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 |


Audio Only:

The following comment, in green font, is from Fr. Raphael, O.S.B., in response to my request to give me feedback regarding “A Refutation of a Catechetical Refutation”.  I have the permission of Fr. Raphael to publish it.


Dear Tony,


I liked your paper from the beginning to end.  I think it is beautifully profound and you draw the same conclusions I did.


My blessings.


Fr. Raphael, O.S.B.


Fr. Raphael linked to the web page containing my paper in the Winter 2016 issue of his monastery bulletin. The following is the portion of my paper that he also included in the same bulletin:


“As for those of us who want to remain wholly faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, the modern day St. Athanasius, let us continue his fight.  We must reject the Novus Ordo Mass wholesale.  We must never celebrate it, actively attend it, or advise others ‘in a positive manner’ to actively attend it.”


Please morally and financially support this holy monk and his monastery.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

You may download here the Winter 2016 Bulletin of the Monastery of St. Joseph in Ecuador with Fr. Raphael, O.S.B., as the Prior.  Father and his four monks had to move to Ecuador from Colombia due to problems they had encountered.  Thank God that all the monks remained firm together during their crisis.  And what better land to move to than that of Our Lady of Good Success!  The bulletin shows pictures of their new home.


Fr. Raphael is a warrior of Our Lady.  He makes no compromises with the Novus Ordo Mass and is a red lighter.  He is faithful to the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and opposes the errors of those who have abandoned the Archbishop’s position(s).  I thank him for providing a link in this bulletin to “A Refutation of a Catechetical Refutation”, which I wrote to tear apart the erroneous ideas and principles that Mr. Sean Johnson presented in trying to defend Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.


Please consider donating to Fr. Raphael.  Your donation will go a long way in supporting warriors of Catholic Tradition.  You may donate at the following link:

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

We would like to remind our readers that we cannot go to the NOM.
To support this recommendation, we refer to two sources:
1) The teaching of the SSPX prior to the change in direction:
2) The teaching of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre which follows:
“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat; can be found in A Bishop Speaks)


as translated at


We remind our readers to re-read the works left to us by the Archbishop. They are possibly even more relevant to our situation today than they were at the time he wrote them. Truth does not change!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

You may download here a paper I wrote called A Refutation of “A Catechetical Refutation”:  Regarding a Defence Made of Bishop Williamson’s Comments on the Novus Ordo in response to a thesis in Mr. Sean Johnson’s paper called A Catechetical Refutation:  Regarding Certain Objections Made to Bishop Williamson’s Comments on the Novus Ordo in which he defends Bishop Richard Williamson’s advice to a lady during a conference given in Mahopac, NY on June 28, 2015 regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.  I argue that Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady transgressed the Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X written by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1981 on this essential matter.


I beg His Excellency to retract his advice and return to the position of his spiritual father, who consecrated him a bishop to carry forward the promotion and defence of Catholic Tradition.  This must needs include the wholesale rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass and its active attendance.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

SSPX and Visiting Priests

12 August 2016

Recently I received the following e-mail:


“St. Mary’s, KS recently has had separate visits by two priests, Fr. Tilosanec and Fr. McLucas.


“Fr. McLucas offered mass there a few weeks ago.


“Fr. Tilosaec offered masses, (one on a Sunday), heard confessions, and left ciboria of consecrated hosts in the tabernacle.


“Both priests were ordained in the dubious New Rite. Both have not been conditionally reordained, as was the requirement of Archbishop Lefebvre and the ‘Old SSPX’.


“Needless to say this has caused quite a stir in St. Mary’s.


“District headquarters was contacted by several people to no avail. The response was that conditional reordination is no longer necessary. Parishoners were told to ‘trust the SSPX’.


“Attached are two handwritten letters (see here and here) by the Archbishop about apostate Rome and conditional reordination.


“Be aware of ‘visiting priests’ at the SSPX.”


My postface:


The neo-SSPX is sinking more and more into the Novus Ordo world.  It was toast years ago, but its colour becomes more like charcoal with each passing day.  And yet there are those who claim to be part of the Resistance who still try to justify their attendance at neo-SSPX Masses!  Even worse there are supposed Resistance bishops and priests who tell these attendees that it is okay to attend the Masses of certain neo-SSPX priests despite the fact that these same neo-SSPX priests have failed to publicly speak out against their leadership’s betrayal (now for over four years) of Catholic Tradition and the mission and memory of their saintly founder, Archbishop Lefebvre!  Incredible!  What exactly are these so called yellow lighters resisting?  The common justification given is that these neo-SSPX priests are doctrinally orthodox in that they don’t teach heresy or errors, but only the truth.  My counterargument is that, even if it true that they teach only the truth, is it really sufficient to teach the truth, but avoid condemning errors being taught by your own superiors?  No!  The flock need to be warned.  These superiors have been given plenty of opportunity to publicly retract their errors, but they have not done so.  Bishop Fellay, for example, still thinks that there is nothing wrong with his abominable April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.


My friends, we must follow the mind of the Church in teaching the truth AND condemning errors contrary to that truth.  These “doctrinally orthodox” neo-SSPX priests need to publicly condemn the errors of their superiors.  Otherwise, they are really no better than the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter priests who do the same in teaching the truth, but remain publicly silent against the errors of their own superiors and consequently place their flock in spiritual danger.  And the yellow lighters need to become red lighters.  They can’t scream and shout against the errors of the neo-SSPX superiors, but then unite in the greatest act of public worship with priests who remain publicly silent against the same errors of these same superiors.  Rather, they should get in the trenches, forgo the sacraments if they have to, and feed instead on the Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Spiritual Communions, traditional devotions, etc.  May of us have done so for years and, by the grace of God, are still going strong.  Deo gratias!

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