The Novus Ordo Church is the Catholic Church, which is the True Church?  The problem with that proposition is that a Novus Ordo is per se contrary to the dogma of faith, which requires adherence to the traditional rites (Constance Sess. 39), the preservation of the traditional “order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church” (Auctorem Fidei [33]; Pius IV, Professio Fidei Tridentina; Trent Sess. VII can. xiii de sacramentis in genere, etc.) Thus, being contrary to the Catholic faith in its liturgy, the Novus Ordo quite simply, is not Catholic.  Furthermore, since the Novus Ordo violates the bond of communion of worship, it is materially schismatic, in accordance with the teaching of Innocent III, Juan de Torquemada, and Francisco Suarez.


This is patent in view of the fact that a “New Order of Mass” violates the most solemn infallible pronouncements and thus breaks the second bond of communion; and therefore, Innocent III teaches that a pope who changes the rites is not to be obeyed, and Torquemada & Suarez explain that such a pope who changes the rites falls into schism. This has been the constant and unchallenged teaching of the Church down through the ages, summed up by Pius XI in Quas Primas, where it is stated that it is the duty of the Roman Pontiffs to “safeguard the liturgy and preserve it from adulteration”.


The doctrine that binds the Church to adhere to the traditional rites was already in place during the patristic age, and is rooted in apostolic teaching: “23 ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem 24 et gratias agens fregit et dixit hoc est corpus meum pro vobis hoc facite in meam commemorationem 25 similiter et calicem postquam cenavit dicens hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine hoc facite quotienscumque bibetis in meam commemorationem” – 1 Cor. 11: 23-25



 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

On July 7, 2015 the Dominicans of Avrille published a position statement in regards to the SSPX.  After reading it, I must say that I was disappointed.  This position statement demonstrates the wishy-washiness of the yellow light position.  I would expect by now, after the tsunami of evidence gathered over the last three years of the new direction of the SSPX under Bishop Fellay, that the Dominicans would come to hold the more logical and conclusive position, that is, the red light position.  Below are my comments in red font in response to parts of the Dominicans’ position statement, which is in blue font.


The position of the Friary has not changed since the foundation of our community, that is,we continue the combat for the Faith summarized perfectly by the Doctrinal Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre of November 21, 1974.




“The contacts that the Society continues occasionally with Roman authorities have for their only end to help these authorities to reappropriate the Tradition that the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity, and not the search for an advantage for ourselves, or to come to an impossible and purely practical agreement. The day when Tradition will once again regain all its rights, “the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth”. (1)




We support therefore all the priests still in the SSPX who, not without difficulty, continue the good fight in this spirit. By the grace of God, there are a good number of them, especially in the French District of the Society. The Appeal to the faithful of January 2014 was not a declaration of rupture with the SSPX, but a “public testimony of our firm and faithful attachment to the principles that always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the combat for the Faith”.


What?  First of all, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, no longer holds to the doctrinal and practical positions you’ve just outlined above, so how can you still declare that your friary is not in rupture with the SSPX?  Secondly, the priests who remain publicly silent allow Bishop Fellay to publicly represent their position.  How then can they be said to “continue the good fight in this spirit”?  The internal resistance is dead.  They will not change Bishop Fellay’s direction.  The time for internal resistance is long gone.


If there are priests outside of the Society who, clearly and without ambiguity, continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, there is no reason not to support them. To support them does not mean “taking sides” for one Society against another. We have no intention to do anything “against” the Society, and do not wish its collapse : nobody wants that.


Priests such as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, including the doctrinal and practical positions you’ve outlined above, whereas the SSPX under Bishop Fellay no longer does.  How then can you not “take sides”?  The SSPX has not only collapsed.  It is dead!


A suggestion for those who want to remain faithful to the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre: to the word “resistance”, we prefer the expression “combat for the faith”, not only because one does not define oneself by something negative; but because this expression exists since the beginning of Tradition, and includes all those who faithfully continue the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, no matter what organization they belong to.


“Combat for the Faith” is good, but Bishop Fellay now accepts Vatican II in the light of Tradition, so he is no longer combating for the Faith.  And the overwhelming majority of the SSPX priests are going along either by their explicit approval or public silence.  Therefore, the Dominicans should declare a “rupture” with the SSPX and adopt the red light position.


1.  Abp. Lefebvre, Letter to Pope Jean Paul II, 2 June 1988.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: , |

On Sunday June 28, 2015 in Connecticut, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer received Sr. Mariana Elizabeth of New Hampshire as a postulant of the Third Order Secular of St. Francis.  Deo gratias!


On Tuesday July 7, 2015 in New Zealand, Fr. Francois Chazal received Br. Theophilus and Sr. Bonaventura as postulants of the Third Order Secular of St. Francis.  Deo gratias again!  They are the first postulants outside of North America of the Third Order under the care of the SSPX-Marian Corps.


We welcome all three postulants to the Fraternity of St. Mary of the Angels.

 | Posted by | Categories: T.O.S.F. |

This article is from the October 1914 issue of the Franciscan Herald.

 | Posted by | Categories: T.O.S.F. |

This article is from the August 1914 issue of the Franciscan Herald.

 | Posted by | Categories: T.O.S.F. |

 | Posted by | Categories: Sermons |

The things foretold in the secret of Fatima are already starting to be fulfilled. We are no longer in the post WWII Cold War with the Communist USSR threatening to impose its atheistic regime on the entire world. Communist Russia did spread its errors throughout the world; but those errors were imported from London and New York by Jewish bankers whose puppets rule over the West, and those errors originated in the high-degree Jewish lodges of Freemasonry.


