CathInfo.com

I should add a couple of arguments that I noticed while revisiting my discussion with Gregory:

First, regarding the New Mass comments, he answered that Lefebvre later went harsher later on, while Williamson apparently went the "other way, becoming softer and softer": This was not my point with Lefebvres quote, my point was merely that it was Lefebvre allowed some people privately (not publicly) to go to "good" Novus Ordo Masses. But Greg still doesn't get it:



Another guy also wanted me to travel back in time, otherwise he won't believe me that the quote is real, saying the quote (which is from "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre") is "hearsay":




It is COMPLETELY POINTLESS to argue with these people, even if presented with quotes that contradict their narrative, they will simply deny that the quote is real, that Williamson knew Lefebvre privately, etc. Everything is projected through their narrative and lens.

Apparently Fr. Chazal also doesn't have a "real" seminary, according to the judgement of Taylor. So, we are still missing seminaries, True Resistance seminaries of course, where True Resistance theology is taught, according to the gusto of Gregory Taylor. Daily "two minutes hate" against Bishop Williamson included, I suppose.



Not sure how many ordinations they had in the seminary of Fr. Pfeiffer... oh right, zero. So, we need to now "condemn" Bishop Williamson for his opinions in 2015, despite the fact that there are seminaries now (remember, it's okay for them to dig up past issues). Fr. Chazal is apparently also not putting in enough effort, we need to improve our seminaries until they fit the "True Resistance" standards of Gregory Taylor.

Here's Gregory also desperately trying to "prove" that Fr. de Aquino approves of the New Mass:







First Gregory claims Fr. de Aquino is promoting "errors", then backs it up by a completely unrelated article from 2016 (where Fr. de Aquino only explains that valid NO miracles don't mean that the New Mass is licit or good to go). And then, when he's called out on his mistakes, he claims that I am the one bringing up stuff from ten years ago (??? who is riding around about "errors" from 2016?). Oh and he apparently "lost count" of all the parishioners who went back in droves to the New Mass, apparently. That totally happened.

And then he still goes on, even AFTER I clarified the misunderstanding that a VALID consecration doesn't mean a LICIT Mass:



Ah yes, all bishops are simply confused on the distinction between "valid" and "licit" Mass - only Gregory Taylor and his followers have the correct teaching that "valid consecration = New Mass approval".

Any questioning on the issue of what Fr. Hewko did with this Ambrose Moran guy is met with handwaving (one is not allowed to ask about whether Fr. Hewko knew that Fr. Pfeiffer used Moran to "reordain" an FSSP priest in 2018), one may not ask about that, no, no, no. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine to dig up issues from 2013 for him and complain about seminaries and hierarchies and so on. If their argument is found faulty, they'll just play victim and say that we are attacking them or bringing up past issues. It's completely pointless to argue with these people, completely pointless.

Gregory also accused the entire "Fake" Resistance of having "no problem" with pedophile priests. Which is objectively untrue and this is why I am not sure if his accusations against Fr. Abraham are only rumors or if anything actually happened. I believed it at first, but at this point I'm simply not sure anymore. I know that the SSPX hierarchy is certainly corrupt enough to spread lies and rumors about Resistance priests.



The irony that they treat Fr. Hewko as literally infallible (any mention of Ambrose Moran gets excused, Fr. Hewko did nothing wrong), while many in the "Fake" Resistance do accept criticism of BpW - is completely lost on them. Again, he's gish-galloping (listing many small issues to make it seem like one big issue).

This is how frustrating it is to argue with this character, first he makes a mistake and then he gish-gallops on other issues once found out in order to distract from his earlier mistakes.

When I later confronted them with the fact that they consider themselves the "Last True Resistance on Earth" ("Extra Hewko Nulla Salus"), they then denied that accusation and called it slander.








Arguing with the "True Resistance" is so utterly pointless, even when proven wrong they'll just give some incoherent rambling as a response. On the one hand they consider themselves the "last faithful" (everyone else has compromised and will therefore go to hell due to silence, as Fr. Hewko constantly preaches), on the other hand it's slander to point out that that's a little bit insane. Make it make sense.

But the worst of all debaters has to be this "W T" guy, who also runs their "Catholic Trumpet" YouTube channel. Here he is trying to "prove" the many "errors" of Bishop Williamson, by giving me a bunch of quotes to prove that Williamson 





Note: The quote from Williamson might seem damning at first, but if you read the original source from 2014, it makes more sense, because Williamson continues right afterwards:

Yet in all this scattering of the sheep, somebody must maintain and make available to them the objective Truth if the poor stones are not to have to do it (Lk. XIX, 40), because upon at least the seeking of that Truth depends the saving of our souls. However, let Catholics seek it with all due regard for the blindness of their fellow-sheep, for at least as long as the Shepherd remains struck.

The entire EC was about having compassion for fellow blind sheep (Indult, Novus Ordo), but they rip the quote out of context. Many EC quotes they use to "condemn" Williamson are completely ripped out of context, it's completely intellectually dishonest but we are talking about the "True" Resistance here, they are absolutely desperate to prove that their narrative is true.

This went on and on, he sent me more "quotes" that were even weaker, one quote where Bishop Williamson didn't want to fly to Nigeria to reordain some priest and that's now somehow an "error" that we need to "condemn"...

They also don't want Fr. Hewko to not obey any bishop if that bishop is not 100% agreeing to all of THEIR points. Effectively their model of "Catholic authority" means that the laity and the priests can bully a bishop around by threatening to leave him if they don't agree with his decisions. Their version of "hierarchy" effectively means that the bishops should be obedient to the laity:



But hey - if Bishop Williamson starts talking about "forts of resistance", then he is the anarchist, remember? Hierarchy and obedience are extremely important, except when we suddenly decide that his comments are "against the faith" and then we'll just leave, but wait, we still need our Holy Oils...

What I actually did was proposing a talk between Fr. Hewko and Bishop Stobnicki:



But apparently, that's "selling out", "compromise", we need to "fight for the faith". Who needs bishops anyway. I can really just roll my eyes at the density of this dude. This "W T" guy doesn't even get that he's in a circular argument ("the bishops are silent on the errors" presupposes accepting the premise that these "errors" are even real in the first place). But I doubt anyone in the "True" Resistance even knows what logical fallacies are, given how poorly they argue.

And in the end, even if you spend time talking to them, you just get accused of "talking like a sedevacantist".









I rest my case. If you want my advice, don't debate them, it's a literal waste of time. But it's your choice. They also have the E-Mail of all bishops, so why exactly do they need to stage "debates" with random online laymen...? Who knows.

My opinion is that all of this started because Bp. Williamson didn't approve of Fr. Pfeiffer running a seminary, then in 2015 Pfeiffer got impatient, his parents died and then the Mahopac conference sent him over the edge. Hewko is less bad, but he got caught up in the Pfeiffer cult of hating Bishop Williamson. And now they have brainwashed themselves with 10 years of analyzing every single word of Williamson, seeing if there is anything they can nail him on, to prove that they were right back in 2015. And they'll still sit there in 2040 saying "yeah but we were right!".

My current plan is to just write up their points and send them to Fr. Hewko, to follow the original plan. I hope he's not as insane as his followers. But man, these guys are something else.

I wouldn’t waste my time. 

Yeah, you might get an audience of 5-6 people.  I guess you have Legacy Resistance (+Williamson, bishops, Fr. Chazal), and then the "True Resistance" (+?Pfeiffer et al.), and now the "True True Resistance" (having split off from +?Pfeiffer).

It's quite ironic that Fr. Chazal used to attack sedevacantists for fragmentation.  Sorry, Father, but that's a disingenuous attack, since the only genuine principle of unity in the Catholic Church is the Papacy, and I mean REAL principle of unity, not just a bunch of people paying lip-service by putting Prevost's name in the Canon.  That clearly doesn't suffice to establish any kind of TRUE unity among them.  In fact, it's PRECISELY the reason +Williamson refused to create an organization.  I was there at STAS right after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and +Williamson told the seminarians all the way back then that there's no real principle of unity without a Traditional Pope and now that the closest thing to some viable principle of unity, +Lefebvre, had passed away, it's pointless, but we must think about the Church as just individual pockets of Catholics.