious that he was the greatest man in the world for her money. There was no pretense in Aeleen’s admiration for John. She loved him deeply. He was her sunshine and the light blinded her from seeing anyone else. It was no effort for her to stifle within her soul any invidious comparisons between John and other husbands seemingly more successful. On the surface, the husbands of some of her acquaintances might be more successful. Some of them obviously commanded much more in-come. “So what?” fought back Aeleen within herself. “It takes more than that to make a husband. John may not be on fire, nor the most gifted person, but take him for what he is, all in all, he is a man.”

From this brief little picture of Aeleen and John, it is obvious that the ideal wife is much more than a companion, a good house-keeper, a good cook, and a good mother. She is an inspiration. Unless she is this to her husband there is danger that all the other fine aspects of her role as wife will be wasted in final failure.

The first purpose of this chapter should be to convince all wives that they have been endowed by God with the ability to inspire their husbands. Many wives do not seem to realize their potential power in this respect. It has been a revelation to me to find out how many wives do not have any concept of this important function of a wife. No doubt that is why we are both so unfortunate as to meet at the Chancery.

The world is quite a bit what women make it. If our sojourn here below is a triumphal parade to the tune of swinging music, to women go the bouquets. If it is a forced march through a vale of tears, to our lady friends go the brickbats. On the one hand we have our Blessed Lady. On the other hand we have to contend with Eve. Women have a way about them of sweeping men on to the heights of nobility or of plunging them into the depth of degradation. To women God has given a mysterious power of bring-ing out the best or the worst there is in a man. History and literature reminds us of a multitude of women who activated this latent force within themselves and thus provided the motivation and inspiration of great accomplishments.

Men left to themselves too long tend to become rough, brutish, and even evil. I saw enough of this in the Army during the two years overseas with the same outfit. There was something vital missing in the lives of these soldiers. It was the influence of their mothers, their sisters, their wives, and their sweethearts. The deterioration of the soldiers overseas was slow and gradual but still very definite. The great mass of mankind finds it pretty difficult to climb very much above its environment. An all male environment is not good for a man over a long period of time. God never intended for the average man to so live. Eve appeared on the scene soon after Adam.

The ideal wife gives comfort and encouragement when needed. She is wise with a woman’s intuition, so at times she pricks his pride subtly to enable him to rise to some particular situation. Always he has her understanding. She shows her sympathy with-out being sorry for him. Above all, she never allows him to feel sorry for himself.

There are times when she senses that her best contribution is silence. Her presence is all she can give, and it is all he needs. He is upset, out of sorts, confused, and angry with himself. She will not add to his turmoil with advice or suggestions. Patiently she waits, until he comes down to earth. Sometimes she is at a loss for what to say or do to help him. So she says and does nothing. Her best efforts at inspiration and encouragement may meet with failure and even rebuff. She is human and feels the hurt, but valiant is the word for her. She can be blue and down over his lack of response, but because she is strong of heart she bounces back with resilience for another day and its tasks. She does not run and hide from problems. If an understanding must be reached over some situation or other, she does not hesitate to thrash the matter out with him. Yet she never needlessly worries him. Some wives worry their husbands into an early grave, they themselves remaining around to collect the dividends of lonely old age.

It is imperative that we hold firm in the defense of Catholic Matrimony, as it is under great attack from the influences of both Modernism in the Church and the errors of Russia that have corrupted the world. We highly recommend the August 2014 Issue of The Angelus, which admirably defends Catholic Matrimony, especially in regards to the subversive “Synods on the Family.”

~Steven C., “Knight of Tradition”

Primacy of the husband over the wife

Image result for 1950s couples

“Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that ‘order of love,’ as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: ‘Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.’ This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary not to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of rin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: ‘The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.'”

~Pius XI, “Casti Connubii”, 1930 A.D.

Assisi V


Image result for assisi iv pope ecumenical meeting

On September 20, 2016, Pope Francis will be present at the 5th “ecumenical” religious meeting at Assisi, wherein leaders of false religions will pray alongside the Sovereign Pontiff in an unholy alliance, praying for peace but bringing destruction, error and heresy to the Church.  Surely “peace” and “dialogue” will be discussed at this get-together and many prayers (both to the True God and to devils!) will subsequently be offered, but true peace will never be won with the false solutions proposed.  True peace can only be established in this world with the acceptance of Christ and His Church.  Any attempts of ignoring this fact to seek a greater “unity” with others will only promote a false semblance of peace and weaken the influence of Truth. This ecumenical meeting is a laugh in the face to Our Lady who gave us to the solution to our problems and the way to attain peace, the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, which will attain world peace and the conversion of the world to the Catholic Church. The refusal to heed and obey this request is the most blatant example of disobedience in the history of the Church.

Indeed, as this crisis in the Church lengthens, what “peace” can be seen?  It would seem that the longer the ‘conciliar’ church promotes this false ecumenical nonsense, the dire situation in the world grows worse.  It is unfortunate that even some “conservative” Catholics have been led to think that this “dialogue” would result in anything positive. It results in a disregard for Christ and the Church, which in turn is the result of religious indifferentism. These ecumenical meetings teach the heresy of religious indifferentism by placing false religions on the same footing as the True Religion, the Church of Jesus Christ, only possessor of the truth.

Even Pope Benedict, as “traditional”as he may have sounded on occasion, even approved at Assisi IV of a spokesman of behalf of those with no religion.

Certainly this ‘conciliar’ church does not accept the true Catholic teaching found in Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium animos:

“Since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism.”

“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

What should good Catholics then do in the face of such an event?  Fr. Alain Lorans, SSPX, proposes a proper and praiseworthy solution in the editorial of the traditional Catholic news website, DICI:

Let us pray alongside the Christian martyrs of today

Filed under From RomeNews

 A new interreligious meeting is to take place in Assisi on September 20, 2016, with Pope Francis presiding. Armed with the constant teachings of the Popes up until the Second Vatican Council, the Society of St. Pius X will not pray with the 400 representatives of worldwide religions who will invoke the beliefs of Mahomet, Buddha, Confucius and Kali alongside the profession of the Catholic Faith: I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. The Society will pray with and for those who are currently undergoing persecution for their fidelity to the Catholic Credo, those Christians martyred in Egypt, in Syria, in Iraq, in Nigeria, in Pakistan, in Thailand, in Indonesia, in the Philippines…

The General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X made a point of recalling in its concluding statement of July 14, 2012: “We unite ourselves with the other Christians undergoing persecution in countries throughout the world who are suffering for the Catholic Faith, frequently to the death. Their blood, shed in union with that of the Victim on our altars, is the sign of the renewal of the Church in capite et membris, in accordance with the old saying, ‘sanguis martyrum semen christianorum’.” (See DICI no. 259, 10/08/12)

To ask God for peace, without any ecumenical equivocation or interreligious ambiguity, the Society of St. Pius X adopts the words of the Collect of the Feast of Christ the King, instituted by Pius XI: “Almighty and everlasting God, who in Thy beloved Son, the King of the whole world, hast willed to restore all things, mercifully grant that all the kindreds of the nations that are divided by the wound of sin, may be brought under the sweet yoke of His rule

Fr. Alain Lorans

More excellent commentary from DICI can be found here:

May we all thus reject strongly this great novelty and pray instead with those who are fighting for the true Faith, even to the point of martyrdom! Anathema to Assisi V. May St. Francis intercede for our Pope, to remove the scales of Modernism from his eyes so that the Faith can be restored and souls convert to the only means of salvation, the Catholic Church.

-Damsel of the Faith & Knight of Tradition



Our Sorrowful Mother

Image result for our lady of sorrows


Today is the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows. Below is a beautiful meditation on Our Sorrowful Mother. Our Lady of Sorrows is also the Patronal Feast Day of my SSPX chapel, Our Lady of Sorrows in Baton Rouge, La. Let us make reparation to Our Lady of Sorrows for the outrages and sacrileges committed against Her Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart.

Our Lady of Sorrows, ora pro nobis!


Reflection on Our Sorrowful Mother

by Rev. Frederick A. Reuter

Darkness had come down over the hills of Judea, and, in the gloom, hills and valley were one. It was the last day of the unredeemed world; the morrow would be the dawn of the first day of the world redeemed by the Death of Christ Our Lord.

Upon one of those hills stood a sorrowing Mother. It was the evening of her sorrow, near its end. The morning began in the long ago, when in the Temple the prophet had told that Mother of a coming sorrow that would pierce her heart as a sword. It grew in intensity in the hurried, anxious flight into Egypt, when fear broke into that stainless heart lest ruffian hands should steal away the Life that had just begun.

hat sorrow changed its tone to grief again, in the weary, aching search of the three days’ loss in Jerusalem; and again the parting of the Son from His Mother, and her meeting Him cross-laden, seemed to her more than she could bear. But this was not all. It surpasses human words to tell all that Mother suffered. One cannot hope to tell the whole story. But one can always look upon the sweet, sorrowful face of the Mother, think of who she was, think of her Son, gaze upon His dead body, all covered with His precious blood, and then answer what it teaches one’s heart of her sorrow. One begins to look upon the face of that Mother, to mourn with her and for one’s sins; to ask the grace to know the depth of the bitterness that welled up in Mary’s heart.

The very meaning of the name of Mary is “sea of bitterness.” How truly this word tells the story of that Mother’s life. The bitterness of the Passion of Christ, ” great as the sea,” was in the heart of Mary from that first dread prophecy. The shadow of the Cross hung its gloom over that bright life, which one would say should have been free from sorrow’s lightest touch. She had a mother’s heart in all its yearning’s for the joy of her Son, and its finest fibers were wrung in response to the beating pulses of His pain. The first pang came with the Circumcision, and increased till the spear opened His side at the crucifixion, till it could increase no more, for the measure of its woe was full; and in that fullness there was no kind of bitterness that she had not tasted. The neglect and the insults at Bethlehem, the inconvenience and fear of the flight were there; and before this, the grief after the Annunciation, when Joseph was “minded to put her away,” a sorrow that she bore in silence alone, and such an intensely painful sorrow to her immaculate Heart; the parting and the Agony and the Passion and the scenes of Calvary –all these tell us of that “sea of bitterness” in Mary’s name.

All this brings her inexpressibly near to us in sympathy. In our trials, and desolation and darkness, we do not realize how near to us she is until we have meditated upon this meaning of her name. In Mary the faculty of sympathy is developed to such a degree that she cannot but feel for each one of our woes. Sympathy would come from the very perfection of that heart, formed with such care and quickened by the greatest graces of God. Mary’s heart is the heart of a Mother ever inclining to comfort her little ones in their distress. For, as among the Greeks, that mercy might temper justice, no one was allowed to be a judge, who was not also a father; so in a much greater degree, will a mother’s justice be tempered by mercy. Besides being a mother, her Son’s sorrows developed still more that character of her soul; and as His sorrows were born for us, even apart from her special relation to us, our sorrows must make a deeper impression on her. When we remember, moreover, that we have been entrusted to her as to our Mother, we understand more fully the meaning of the words of the Salve Regina, that she is a “Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope,” and in our sorrow we send up to her a cry of mourning from this vale of tears, that she who was immersed in bitterness may turn her eyes of mercy upon our needs.

Sorrows come home to every human heart; sorrows that are sweet and merciful; sorrows that set the heart against the pitiless world, or seek to make it rebellious against God’s providence; or, again, sorrows that paralyze the heart’s energies, and deaden it to all that is joyful in, life. But, over all these sorrows comes the calm, peaceful glance of the Mother of Sorrows, helping us to sanctify every pang, and to bear all in patience through love for our dear Saviour, her Son.

When the morning of her sorrow had grown into noon, and the evening came, the fullest weight of grief was upon her. The Cross is laid upon Him, and He is brought to Calvary. His Mother meets Him on the way. Their eyes meet. Dimly, through the tears and blood that obscure His sight, Our Lord discerns His Mother’s face, and His glance carried strength to her soul. He summons her, His well- beloved, to ratify the oblation made at Nazareth in the hour of the Incarnation, when she consented to become the Mother of the Man of Sorrows; the oblation made solemnly in the Temple on the day of His Presentation, and renewed again and again as the time of the Passion drew near: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” At every stage of His Redemption she is His handmaid, waiting upon Him always, His fellow-worker on whose sympathy and absolute fidelity He can rely. No cry of pain escapes her. To bring Him the only comfort in her power–the assurance that she accepts with Him every jot and tittle of the Father’s will; that she does not grudge one pang; that she is ready for more, for the consummation of the Sacrifice, for Calvary–this is her one thought. She cannot speak. Her heart would break with a word to Him. But her eyes, her quivering lips, her clasped hands speak for her. It is but for a moment that the Son and the Mother meet.

“When they have come to the place where they are to crucify Him, she, in her love, is near; as they stretch Him upon the Cross, she hears the dull thud of the hammer as it falls upon the nail that is to pierce His right hand, and the cruel sound it makes as it forces the nail through His sacred Flesh.

Did not that nail drive its way through her own heart? And then comes the nailing of the left hand, and another wound in her heart, and then the strokes that fasten the feet of her Son to the wood of the Cross. The Cross is lifted up, and sinks into the place prepared for it. She hears the sound, and knows that it is increasing the pains in His hands and feet. ”Oh, all you that pass by the way, attend and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow.”

As Mary stands there at the foot of the Cross and looks up to that face–that beautiful face of her Infant of Bethlehem–there comes to her heart the contrast of the joy of that first Christmas and the sorrow of this Good Friday. That little one had grown up beside her, had called her lovingly by the name of mother; and from the gloom of Calvary her heart goes back to the home at Nazareth, and the crib of Bethlehem, and it seems as if her heart is broken. This is the realization of Simeon’s prophecy; the sword has pierced her heart, indeed.

But when a mother sees her son grow up, and when his life is full of the promise of manhood, in all the glory of his youth he is suddenly taken away from her, who will measure the desolation and the darkness and the sadness that sweep over her life? Her hopes are broken, her dreams scattered, her soul crushed. In the night of her grief, it seems to her that there is nothing in life worth living for. She is alone, and the great sorrowing love welling up in her heart has not whereon to put itself. If this be true of a mother’s love for her child, where was there a mother with such a child as Jesus? Where a mother with such great, strong, tender love as the Blessed Virgin Mary had for her Son? And unless we know who Jesus was, unless we understand His infinite holiness His tenderness, His goodness, His divine amiability and His own love for that Mother; unless we can penetrate into the mysteries of that beautiful heart of Mary, we can never fully understand the sorrow of that afternoon on Calvary. As she stood gazing upward there, she heard Him speak. But, oh, how, changed that voice from long ago; She heard Him speak the word “Mother.” And after those other words were spoken, as she was looking up, she saw those eyes close, and heard that last word, and Jesus, her Son, was dead.

The desolation and the sorrow, and the grief and the resignation of the Mother of Jesus! He was dead! “The most beautiful of the sons of men.” Now there was no comeliness in Him. He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, one wound from the crown of His head to the soles of His feet. He was wounded for our iniquities, and by His bruises we are healed. When they lift that Body from the Cross, and place it in the arms of His heart-broken Mother; when in her grief she clasps her arms about Him to forget all the world and be alone with Him in spirit, truly we ask: “Was there ever a sorrow like that sorrow?” Can we enter deeper into that mystery of sorrow?

There is indeed a deeper depth: but it is enough With these pictures and memories before us, we should let the thought of them sink deep into our hearts. We naturally feel disposed to sympathy with that Mother, and sorrow for the sufferings of Jesu Christ; sorrow and love and sympathy in union with the hearts of Jesus and Mary. There is no better means of offering the reparation in which, as Associates in the Apostleship of Prayer, we are all engaged. The very day of the Feast of Mary’s Sorrows, which is kept in September, is our own day for Communions of Reparation. Although a day commemorative of mourning, it still goes by the name of Feast. Feast of the Seven Sorrows, the Church terms it, and so dear is that Feast that the Calendar offers it to our celebration twice a year. It is rightly dear to the Church, and justly named Feast. Mary’s Sorrows were a cause of our joy.