Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 03, 2025, 04:31:48 PM
-
Hello Matthew,
For full transparency, we have previously sent two emails regarding this invitation: the first on September 4, 2025 to matthew@cathinfo.com (matthew@cathinfo.com) and matthew@chantcd.com (matthew@chantcd.com), and a follow-up on September 25, 2025 to the same addresses.
In those emails, we noted that we would share your response publicly. Since no response was received, we posted the matter in the group, which is why you are now receiving this fourth email at your personal address.
A member of the Resistance Telegram group suggested we reach out to this personal email to ensure you receive the invitation.
Below is the original invitation for your reference:
Hello Matthew,
I am writing to extend a formal invitation for you to take part in a public debate with Greg Taylor, editor of The Recusant. The subject will be the so-called “resistance,” its claims, its divisions, and the direction for Catholics seeking to remain faithful since 2012.
To guarantee fairness and transparency:
• The debate will be hosted live on The Catholic Trumpet YouTube channel, reaching the faithful directly.
• The full debate will be recorded in its entirety without editing, so neither side can be misrepresented.
• The format and structure will allow equal time and opportunity for both sides to present and defend their position.
This is an opportunity to defend your position before the faithful. If you decline, I will make your decision publicly known, so Catholics can see who is willing to engage in open discussion and who is not.
I hope you will accept this invitation in the spirit of honest debate and for the clarity of the faithful.
In Christ the King through the Heart of the Immaculata,
A.Mari
-
All I will respond so far is:
Your original e-mails on Sept 5th, if I read them at all, were skimmed at most and deleted as spam. I get pseudo-letters every day -- by the dozen -- which look just like this. Requests to post their "content" on my "website", letters from Nigerian princes, letters from "hackers" who claim to have hacked me and threaten me with blackmail (claiming to have video evidence of -- let's just say activities I never do), and the like. In short, your emails got caught in the pile of spam I sort through every day.
This is the first I've heard about this, so you're going to have to give me a few days to form a final, reasoned, well-thought-out response. A response worthy of publishing, since they have promised to publish my response.
I'll be publishing it on CathInfo as well.
I have some initial thoughts, but I won't share them yet. I'm biting my tongue.
You are all welcome to chime in, giving your thoughts, opinions, advice, and gut feelings.
-
I wouldn’t waste my time.
-
This isn’t a challenge to a debate, it’s a schoolyard bully spoiling for a fight.
“If you decline, I’ll make your decision publicly known,” is a threat last time I checked.
Mr. Recusant, read Proverbs 6:19b. It’s one of the six things God hates.
As a member of the laity, I will not be in the audience.
-
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
-
"The debate will be hosted live on The Catholic Trumpet YouTube channel, reaching the faithful directly."
The Catholic Trumpet represents the entire Faithful? Did not know that.
-
All I will respond so far is:
Your original e-mails on Sept 5th, if I read them at all, were skimmed at most and deleted as spam. I get pseudo-letters every day -- by the dozen -- which look just like this. Requests to post their "content" on my "website", letters from Nigerian princes, letters from "hackers" who claim to have hacked me and threaten me with blackmail (claiming to have video evidence of -- let's just say activities I never do), and the like. In short, your emails got caught in the pile of spam I sort through every day.
This is the first I've heard about this, so you're going to have to give me a few days to form a final, reasoned, well-thought-out response. A response worthy of publishing, since they have promised to publish my response.
I'll be publishing it on CathInfo as well.
I have some initial thoughts, but I won't share them yet. I'm biting my tongue.
You are all welcome to chime in, giving your thoughts, opinions, advice, and gut feelings.
As someone who doesn’t attend Masses of either resistance group I’d be interested to listen to your debate. Having said that, the ‘if you decline I’ll make your decision publicly known’ sounds a bit unnecessarily aggressive. I’d go with your gut feeling,rather than what others advise.
No harm in talking to people you don’t see eye to eye with..?
-
They invited me too, after I already talked with Gregory Taylor for a week on their Signal group. I said no, because the guy I talked to (not Gregory, some other guy) was very choleric and angry in the audio messages he sent into the chat.
I told them I'd do a written analysis (not a debate, but a discussion) of their arguments, but this week I didn't have time and I honestly don't care that much about their "arguments", especially after I wasted an entire week talking to them and they cannot even concede a single mistake they made.
A very short summary of their arguments and counter-arguments that I discussed with Gregory over the course of a week (I'll do a proper writeup later on):
- That Bishop Williamson "sent Trads back to the New Mass": BpW didn't send any Trad "back" to the Novus Ordo, he merely allowed a woman that presumably already went to the NO to continue doing it - Lefebvre did the same, but only privately, not publicly (see the Letter to Michael Davies of 9th May 1980, sspxasia.com (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm)).
Williamson even stated in his Mahopac conference that "this was the private opinion of Lefebvre and I'm just repeating it publicly" and they completely ignored that part, of course. Of course!
Thus where the Archbishop states that “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning. (Letter to Michael Davies, 9th May 1980)
There is therefore a distinction between allowing a TRAD to go to the NO (who knows that the NO is evil) and allowing an INDULT person to go to the NO (who doesn't understand). Gregory also cited that +Zendejas did the same in 2016, which just proves that, in difference to Lefebvre, he doesn't make any distinctions between who Williamson, Lefebvre or Zendejas said it to.
I even conceded that it may have been a pastoral error, even on Lefebvres part, but I also get that sometimes you can't convince a person to leave the Novus Ordo / Indult sacraments. Even the wording of Lefebvre ("pervert the faith by diminishing it") and Williamson ("if it nourishes the faith") are effectively the same. So their "top argument" of why they are the "True" Resistance falls apart: Either they have to admit that Lefebvre was already "False Resistance" since 1980 or they have to admit that Williamsons error wasn't that grave, but they cannot have it both ways.
Gregory then dropped the argument and continued with the next one.
- That the New Mass definitely cannot give grace: Only true for Trads who understand that they are sinning. Fr. Hesse (which they respect) said Novus Ordo Masses for 20 years and Lefebvre himself told him he was celebrating valid (although illicit) Masses. Objectively, the NO is sinful yes, objectively it cannot give grace. Subjectively however, it may not be the case - if someone doesn't understand that what he is attending is not a Catholic rite or if someone simply doesn't get the problem of Vatican II - then he is not sinning, because he intends to do what the Church says he should do on Sunday. The only problem then is "is the minister validly ordained", is the intention given, etc. The "True" Resistance makes ZERO distinction between objective / subjective, valid / licit, Trad / Indult.
Gregory then didn't bring up the "grace" argument again.
- That there cannot be any possible Novus Ordo miracles: Refuted already in 2016 by +de Aquino (brazildogmadafe.com (https://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com/2016/01/fr-thomas-aquinas-osb-in-defense-of.html?m=1)) and St. Thomas Aquinas ("Whether the wicked can work miracles? (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS178.html#SSQ178A2THEP1)"). For some reason, Gregory cited this article to me as his "proof" that de Aquino is following the "errors" of Bishop Williamson and that "valid miracle = Bp de Aquino approves of the New Mass", I replied that his own sources disprove him (literally word for word, Bp de Aquino says "a valid miracle doesn't mean an approval").
Gregory again completely dropped the argument and went on to the next one. Without recognizing that his argument was completely null and void, of course.
- That BpW was against seminaries: An extremely weak argument, only backed by a quote in late 2012 "this is not the time for seminaries", "seminaries may be impossible" and some later quotes of 2016 (?). I refuted that by citing the quote properly and in context, where BpW also says that (a couple lines later / earlier) that "I will do everything to continue the priesthood by ordaining priests and bishops". Also, Gregory admitted that Bishop Williamson did bless Fr. Pfeiffers seminary in 2013, thereby accidentally torpedoing his own argument (but of course he didn't notice that).
I argued that a) it doesn't matter what Williamson did or didn't think about seminaries, fact is his bishops started three seminaries now and b) Faure opened his seminary in 2015, so the only time where this argument would have been valid would be between somewhere between 2013 and 2015. Gregory couldn't respond to a) other than "Bishop Williamson did have this opinion until his death" (yeah, so what?) and went on regarding b) that it was just the "True Resistance" that forced BpWs hand in 2015. Which might or might not be true (I don't believe so), but he also provided me with evidence - in the same quote - that Bishop Williamson said he "changed his mind" in 2015, that seminaries are still probably necessary.
So, Gregory completely destroyed his own argument again, I didn't even have to research anything.
- That Bishop Williamson supposedly was an "anarchist" in his structuring of the Resistance as "pockets without subordination" (quoting a talk where BpW says "this is not the time for structures / institutions") - this is again, an extremely weak "error" because I told Gregory that:
a) Bishop Williamson was talking about canonical structures and traditional institutions
b) They are confusing the divine constitution of the Church (priests / bishops / pope) with the organization of the SSPX
c) The SSPX was not a hierarchy either, it was governed by a general council because:
d) Lefebvre specifically wanted to avoid a "replacement hierarchy" and didn't want to play pope
e) Bishop Williamson did start the USML in 2013, which fell apart
f) Bishop Williamson wanted to promote people thinking for themselves in this crisis instead of following a leader
g) Bishop Williamson wanted to make the Resistance subversion-proof by not making it a single hierarchy
At that point, Gregory completely lost it and admitted against g) that he'd rather see the hierarchical "Resistance Inc." model being subverted again and again (rather than admitting that BpW was right). And Gregory thinks that the single-hierarchy model is somehow more resistant to subversion (???). All of this because hierarchies are "Trent-ian" and "Catholic" and any other form of organization is un-Catholic and anarchist, all because Gregory cannot possibly admit that Bishop Williamson may have been correct in his judgement here.
So, after being refuted on every single core argument, Gregory then tells me "we've been talking for over a week and you're still making excuses for BpW" (what a great sin). And then he has the chutzpah to challenge me to a video debate! Why, to waste my time stating the same counter-arguments again?
The only valid points of the "True Resistance" are:
- BpW promoted Maria Valtorta, "Holy" Russia, etc. in some Eleison Comments: I agreed with Gregory, he shouldn't have done that and if there are people promoting that then those people should be corrected. Privately, not publicly.
- BpW approved of Fr. Abraham and Fr. Peignot: At the time, Fr. Abraham pleaded innocence and many Resistance priests have been falsely accused. The only true admission of guilt comes from... The Recusant. Which may or may not be true, at this point I really don't trust that publication anymore. Fr. Peignot was kicked out by the Belgian Resistance, so yeah, this was probably an error, but luckily the damage is minimal.
- BpW making NO miracles as a condition for Holy Oils for Fr. Hewko: yeah, that was a mistake, however in the light of all of the above nonsense I can even understand to some extent that Williamson wanted Fr. Hewko to calm down again (it backfired, obviously)
Any "debate" with such a person is completely useless, they cannot concede that Fr. Pfeiffer overreacted in 2015 and that they made mistakes in their theological arguments and that on some points, maybe, Bishop Williamson may have been right. There is no point in debating Gregory Taylor, he and the couple of people fanatically supporting him are right in their own minds and nothing can convince them otherwise. The biggest problem is that they push Fr. Hewko around. I don't think Fr. Hewko is as fanatic regarding Williamson as they are.
Their guy for media relations is also way too dense to understand that they are damaging the Resistance at large because it makes us all look like some divisive, nitpicking cult (only Fr. Pfeiffer / Fr. Hewko are this way, we aren't).
-
Thanks, Baldwin, that was most enlightening. If you want to add any more later, I'm all ears.
-
Any debate needs to have a pre-planned round two at a later date.
The purpose of a debate, in my opinion, is not to just give your side, or win the audience's favor by better arguing your side, but to have a discussion for the sake of arriving at the truth.
Round one should establish what does and doesn't matter, let each side feel out the other's position, and determine what still needs further debate and clarification. It will provide a path forward for a well organized round two where specific topics are discussed in order.
Round one tends to be a jumble depending on how it is organized (or not organized), and it helps to have a cool down period, because trying to convince someone of contrary beliefs can naturally lead to frustration, and time away can allow each side to process and better understand why the other side thinks the way they do.
Also, the moderator needs to record particular points being argued and where each side agrees, so there isn't endless circular arguing, but progress.
-
I would like to ask the so called true resistance one question, When Father Hewko takes his boys on camping trips, They stop at Novus Ordo run churches and genuflects and tells his boys to do the same. If he thought the new mass was totally invalid, Why do they make this act of adoration?
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/OBQHVro.png)
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":
(https://i.imgur.com/3U1Meon.png)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/T6ffVIf.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Qe2s3H.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cGClQG2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4YV0bJM.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/32GvddU.png)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xm36qDj.png)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/JYH4BZc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VczLSZ4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/u0cEFQV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7W3leR6.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mXMzDv9.png)
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
(https://i.imgur.com/oxsJdve.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SfbGfT4.png)
Note: The quote from Williamson might seem damning at first, but if you read the original source from 2014 (https://stmarcelinitiative.com/resistancepolicyx2013i/), 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZNkpfbD.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZRBZPZn.png)
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".
(https://i.imgur.com/U5itjCT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pb9hfWl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Om9WhM5.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/SxvKD4X.png)
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 find it odd that +Williamson promoted the "loose association" of clerics/chapels called the Resistance, but nowadays, people still treat the Resistance as if it is as centralized and unified as the old sspx. It's not. And it's not meant to be. Fr Chazal might think differently than +Thomas down in Brazil. So what? The Resistance is meant to be OPPOSITE of the structure used by +Fellay, where every message is filtered through a PR firm and "controlled".
These people who claim to be the "true Resistance" don't even understand that the Resistance isn't meant to be one, unified voice/group. It's meant to be united around the Faith, but outside of that, humanly speaking, not unified at all, organizationally. But yet the criticizers still try to attack it as if it's one thing. Makes one question their intelligence.
-
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.
-
These people have chosen poorly, on who they chose to trust, and hence their Reality is distorted. We discussed this last Sunday on the podcast.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xxPBaQ8A09JH
-
I was there at STAS right after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre
Lad, can you tell us what exact years you attended STAS as a seminarian?
-
They invited me too, after I already talked with Gregory Taylor for a week on their Signal group. I said no, because the guy I talked to (not Gregory, some other guy) was very choleric and angry in the audio messages he sent into the chat.
I told them I'd do a written analysis (not a debate, but a discussion) of their arguments, but this week I didn't have time and I honestly don't care that much about their "arguments", especially after I wasted an entire week talking to them and they cannot even concede a single mistake they made.
A very short summary of their arguments and counter-arguments that I discussed with Gregory over the course of a week (I'll do a proper writeup later on):
......
And in this one post we witnessed the death of the Pope Gregory /Hewko movement.
-
All I will respond so far is:
Your original e-mails on Sept 5th, if I read them at all, were skimmed at most and deleted as spam. I get pseudo-letters every day -- by the dozen -- which look just like this. Requests to post their "content" on my "website", letters from Nigerian princes, letters from "hackers" who claim to have hacked me and threaten me with blackmail (claiming to have video evidence of -- let's just say activities I never do), and the like. In short, your emails got caught in the pile of spam I sort through every day.
This is the first I've heard about this, so you're going to have to give me a few days to form a final, reasoned, well-thought-out response. A response worthy of publishing, since they have promised to publish my response.
I'll be publishing it on CathInfo as well.
I have some initial thoughts, but I won't share them yet. I'm biting my tongue.
You are all welcome to chime in, giving your thoughts, opinions, advice, and gut feelings.
Have you decided if you will do the debate or not?
-
Lad, can you tell us what exact years you attended STAS as a seminarian?
1989 - 1992 (with a stopover at SVism)
-
Have you decided if you will do the debate or not?
I would consider it a waste of time.
-
Someday the debate may be against Matthew's AI
-
I will be declining your offer to debate, for the following reasons:
1. I fail to see the point of 2 Catholic laymen debating about Church matters.
2. The topic "The Resistance" is far too vague. What topics would actually be discussed? What specific questions or topics are up for debate exactly?
3. You never mentioned who the Moderator would be. Debates usually have some kind of Moderator, trusted by both sides.
4. Historical evidence of bad faith in my proposed opponent, provided by CathInfo member "BaldwinIV".
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/invited-to-debate-the-'true-resistance'/msg1001004/#msg1001004
5. Epic mismatch in popularity and platform size between the elephant that is CathInfo, and the ant that is the Recusant/Catholic Trumpet.
I am willing to explain my reasoning a bit further:
I haven't been personally involved in debates before. However, "I was born on a day, but it wasn't yesterday." I am familiar with many of the tricks and pitfalls of debating subjects like this, thanks to my broad life experience.
For example, it is usually a good practice to give each participant a list of questions that will be asked (or discussed/debated), so there are no "surprises". Otherwise one side could have a hit list of 200 items (valid, invalid, or in-between) that could be fired off to make the other side look bad, and even if I did a perfect job of destroying each one, the opponent could ignore each "win" and simply move on to the next item. I would then be on the defensive the entire time. In the end, I would have nothing to gain, but everything to lose. No thanks.
So we're to debate the broad topic of "The Resistance"? That might sound OK at first glance, but what does that mean exactly?
Let's break it down:
Christianity - the religion founded by Jesus Christ Himself.
Catholicism - to distinguish the True Faith from the Protestant sects that arose after the Protestant Revolt.
Traditional Catholicism - basically Catholicism, but distinguishes from the counterfeit Conciliar Church that was founded after Vatican II.
SSPX - A specific Order (actually a Pious Union) in the Catholic Church, representing a specific position on the Crisis in the Church (for lack of a better term, "Recognize and Resist" the Pope)
Resistance - a remnant of the SSPX faithful and clergy that chose to resist, or refuse to go along with, the new orientation of the SSPX which was clearly more favorable to the Conciliar Church and Vatican II.
Isn't it kind of odd for 2 laymen to be publicly debating "The Resistance" or "the remnant of a religious order of the Church founded by Christ"? Who cares what 2 laymen think? Even if they are handy with computers, video editing, organization, newsletters, websites, etc. that doesn't make them a priest or bishop, nor does it give them ANY authority to represent or speak for a whole movement. That goes for you, and it goes for me.
This seems like a vain attempt to aggrandize an Internet persona. So let me understand this proposed debate. Greg Taylor is the "mouthpiece" or "main personality" of the so-called "True resistance"; I guess I'm supposed to take up the mantle of the rest of the Resistance?
Why? That is not my place to take, and I believe my current role at CathInfo is more than sufficient for me. I own and moderate the largest Traditional Catholic discussion forum; I keep the peace, offer my opinions, etc. but I'm not an authority. Nor do I ever claim to be an authority. I always strive to know my place and keep a humble attitude, even though I happen to be the moderator. (Just as a married person must practice chastity within marriage, and a business owner must practice the spirit of poverty).
You mentioned "For the clarity of the faithful". What are you talking about? I AM part of the faithful. I'm not above "the faithful" nor am I a leader of "the faithful". That must be a priest or bishop. Now maybe I could be considered a leader on CathInfo or something, but not a leader of "the faithful" as such. You might as well say I'm a leader of the flock, a.k.a. a pastor. No! For a Catholic, the only "pastor of the flock" is an ordained PRIEST. I am a mere PART OF that flock.
Besides my lack of authority, there are also the huge knowledge gaps. Even on the topic of "The Resistance", I am more ignorant than knowledgeable. Perhaps I am an expert on the Resistance in Texas; that is where I live. I would also claim an intermediate level of expertise in "History of the Resistance" from the earliest days, since I was there at the very beginning, and I have run the largest Resistance-friendly discussion forum in the English-speaking world. I know about most of the major events that have taken place especially in the early, foundational years. But beyond that, there are various priests, chapels, conflicts, locations, and countries of which I know exactly nothing! And about most Resistance priests I know very little, or only the very basics.
Lastly, let's address the elephant in the room. Who stands to gain by this debate? Certainly not me or CathInfo, which has several orders of magnitude more readers/members than Greg Taylor's publication and/or any "micro fora" set up in support of Fr. Hewko. A couple weeks ago the one-millionth post was made on CathInfo, which celebrated its 19th anniversary in August 2025. The latest member to join was #9092. (My account is member #4)
-
I've become more and more cynical of debates anyway, since ... not unlike with certain topics here ... very few in the audience are open-minded and open to being persuaded of having been wrong, but mostly join in hoping "their guy" wins, and makes the other side look bad, in an attempt more to convince themselves than they're right than to convince those who might be in error of the truth (from a motivation of charity), just as if you were watching your favorite sports team, hoping they would win. Eric Dubay actually had a good video some time ago about debating.
You pointed out that there are many extremely dishonest debating styles that hinge on throwing out as many gratuitious assertions as you can so that, when your opponent simply does not have the time to address even a couple of the dizzying array of nonsense they pitch out there, they declare victory by assuming their assertions are true unless they've been refutued, and since they threw out 100 of them and you only had time to deal adequately with 2, they win 98 -- or so that's the impression they try to produce.
It's what Non-Professor Dave pulled on Flat Earth Dave, the he was made to look bad by the jackass, who also excels in peppering his assertions with personal insults and any number of other logical fallacies. If you take the time to dissect his nonsense, it consists of little more than the proverbial manure that he throws by the bucketful at the wall, and inevitably some of it's going to stink and make the other guy smell bad.
-
The latest member to join was #9092. (My account is member #4)
So, who were the first three? I am guessing your wife may be one of the three, but inquiring minds want to know... :popcorn:
-
So, who were the first three? I am guessing your wife may be one of the three, but inquiring minds want to know... :popcorn:
https://www.cathinfo.com/mlist/?sort=registered;start=0
... at least chronologically
I imagine that if sorted by date, it's next sorted chronologically, so those who registered on the same date may not be in order of registration.
-
Then there's this sort ...
https://www.cathinfo.com/mlist/?sort=posts;start=0;desc
:laugh1:
-
So, who were the first three? I am guessing your wife may be one of the three, but inquiring minds want to know... :popcorn:
I looked it up, and members #2 and #3 are not in the database. I can't remember who they were. I *do* know that for many years I tried to keep CathInfo on cheap "shared hosting" and I tried every trick to optimize and trim the database, to make CI as high speed low drag as possible.
That all ended when I moved to my own physical server -- but I couldn't recover old dead accounts I had trimmed to "save space".
Member #1 is the "Admin" account. #4 is me. My wife is #6. Trinity (R.I.P.) was #5, and Dawn was #7.
The next O.G. who's still around sometimes is Kephapaulos (#10) and then of course Gladius is #19.
-
I've become more and more cynical of debates anyway, since ... not unlike with certain topics here ... very few in the audience are open-minded and open to being persuaded of having been wrong, but mostly join in hoping "their guy" wins, and makes the other side look bad, in an attempt more to convince themselves than they're right than to convince those who might be in error of the truth (from a motivation of charity), just as if you were watching your favorite sports team, hoping they would win. Eric Dubay actually had a good video some time ago about debating.
You pointed out that there are many extremely dishonest debating styles that hinge on throwing out as many gratuitious assertions as you can so that, when your opponent simply does not have the time to address even a couple of the dizzying array of nonsense they pitch out there, they declare victory by assuming their assertions are true unless they've been refutued, and since they threw out 100 of them and you only had time to deal adequately with 2, they win 98 -- or so that's the impression they try to produce.
It's what Non-Professor Dave pulled on Flat Earth Dave, the he was made to look bad by the jackass, who also excels in peppering his assertions with personal insults and any number of other logical fallacies. If you take the time to dissect his nonsense, it consists of little more than the proverbial manure that he throws by the bucketful at the wall, and inevitably some of it's going to stink and make the other guy smell bad.
Yes, this is one of the examples I had in mind. I've heard/seen it done, it's quite shameful, and I'm not going to place myself in that kind of position.
You summarized it very nicely with the "fling manure" analogy. You'll end up looking (and smelling) bad, even though it was all a bunch of crap, and you're completely innocent and in-the-right.
Imagine agreeing to a debate with a person of bad will -- they have 100 false accusations to fling at you. By the end of it, you'd feel extremely dirty even though you were 100% innocent of all the charges. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." It really makes you question the wisdom of that saying, doesn't it? I mean, it's not true at all. I could bear false witness 100 times against Ladislaus here, it would be 100% BS, and YET -- his reputation would be damaged somewhat, even he himself (and his close loved ones) would be questioning themselves. "Where there's smoke there's fire" -- yeah right. Sometimes it's just the steam from someone's load of bullcrap they brought in by wheelbarrow.
-
Yes, David Weiss, who went into that thing in good faith ... simply had idea no what was coming and/or what was being done to him. He likes to take his time and explain things. But when you have the dishonest Non-Professor Dave rattle of 50 assumptions of modern science that he claims are true, begging the question that they're true, and because Weiss simply didn't have the time to refute them ALL, he basically looked like he was being overwhelmed.
I saw yet another example of this when the folks from the Kolbe Center went up against a bunch of evolutionists, who employed the exact same tactic, speed-rattling about 50 assertions to make the poor folks at Kolbe look bad when they couldn't refute them all ... since there's obviously no time to refute them all. But by rattling these things off, they try to give the impression that their assertions are true unless refuted, putting their opponent in an impossible situation, for which the only remedy is to recognize what they're doing and call it out, rejecting their assertions en masse.
I've been through these types of debate tactics (and it's what High School and Collegiate Debate had begun to turn into), and the only defense is to point out to the audience what he's doing and insist that you take it one point at a time.
"You'll notice that Dave here just hurled out a dozen gratuitous assertions, assuming them to be true, and this is actually a dishonest tactic here, where he assumes that they're all true and then puts the onus on you to refute all dozen of them or else he declares victory. That's dishonest, and I gratuitiously reject all his assertions, and insist that we debate one point at a time, or else I'm done with this debate."
Of course, the best thing is to have an objective and disinterested moderator who's aware of tactics like that and prevents them from happening by asking one question at a time, simlar to how, say, the Presidential debate are conducted (though most of the moderators have been liberals, but at least they ask specific and targetted questions, and are supposed to keep the candidates on topic). This crap about allowing free-form "opening statements should be eliminated entirely.
Of course, Non-Professor Dave (unlike the opponents in the Kolbe Center Debate) also reinforces his assertions by peppering them with insults against Dave Weiss and FE, and that too adds to the programming.
One thing all those engaging in debates need to realizes is that 95% of their audience are, quite frankly, too stupid to see through logical fallacies and dishonest tactics of this nature, having been dumbed won over the decades on purpose by our educational system. I'm surprised at how many people even on this forum are easily programmed by the use of logical fallacies that should be transparent to anyone with a reasonable education, oh, things like "if you don't like Trump, that means you're a hαɾɾιs voter or that hαɾɾιs is 'your candidate'" (strawman by false dichotomy)
-
Hello Matthew,
For full transparency, we have previously sent two emails regarding this invitation: the first on September 4, 2025 to matthew@cathinfo.com (matthew@cathinfo.com) and matthew@chantcd.com (matthew@chantcd.com), and a follow-up on September 25, 2025 to the same addresses.
In those emails, we noted that we would share your response publicly. Since no response was received, we posted the matter in the group, which is why you are now receiving this fourth email at your personal address.
A member of the Resistance Telegram group suggested we reach out to this personal email to ensure you receive the invitation.
Below is the original invitation for your reference:
Hello Matthew,
I am writing to extend a formal invitation for you to take part in a public debate with Greg Taylor, editor of The Recusant. The subject will be the so-called “resistance,” its claims, its divisions, and the direction for Catholics seeking to remain faithful since 2012.
To guarantee fairness and transparency:
• The debate will be hosted live on The Catholic Trumpet YouTube channel, reaching the faithful directly.
• The full debate will be recorded in its entirety without editing, so neither side can be misrepresented.
• The format and structure will allow equal time and opportunity for both sides to present and defend their position.
This is an opportunity to defend your position before the faithful. If you decline, I will make your decision publicly known, so Catholics can see who is willing to engage in open discussion and who is not.
I hope you will accept this invitation in the spirit of honest debate and for the clarity of the faithful.
In Christ the King through the Heart of the Immaculata,
A.Mari
:laugh1::laugh2:
Why doesn't Greg give Peiffer another chance, as he asked me to do so long ago?
:laugh1::laugh2: