| Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

You may download here a document written recently by Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, faithful son of Archbishop Lefebvre, in which he makes it clear that we must not attend Novus Ordo, Indult, Sedevacantist, or Neo-SSPX Masses.  Furthermore, no canonical agreement with Rome can be had until Rome converts back to the Catholic Faith.


Oh, how I wish that the three “Resistance” bishops, and the new one to come, would be so clear in their teachings regarding Mass attendance.  One of these bishops, consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre’s own hands, even teaches that one may attend any of the above Masses if one feels attendance will bear fruit.  What a shame!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson made the following statement in Issue 505 (March 18, 2017 – Catholic Life?) of his Eleison Comments:


“…..in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you,…..”


Since His Excellency does not qualify this statement, we may interpret it as meaning that one may go to a Tridentine Mass celebrated by priests of the neo-SSPX, Ecclesia Dei religious communities, diocese, or those priests who hold the Sedevacantist position.  Is this an unfair interpretation?  No.  Most in the world of Catholic Tradition know by now that His Excellency has conceded that one may even actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances.  Once one takes this position, he does not have a leg to stand on if he rejects attendance at a Tridentine Mass.


My friends, was this the spirit of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?  Did he advise us to go to “the least contaminated Tridentine Mass”?  Let us read the words of the Archbishop himself:


“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’  – but THEY ARE BETRAYING US  – betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.


“Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?


“This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. ‘It’s a pity we are divided’, they say, ‘why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them’  – that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.”

(Two Years after the Consecrations)


Let us read the position of the Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Lefebvre regarding attendance at Masses of the Ecclesia Dei communities:


“They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.


“This being so, attending their Mass is:


“accepting the compromise on which they are based,


“accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and


“accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.


“That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.”

(SSPX FAQS, Question #13)


Bishop Williamson’s position on this matter is clearly not in line with that of his spiritual father.  Rather, with this position, and with many in the “Trad” world flocking to him, defending him, and/or being silent on the matter, Bishop Williamson seems to have become a de facto leader of tradecumenism.  A true follower of the Archbishop will want no part in it.


On this Feast of the Annunciation, the 26th Anniversary of the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, let us pray that Bishop Williamson returns to the position of his spiritual father in all essential matters.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Note:  After reading the post below, the reader must then read the article linked in this post for correction to any errors and/or inaccuracies that may exist in the post below.


I want to preface what I am about to state that I, Tony La Rosa, speak only for myself.


The last Mass I attended with either Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer or Fr. David Hewko was with Fr. David Hewko on Sunday October 25, 2015 (Feast of Christ the King).  Shortly thereafter, the Our Lady of Good Success Mission (now defunct) separated itself from these two Fathers because of the Ambrose Moran issue.  On November 7, 2015, the Fathers issued a public statement in which they declared that their association with Ambrose Moran was severed.  However, no reasons were provided.  This public statement brought relief to many of the faithful, but not to me.  It was not sufficient for me that the association was severed; rather, I wanted the Fathers to make public the reasons for the sudden disassociation after they had promoted Ambrose Moran as a bishop who would possibly help with the Our Lady of Mount Carmel seminary.  Furthermore, I wanted the Fathers to acknowledge that Ambrose Moran was a fraud.  I had suspicions that the Fathers knew that Ambrose Moran was a fraud, but that they did not want to publicly admit it; they did not want to admit that they were fooled.  With these thoughts in my head, I collaborated with Fr. Juan Ortiz in helping him write his paper called “A Theological and Canonical Study on the Case of William Edward, a.k.a. Ambrose, Moran-Dolgorouky”, published on December 19, 2015.  This paper was a first step in a potential two-step process.  The purpose of this paper was to show the Fathers (and the world) that Ambrose Moran was indeed a fraud and also a schismatic.  There was hope that by presenting solid evidence the Fathers would be either awakened to the truth of Ambrose Moran or at least pressure them to come clean.  Unfortunately, what was hoped for was not achieved.  The second step was now activated; part 2 of 2 of the paper was written called “A Theological and Canonical Study on the Case of William Edward, a.k.a. Ambrose, Moran-Dolgorouky”, published on March 17, 2016.  The purpose of this second part was to convince the priests and faithful to stop associating and attending the Masses of the Fathers on account of their involvement with a schismatic, until they publicly repented.  Many people took heed of this and stopped doing so.  The Fathers, however, did not budge.


After the publication of the second part, I continued listening to the Fathers’ sermons and conferences.  I thought to myself that if the Fathers were just trying to sweep Ambrose Moran under the rug because of embarrassment, then God would stop blessing their work.  Perhaps this would take the form of the Fathers getting caught up in some other serious scandal, moving away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on some essential matter, or even worse, adopting grave doctrinal errors.  Another thought that came into my mind (really since the November 7, 2015 public statement) is that perhaps the Fathers were waiting for a more opportune time to re-introduce Ambrose Moran back into the picture after the backlash had settled down.  However, to this very day, the Fathers continue to publicly stand by their position that Ambrose Moran is a true Catholic bishop, but there have been no sightings of Ambrose Moran near the Fathers for well over a year; they have kept true to their public statement of disassociation.  Furthermore, and more importantly, the Fathers continue to be valiant defenders of the Archbishop’s work despite the criticism and persecution they have faced from their confreres for opposing the three Resistance bishops in their sliding away, by commission and/or omission, from the Archbishop’s work.  The Fathers have faithfully defended the Archbishop’s work by, for example, publicly and forcefully opposing attendance at the New Mass, attendance at Sedevacantist and “non una cum” Masses, and Bishop Williamson’s errors regarding attendance at these Masses.  Furthermore, the Fathers continue to reject Vatican II wholesale and continue to maintain the red light position, which is ever so vital to the true Resistance.  What then am I to make of all this?  I have come to the conclusion that the Fathers’ past involvement with Ambrose Moran has not been a debilitating obstacle preventing them from keeping alive the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.  I cannot answer for certain why despite the fact that the Fathers have not recanted their position regarding Ambrose Moran and have not made public reparation.  I can only tell you what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears over the past year, that is, that the Fathers have shown themselves to continue to be true spiritual sons of the Archbishop.  Therefore, as I myself am a staunch defender of the Archbishop, I have decided that I will return to attending the Masses of the Fathers, if they will have me.  I am making this public statement in justice and charity because I had previously publicly and privately tried to convince others to stay away from the Fathers’ Masses.  For those of you who didn’t listen and stuck with the Fathers, time has shown in my estimation that you were right and I was wrong.  For those of you that did listen, I apologize.  I can only tell you that I did what I thought was most prudent at the time.  Perhaps the reasons I have presented for returning to the Fathers are not sufficient for you.  I am sorry if this is the case, but in the end we each have to decide for ourselves in this time of confusion in which the Church authorities are not doing their job in weeding out the wolves from the sheep.  And the mess that exists in the Resistance is not making it any easier.  I can only ask you that if you truly consider yourself a faithful follower of the Archbishop, please pay close attention to who is most keeping his memory alive and well.


Finally, to Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, I am sorry for the grief I have caused you.  I hope you will forgive me.  I will make reparation by promoting your work on the Ecclesia Militans website.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., because of some comments he made regarding the Conciliar Church and its relation to the Catholic Church in his most recent newlsetter, is now being labelled by some as a Sedevacantist or bordering on becoming a Sedevacantist.  Yet let us take a look at what the same Fr. Rafael wrote in his August/September 2015 newsletter (bold mine):


“The Conciliar Church since Vatican II, fifty years already by now, have incorporated the false principles of the Revolution to its doctrine as if were its own. These are principles already condemned by the Catholic Church in many occasions by her infallible magisterium. Fifty years have passed through since the apostasy began, the treason; fifty years of having uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ placing instead in His place, men himself, and his “sacred” liberty. And now Pope Francis is calling for a “holy” Jubilee for the celebration of those fifty years of apostasy.”


“By performing these deeds, the SSPX has canonized Vatican II calling it “holy” as they celebrate its anniversary. Also the SSPX is placing on them the label of “Catholics” by accepting to work together with them. By labeling as catholic the new masonic apostate Church, The SSPX is misleading thousands of Catholics towards apostasy. By these blind deeds of traitor compromise, the SSPX is cooperating with the destruction of the Catholic Church by omission and commission.”


Wow!  Father goes so far as stating that the Conciliar Church is an “apostate” Church.  Yet note that he still calls Francis “Pope”.  Why then are some being frantic about what Father writes in his latest newsletter?  Oh, yes; it’s because Father now criticizes the three “Resistance” bishops for their sliding away, by commission or omission, from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.  And there’s no way the aptly named “false” Resistance can take that!  So they attack Father using the same smear tactics that Bishop Fellay and his cohorts used when the Resistance was first rising:  “You’re a Sedevacantist!”


My friends, the “false” Resistance gets what it deserves for the weak yellow light position, led by one of its bishops, it has been propagating for the past four years:  a smoochfest with the Conciliar Church!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

Today is the fifth anniversary of that infamous sermon given by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota.  The following is the quote that really caught my ear back then:


“We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready.”


By these words Bishop Fellay publicly opposed the old SSPX adage of “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution”.  In other words, he publicly adopted a position in opposition to that of the SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who from the 1988 Consecrations onward clearly and firmly held the position that Rome must accept the pre-conciliar Magisterial teachings prior to the resumption of discussions regarding a canonical regularization.  It is true that there were almost two years of doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX prior to this sermon, but the conclusion reached was that each party could not convince the other of its position.


My friends, does this make any sense?  The SSPX starts the doctrinal discussions with Rome in 2009 with the position that the doctrinal differences between the two parties must be resolved prior to any canonical regularization.  Then almost two years of discussions are held after which both parties cannot come to an agreement on the doctrinal discrepancies.  Nonetheless, soon after Bishop Fellay is willing to accept a canonical regularization so long as Rome accepts the SSPX “as is”.  Huh?


You may also listen to the Feb. 2, 2012 sermon here.  Start at the 39:50 mark if you want to hear Bishop Fellay’s statement quoted above.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

With the canonical regularization of the neo-SSPX looming, below are links to two articles I wrote a while ago related to this subject:


The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops


“No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

In this post, I challenged the owner of CathInfo to debate my paper in which I tore apart Mr. Sean Johnson’s paper regarding the subject of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.  I am not surprised that the owner turned down my challenge.  You may read his lame response here.  Perhaps the owner should refrain in the future from making ad hominem attacks and concentrate instead on making constructive counterarguments.  Nevertheless, the reality is that CathInfo has deviated from the line of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre because of the owner’s defence of Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.  Hence, CathInfo is a pseudo Archbishop Lefebvre forum.


There is another forum which claims itself faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, so much so that it is called “Archbishop Lefebvre Forum“.  This forum houses Mr. Sean Johnson (forum name is Br. Athanasius T.O.P.) as a moderator.  You can guess, then, which side this forum takes on the debate regarding Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY.  However, Br. Athanasius T.O.P. and the forum owner (forum name is Samuel), to their credit, have allowed me some leeway in debating issues of contention.  They have allowed my paper to be published and have even put forth points of criticism, although these points are weak (listen to Episode 3 of Ecclesia Militans Radio where I spoke about a couple of these weak points).  In addition, unlike the owner of CathInfo, they have allowed Episode 3 of Ecclesia Militans Radio to be and remain published.  It is in response to this post made by Samuel regarding Episode 3 that I would like to make a few comments.


Samuel states, “A bit disappointing that no new arguments were presented in this rather long monologue, just the same old assumptions and prepackaged conclusions.”  But Samuel I don’t need new arguments because neither you nor Br. Athanasius have been able to successfully counter-argue the main thesis in my paper that Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY runs contrary to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.  The counterpoints you brought up, especially the one regarding advising someone to steal a smaller amount, are at best poor reasoning.  They show the mental somersaults you perform in order to try to defend the indefensible.


Samuel states, “Unless someone can come up with some clear Church doctrine that proves what Tony is trying to present as a fact, I see no other option than to wait until the Church one day settles the matter for us.”  So let me get this straight, Samuel.  Until the Church finally pronounces on the goodness or badness of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, its goodness or badness will remain open for debate. Is that what you are saying?  I think that it is precisely what you are saying.  Let us take a look at this post, which you wrote on October 6, 2016 (see here for the link to the full page).  You stated, “Likewise with the NOM, we can recognize and treat it as sacrilegious, but we cannot elevate this opinion (emphasis mine) to the level of a dogma.”  So to you, Samuel, the goodness or badness of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is a matter of opinion.  Is this the level of certitude that the Archbishop held on this matter?  No!  First of all, I want to make clear that it is true that the Archbishop did not raise his position regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass to the level of dogma.  He knew he could not do that; I know I cannot do that.  However, one does not have to hold a position as dogmatic prior to promoting that position without fear of the opposite being true.  There are other degrees of certitude such as physical and moral certitude.  It is with a moral certitude that the Archbishop held (as do I) that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is bad in itself (i.e., intrinsically evil).  Otherwise, he would not have had his seminarians sign a Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the SSPX in which they promised to never celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass and never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in it.  Declarations are not written and signed as opinion pieces.  But to you, Samuel, that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is bad in itself is merely an opinion.  You will wait instead until the Church makes a definitive pronouncement.  How then does your position (i.e., that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is not bad in itself – taken from the fact that you support Bishop Williamson’s position) differ substantially from those who actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass themselves?


My friends, Samuel’s line of thinking is the type that results from straying from the clear line of Archbishop Lefebvre in defending the hazy line of Bishop Williamson.  As with CathInfo, Samuel’s forum is a pseudo Archbishop Lefebvre forum.  One cannot claim to be faithful to the Archbishop and deviate from his position on such a core issue as active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.


Samuel, the true followers of the Archbishop would most appreciate if you would change your forum’s name to “Bishop Williamson Forum”.  Please and thank you!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Yesterday (Jan. 7, 2017 GMT) the owner of CathInfo started a thread on his website with this post.  This was his response to a thread that Br. Joseph had started shortly before in which he, Br. Joseph, linked to Episode 3 of Ecclesia Militans Radio.  The following are a few facts that I would like to point out in response to the owner’s post.


On October 4, 2016, I published my paper called A Refutation of “A Catechetical Refutation” in which I tore apart the sloppy defence by Mr. Sean Johnson of His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson regarding advice the bishop gave to a lady in Mahopac, NY, in June 2015 on Novus Ordo Mass attendance.  Br. Joseph started a thread on CathInfo on the same day in which he linked to my paper.  I could not do it myself because I had been banned for some time.  The owner shortly thereafter interceded and cut the thread short claiming that he had already started a thread on the same topic.  See here and here.  The thread, however, that the owner had already started was not directly related to my paper; rather, the thread was Mr. Sean Johnson’s rebuttal to the refutation made against his paper in the September 2016 issue of The Recusant.  See here.  Furthermore, the owner did not link at all to my paper.  Instead, it was linked to by another forum member a few posts later.  See here.  The thread died off at that point.  On December 4, 2016, to my surprise, I received an e-mail that seemed to reactivate my account on CathInfo.  I tried to log in and it worked.  A couple of weeks later (I don’t have a record of the exact date), I started a thread on CathInfo in which I myself posted a link to my paper and was ready to defend it.  Within a short time, the owner removed the thread and banned me again without stating a reason for doing so.


Given what I wrote above, it is disingenuous, therefore, for the owner of CathInfo to claim in yesterday’s post, “If someone wants to debate Sean’s Catechetical Refutation, let them come here, and debate it in text.”  My paper is the most thorough paper that I have seen to date in refuting Mr. Sean Johnson’s defence of the advice Bishop Williamson gave to the lady in Mahopac; I have yet to see any substantial rebuttal.  Instead of attacking specific points in my paper, the owner resorts to ad hominem attacks that I am not a theologian, bishop, or priest, and that I have not even spent time in a seminary.  That I am not any of these and that I have not spent time in a seminary, he is correct.  However, that doesn’t make me an idiot.  I have been a Traditional Catholic for thirteen years and can hold my own on many theological points.  More importantly, two Resistance priests have read my paper and have given it the thumbs up.


I call upon the owner of CathInfo to reactivate my account and challenge him to debate my paper…..if he’s got the intestinal fortitude to do so.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |