Over three years ago I wrote a post called “In Defence of the Red Light Position”.  Those in the true Resistance should not forget this important position in our fight against the liberal direction taken by the leaders of the neo-SSPX.  It is easy to do so because of the many divisions that have occurred in the Resistance since I wrote this post.  Remember that at that time Bishop Williamson had not yet publicly stated that one may actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances.  Bishop Faure was consecrated a few months before and Bishops Thomas Aquinas and Zendajas were consecrated the following years.  As it stands today, despite everything that has happened within the neo-SSPX since 2012, not one of these four bishops have publicly proclaimed the red light position.  What a shame.  Unfortunately, some of the red light priests that maintained their association with the ministry of the four bishops have either changed their position to yellow or have gone silent regarding the red.  This is one of the negative influences effected by the four bishops.  One cannot walk into a smoke-filled room and expect to come out smelling like roses.


My friends in the true Resistance, let us keep strong and public in the promotion and defence of the red light position.  Let us keep with priests that hold the red light position and are not afraid to publicly proclaim it.  Let us also keep with priests who don’t look to the false resistance bishops to bring the sacrament of Holy Orders for their seminarians or priests that look to “bishops” who in turn bring with them questionably valid sacraments.


Below is the link to the post I wrote.  Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., a true Resistance priest, read it and approved of it on September 7, 2018.


In Defence of the Red Light Position

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: |

You may download here an English translation of the December 19, 2016 Letter to Family, Faithful, and Friends by Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., of the St. Joseph Monastery in Ecuador.


In this letter, Fr. Rafael takes on the yellow lighters, that is, those who say that they are resisting the neo-SSPX from within.  The yellow lighters will scream and shout during the week on blogs and forums against the new direction of neo-SSPX, but then unite with their enemies in the greatest act of worship, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on Sundays.  What kind of resistance is that!


Just look where the yellow light position has taken us:


“It’s okay to go to the Masses of the neo-SSPX priests.”

“It’s okay to go to the Masses of the Sedevacantists.”

“It’s okay to go to the Masses of the ‘non una cum’ priests.”

“It’s okay to go to the Masses of the Feeneyites.”

“It’s okay to go to the Masses of the Novus Ordo priests!”


Oh, I forgot to mention a condition for the above:  “….as long as they are not dogmatic about their positions.”


My friends, do you really think the yellow lighters will stop attending the neo-SSPX Masses after a canonical regularization is announced?  If you really think so, I am sorry to tell you that you are deluded.  You will be able to count on one hand the number who will stop attending.  Their compromised position has softened them into whipped cream.


To remain strong, we must keep the red light position of the Archbishop!

 | Posted by | Categories: Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., Uncategorized | Tagged: , |

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: , |

Fr. Raphael Arizaga, O.S.B., Prior of the San Jose Monastery in Columbia wrote an article called “Friendship with the New-SSPX” that has been published in the April 2016 issue (see p. 17) of the Catholic Candle.  In this article, Fr. Raphael espouses the red light position.  Here is what he concludes:


“Uncompromising Catholics must consider this as a ‘red light’ to attending the Masses of all SSPX priests because they all cooperate with our Lord’s enemies at least by being members of the new-SSPX and also by softening their opposition to SSPX liberalism to the lower level tolerated by their SSPX superiors. Any SSPX priest who believes that he is speaking out strongly, loudly and continually against the liberalism of his SSPX superiors, is fooling himself.


“Any priest who fearlessly stands against SSPX liberalism can count on our help amplifying his voice by which he opposes his superiors’ liberalism. Then he will soon no longer be in the (so-called) internal resistance because he will see how fast the iron fist of Menzingen crushes and expels him as soon as he begins to really make a difference by standing fearlessly against his superiors’ liberalism.


“At that time, uncompromising Catholics will have a ‘green light’ to attend his Masses because then he also will be an uncompromising soldier of Christ the King.”


So true!  And how sad it is for those yellow lighters who fight only half-heartedly by the fact that they either continue to assist at Masses offered by such compromising priests or give the thumbs up to others to continue doing so.


The yellow light position has been a scourge in that it has helped debilitate the growth of the Resistance.  


May the yellow lighters open up their eyes soon and see “red”. 

 | Posted by | Categories: Fr. Rafael, O.S.B. | Tagged: , |

In the February 20, 2016 issue of His Excellency Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments, it is announced that Dom Thomas Aquinas, Prior of the Holy Cross Monastery in Nova Friburgo, Brazil, will be consecrated a bishop on March 19, 2016, Feast of St. Joseph, at the same monastery.  Deo gratias!  I believe that Dom Thomas Aquinas is a good choice as he has proven himself over many years to be a warrior of Catholic Tradition and faithful follower of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  I do hope, however, that he will publicly espouse the red light position, unlike Bishops Williamson and Faure who have more or less adopted the yellow light position.  As I proposed in this post, the yellow light position has debilitated the growth of the Catholic Resistance; the red light position will bolster it.


Please keep Dom Thomas Aquinas in your prayers.


From left to right: Bishop Jean-Michel Faure, Bishop Richard Williamson, Dom Thomas Aquinas (future bishop)

From left to right: Bishop Jean-Michel Faure (priest at the time this picture was taken), Bishop Richard Williamson, Dom Thomas Aquinas (future bishop)

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: |

December 8, 2015 has come and is coming to a close.  There has been much hype amongst Traditional Catholics that this might have very well been the day that the neo-SSPX would officially announce a canonical agreement with Rome in the form of a Personal Prelature.  It is 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time – the time of the writing of this post; no announcement will be coming forth this day.


What does this lack of announcement mean for yellow lighters, that is, those Resistance clergy and faithful that for now reduce the acceptability of attending neo-SSPX Masses to the quality of the individual neo-SSPX priest?  Well, they will just have to wait longer before red lighting neo-SSPX Masses as the announcing of a canonical agreement is the red line that most Resistance clergy and faithful have drawn.  These yellow lighters, however, may very well be yellow lighting for some time to come.  Meanwhile, after three years and still counting, the Resistance movement has not gained much ground and is now weakening before our very eyes.


I propose that the yellow light position is partly guilty for the lack of gaining ground and current weakening of the Resistance movement.  The argument goes something like this:


The yellow light position is wishy-washy.  It keeps neo-SSPX priests and the faithful that have never stopped attending their Masses from leaving the neo-SSPX and consequently keeps the Resistance from growing.  On the other hand, as time drags on with the neo-SSPX and Rome continuing to negotiate, but without reaching a canonical agreement (or at least not announcing one potentially already signed), most Resistance priests maintain the yellow light position until an agreement is announced.  Meanwhile, some yellow light faithful get weary of the fight and/or become gradually absorbed into the neo-SSPX mentality causing them to permanently reintegrate with the neo-SSPX.  I would not be surprised if even red light faithful become negatively affected by continuous attendance at the Masses of yellow light clergy. Furthermore, the yellow light clergy themselves are susceptible to soften as time goes by.


And what is an underlying cause of the yellow light position itself?  It is that its holders fail to grasp that the neo-SSPX is toast right now and has been since 2012 because of its betrayal (i.e., April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, 2012 General Chapter Statement and Six Conditions, canonical agreement without Rome’s conversion, etc.) of the Catholic Faith.  This betrayal constitutes the marriage between the neo-SSPX and Rome; the canonical agreement will only constitute the consummation of that marriage.  Now yellow lighters will say either that the marriage has not yet taken place or that it has not yet been consummated.  To the former I say, “What more evidence do you need?  Why is the tsunami of evidence that has accumulated thus far not sufficient for you to conclude that a betrayal of the Catholic Faith has taken place?  The mere will of the neo-SSPX to join Modernist Rome without its conversion should be sufficient to show a betrayal of the Faith because it places the Faith in harm’s way.”  To the latter I say, “What person in their right mind would say that a marriage between a man and woman is not valid until it is consummated?  The validity of a marriage is sufficient to say that the bride and groom are off limits to anybody else who has a sense of decency.  Likewise, the validity of the marriage between the neo-SSPX and Rome is sufficient to say that they are off limits to both priests and faithful who claim to love the Catholic Faith.”


Unfortunately, the yellow light position proposes that the woman (neo-SSPX) is still available to other men (priests and faithful) because a marriage has not yet taken place or that the bride (neo-SSPX) is still available to other men (priests and faithful) because the marriage has not yet been consummated.  Sigh.  If we want the Resistance movement to (re)gain ground, I believe red lighting will give it a boost that it dearly needs.

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

RedI really (also) like the Machabees post in response to Tony’s article:


As with the catholic Roman soldiers who were inside the organization and garrison of the Roman institution, they could not effect the line of thinking handed down to them from their leaders; they were either transferred, expelled, or killed.

Nicodemus could not effect change either being inside. He could only be a ‘secret’ follower of our Lord.

Our Lord was the greatest example of being a ‘red lighter’. While recognizing the appropriate authority, He made the change from being on the outside of the hypocritical environment in order to freely preach the True Faith His Father gave to Him to uphold and to instill in the minds and hearts of the people. To see, hear, and understand our Lord, this required the people to leave the compromised environment also in order to find the Tree of Life.

Such was Archbishop Lefebvre’s faith and leadership to encouraging Catholics to get OUT of the compromising and dangerous environment. Some heeded his wisdom; some did not and then became the worst haters of tradition they said they wanted to hold fast to. There is no such thing as an internal resistance within a den of compromise.

We are not meant to serve an institution over the faith; institutions exist to serve the faith. These neo-priests and people need to find their priorities and hold a conviction on the power of the Cross and not on the power of men.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized | Tagged: |

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: , |

Let us recall what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said about those who want to shake hands with the Modernists whilst giving the impression of maintaining the fight for Catholic Tradition:


“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!”
(Two Years after the Consecrations, Address to Priests in Econe, Switzerland, September 6, 1990).


One can safely say that many in the current SSPX leadership fit into the category of people that Archbishop Lefebvre condemned in his statement above.  However, what can one say about those SSPX priests who do not agree with the current SSPX leadership’s position, but refuse to publicly speak out against the new direction?  Would Archbishop Lefebvre condemn them too?  In order to make a fair assessment, I think that one really needs to answer this question:  Is the public silence of the SSPX priests regarding the public liberalism of their leadership a betrayal of the Faith?  I answer in the affirmative.  Without getting into subjective judgements of the souls of any SSPX priests (or laymen), the following is my argument.


One does not have to positively accept or actively promote a liberal idea in order to be a traitor. A soldier that allows the enemy in because of fear for his life is still a traitor, albeit to a lesser degree than a soldier who accepts money to let the enemy in.  The essence of the two acts are, nevertheless, the same.  Furthermore, by the priests’ public silence, they allow their leadership to publicly represent their stance (e.g., the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration, the 2012 General Chapter Six Conditions, etc.).  To illustrate the importance of this point more clearly, here is an example.  If I were a member of a political party that was pro-life in its policy and then the leadership of the party convened and changed the policy to pro-abortion without requiring me to sign anything in agreement with the new policy but requiring me to not publicly oppose the new policy under the threat of being kicked out of the party, would it be morally licit for me to keep quiet?  No.  I would be morally obligated to publicly speak out.  What if, however, the policy was not changed but the leadership began and continued to publicly show leniency towards abortion despite private protests to retract the leniency; would it now be morally licit for me to keep quiet?  No.  I would still be morally obligated to publicly speak out.  In either case, my public silence would be a betrayal of the pro-life stance regardless if I am personally, perfectly pro-life and never positively speak or display otherwise.  The same line of reasoning, then, is applied to SSPX priests who remain publicly silent on the liberalism of their leadership.


What about the layman who assists at Masses of these SSPX priests?  Well, given the betrayal on the part of the SSPX priest, even if he were otherwise doctrinally orthodox and even if one’s own Faith is not placed in harm by attending his chapel, to actively unite in the greatest act of worship with a priest who remains publicly silent in the face of the public liberalism of his leadership is a co-operation, on the part of the layman, in that act of betrayal.  Why?  We are not speaking here about the layman simply enjoying a cup of coffee with such a priest; rather, we are speaking about the layman uniting with a priest, who is representing himself as an alter Christus in the most eminent degree, in that greatest act of worship (i.e., the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) which itself is the most magnificent and ultimate expression of that Catholic Faith that the priest, nevertheless, fails to publicly defend in the face of the public liberalism evident in his own backyard.  The layman, by actively uniting with the priest in this greatest act of worship (which again is the magnificent and ultimate expression of the Catholic Faith), implicitly admits the moral uprightness of the priest in regards to the Catholic Faith in both the priest’s public profession and public defence of the same Catholic Faith.    Furthermore, by the fact that the priest’s leadership publicly betrays the Catholic Faith and that the priest remains publicly silent on this betrayal, the priest allows his leadership to publicly represent his stance in regards to the Catholic Faith.  Therefore, the layman also implicitly admits the moral uprightness of the priest’s leadership in regards to the Catholic Faith in both the leadership’s public profession and public defence of the same Catholic Faith.  This co-operation in the betrayal, on the part of the layman, is the case even if the layman publicly speaks out against the public liberalism of the priest’s leadership because the act of the layman’s actively uniting in the greatest act of worship with the priest undermines the layman’s own stance.  As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.”  Therefore, it is an act of hypocrisy and of compromise on the part of the layman.

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