From the beginning, the Jews were at the helm of Soviet Communism, and those Gentiles who joined the Communist Party and took part in the Soviet government served the foreign and alien interests who plundered Russia for the sake of their own globalist Zionist empire.


The collapse of the USSR was engineered in order to provide the bankers with direct control over the mechanism of plunder. Yeltsin had to go along with it — the price he had to pay in order to rid Russia of Communist oppression. He handed Russia over to Vladimir Putin, who has been able to wrest the mechanism of plunder from the hands of Russia’s plunderers — but the bankster elite do not quietly accept defeat. They seek to provoke Russia to war with the US — a war that Russia will win at first, but which will fatally weaken Russia and make it vulnerable to Chinese invasion.


I have explained all of this in my book, The Mystery of Iniquity. Mr. Putin does not want to rule the world, but if he will be provoked into attacking the West, he will suffer the unintended consequence of playing into the globalist game plan to estsblish the New World Order. Not only the West and the rest of the world will suffer the worst possible oppression as a result, but Russia also will be in danger of total domination by forces inimical to the Russian nation. At that point, Russia will resist, and will be in danger of annihilation. It is precisely at that point in time that the Consecration of Russia will convert and save Russia; and by that means Russia will be instantly transformed from the instrument of chastisement into an instrument of grace, salvation and liberation from the godless antichrist empire.



 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

This article is from the July 1914 issue of the Franciscan Herald.

 | Posted by | Categories: T.O.S.F. |

I received a phone call this morning from someone who was confused by my apology in this post.  I want to make it clear that my apology did not imply a separation between the Our Lady of Good Success Mission and the SSPX-Marian Corps. Far be from it!  The Our Lady of Good Success Mission and I continue to fully support the SSPX-Marian Corps.  Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer and Fr. David Hewko are the pastors of the Our Lady of Good Success Mission.  We are so blessed to have these faithful warriors of Catholic Tradition and of the line of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!  My apology was directed towards unsubstantiated suspicions about reputations that I aroused in this post by questioning (the questions no longer appear in the post) the secrecy surrounding Bishop Williamson’s visit to Mahopac, New York, in an accusatory manner without sufficiently investigating the reasons for the secrecy.  For this, I stand by my apology.  To repair for my poor judgement, I requested of the author of the e-mail mentioned in my apology post if I could publish part of the e-mail that seemed to me to provide some justification for the secrecy.  During my conversation this morning, the caller came to understand my reasons for the apology post, but suggested that I post counterpoints to the points listed in the aforementioned e-mail.  I agreed that this was a good idea in fairness to those who have concerns about the secrecy.  I want to make clear, however, that I firmly believe that the author of the e-mail was sincere about the points made, regardless of whether the author was correct or mistaken in any of the points.


Below is a list of counterpoints, in blue font, from a poster of Archbishop Lefebvre Forums 2.0 who goes by the name of ‘Rose’.  The points of the author of the e-mail are in red font.  I did not post Rose’s response to ‘Fact 3’ because the author of the e-mail was not referring to the Resistance faithful outside of Fr. X’s group.  If the author of the e-mail and Rose want to continue the discussion, then they may do so on the forum itself.


Fact 1: No one knew (even the Confirmands!) where exactly the Confirmations were going to be held until the day before the event.


Even if the venue change happened as quickly and rapidly as it was noted here…it was never previously advertised, with the concomitant location change subsequently posted somewhere where the local faithful could find it. We in the Resistance are used to the frequent changes in Mass times/locations depending on availability. We tend to be very understanding. So while I don’t doubt the venue did change, its original and continued secrecy are at issue.


Fact 2: It was not even known for more than a week that there were going to be Confirmations.


If the person who wrote this was not aware until a week before, then that is poor communication within that group.  It was well known to the good Dominican fathers from France before the 16th of June that they were going to be in the CT/NY area for Confirmations that particular Sunday.


Fact 4: Bishop Williamson.  He is not only despised by many in the mainstream Y but is also despised by secularists.  That might have led to not only a disruption, but a loss of the facility altogether like Fact 3.  To say that Bishop Williamson’s presence in the W area was sensitive is an understatement.


The good Bishop has advertised his presence for Confirmations all over the US.  Is it only in NY/CT that he is not safe?  This is a weak reason to hide Confirmations.  Again, paranoia.  If the Bishop was concerned with his safety, these would all be private events.  We are not yet in the times of persecution, although they are bearing down upon us quickly.  The time for secrecy is not yet upon us.


So no, it is not ideal in the least that this event had to be kept quiet.  It was kept quiet out of necessity or it may not have come off at all.  I do not think this is unlike why the consecration of Bishop Faure was also kept quiet in South America.  Bishop Williamson (and Fr. X) have many enemies.


The consecration was announced, but only a few days before.  While +HE is not popular and may have enemies, he has these enemies for coming out and speaking the truth.  It is for those very reasons, because he publicly speaks the truth for the world to hear/see.  We do not see this with Fr. X.  So his enemies are secret because no one is sure of what he preaches.


What Fr. X is doing in that community is heroic, and if you knew half of what was going on there, I have no doubt that you would agree.


The only trouble is, no one has any idea except his followers because no one else is privy to that information.  My understanding is that he is trying to build a retreat house and school in that area.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |