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.

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. 

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).

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) and St. Thomas Aquinas ("Whether the wicked can work miracles?"). 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).

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 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.