Dom Antonio Maria, OSB - Brazil
Fr. Juan Antonio Iglesias - Spain
Fr. Gabriel Grosso
Prior Basilio Meramo, SSPX - Mexico, Columbia

Dom Antonio Maria??? I've never seen or heard of this name anywhere.  I'm curious as to where you found it.

I wouldn't see how it would be possible to have forgotten the first priest ordained for the resistance.  Fr. André Zelaya.  His priestly ordination was a week after the episcopal consecration.


Fr. Grosso is not with any of the resistance priests.  He is with a group that attacks the resistance as far as I know.  The same goes for Fr. Meramo.

Fr. Iglesias was said to have returned to a diocese in Mexico because Kentucky did not like his willingness to be able to work together with sedevacantists after he gave a video conference from Kentucky saying that sedevacantists were not the enemies, but that the enemies were these anti-christs in the Vatican.  

Fr. Grosso is not with any of the resistance priests.  He is with a group that attacks the resistance as far as I know.  The same goes for Fr. Meramo

Fr. Méramo started to resist Bp. Fellay's betrayal long before any of the commonly considered resister priests?  Who dare to say Fr. Méramo is not part of the so-called resistance.  Who decides who is and who is not part of the so-called resistance?

Even Bp. Williamson had to admit that Fr. Méramo and some others were resisting Bp. Fellay´s betrayal before he and other priests started to do it.

Fr. Méramo was expelled from the SSPX in 2008 or 2009.

Fr. Grosso decided to join the so-called resistance in 2010, and the group you refer to does not attack the resistance, but disagrees in many things with many priests that resisted somehow Bp. Fellay.

So, again, who decides what the resistance is and who belongs to it?  Fr. Pfeiffer seems to disagree with Bp. Williamson and Fr. Zendejas.  Fr. Meramo and Fr. Ceriani disagree with Bp. Williamson.  Bp. Williamson seems to accept Monsignor Patrick Perez, who most probably is not even a valid priest...

there is a link on which you can find a list of resistant priests, made with the help of several priests of the resistance:

http://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.fr/p/la-resistance.html

I just not have the time to add Fr Garcia and father Nitoglia in italy

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Against the Heresies

Quote from: LKCTexas

Here is a list of the January 2014 accord to continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Additional priests at the end of this list that I know were in the Resistance, support the Resistance, at the time of this list or have have joined since.

1. Abbe de Merode (prior, France)
2. Father Koller (prior, France)
3. Father Vignalou (France)
4. Father Hubert de Sainte-Marie Lamb (France)
5. Father Nicolas Pinaud (France)
6. Father Matthew Salenave (France)
7. Father Olivier Rioult (France)
8. Father Pierre-Marie OP and 10 other fathers Avrillé (France)
19. OSB Father Bruno (France)
20. April father, founder of the work of Our Lady of Salérans (France)
21. Father Raffali and community Stellamarins (France)
22. Abbe Picot (Kenya)
23. BISHOP Jean-Michel Faure (South America, Member of Chapter 2012)
24. Father Chazal (Asia)
25. Father Florian Abrahamowicz (Italy)
26. Father Brühwiller (Switzerland)
27. Abbot Martin Fuchs (Austria)
28. Father Girouard (Canada)
29. Father David Hewko (USA)
30. Abbe Pierre-Célestin Ondo Ndong (Gabon)
31. Father Ernesto Cardozo (Brazil)
32. Father Arturo Vargas (Mexico)
33. Father Fernando Altamira (Colombia)
34. Abbot Hugo Ruiz (Mexico)
35. Father Juan Carlos Ortiz (Australia)
36. Father Frank Sauer (Germany)
37. Father Eduardo Suelo (Asia)
38. Father Richard Voigt (USA)
39. Father Arnold Trauner (Austria)
40. Father Trincado (Mexico)
41. Father Valan Rajkunan (Asia)
42. Father Raphael Arizaga OSB (Mexico)
43. Father Thomas Aquinas Ferreira da Costa OSB (Brazil)
44. Father Jahir Brito, FMBV (Brazil)
45. Father Daniel Joaquim Maria Sant'ana, FMBV (Brazil)

Fathers Abrahamowicz, Trauner and Weinzierl (his name is on the list of "paxtecuм111") are sedevacantists; Fr. Sauer is possibly a sedevacantist (he is in contact with Fr. Zaby, a sedevacantist).

Fr. Brühwiler is still with the SSPX with no known intention to join the resistance.

In short: All these names can be deleted from the list. There is just Fr. Fuchs with the resistance.

Does being a sede disqualify a priest who has been a long time resister (as don Abrahamovich has been) from being on this list, which , as far as I can see, has not been defined for purposes of this thread?

I guess as long as the priests are not in communion with Bp Williamson, Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal, etc..then they are not part of the Resistance, because the Resistance rejects sedevacantism.

This is ridiculous. All Catholics are in communion with each other, sedeplenist or SV. There is nothing which inherently disqualifies a SV priest from being part of the Resistance, if he wishes.

Thanks to all who tried to provide a comprehensive list. Although it was intended as merely practical, I think this thread has shown once again that a certain level of organization is needed for the Resistance. I applaud the French for establishing the USML. I think it should be expanded to the whole world. I agree with Bp. Williamson that any authority in such an informal and not canonically erected organization would come from the priest members themselves, and that they could take it away if they wanted, but even that is preferable to anarchy and to inter-group conflicts such as the one between Fr. Pfeiffer's and Fr. Zendejas' groups.
Another thing this thread has shown is the attitude towards our SV Catholic brethen. They aren't all Dimond brothers and Fr. Cekadas. If Fr. Iglesias was forced out because he wanted to work together with SVs, then that is a big problem for the Resistance in the US. He was certainly right that SVs are not the enemy, the enemy are the Conciliar destroyers.

I applaud the French for establishing the USML. I think it should be expanded to the whole world.

I think it was from the beginning. If you look on the Non Possumus website, it mentions the USML, even though the website is out of Latin America.  It is international.  But of course, a priest has to want to join it.  

I agree with Bp. Williamson that any authority in such an informal and not canonically erected organization would come from the priest members themselves, and that they could take it away if they wanted, but even that is preferable to anarchy and to inter-group conflicts such as the one between Fr. Pfeiffer's and Fr. Zendejas' groups.

But again, the above-mentioned priests would have to want to join it.  A recent conference mentioned here seemed to be more or less a USML event, given the presence of +W and the Dominicans.  But if certain other priests in the USA do not want to join USML or consider themselves part of it, then somehow it doesn't prevent "conflicts" if you know what I mean.

I could be making a bad assumption that some priests don't consider themselves part of USML or aren't fully in favor of it, but maybe I picked up that impression from the snide comment on a certain website*.  If others have info. on the current attitude of [a priest from Boston KY mentioned above - I just realized that CI must automatically change certain terms, which is why the link didn't work, and why something I wrote here didn't] toward the USML, that would be helpful.  Nevertheless, I believe the USML is already very much expanded to the whole world, and always was.

*Had to edit my previous post because for some reason the link wasn't working.  This is the link (whether it will work correctly once posted here on CI I don't know; it wasn't when embedded):

http://[website of priest mentioned above]/news-from-the-french/

The comment reads:  

News from the French
Posted on 2014/07/16
The French have found a nice comfortable place** from which to engage Satan and his Apostate Angels.

pablo the Amateur Exorcist productions wishes them well in all their endeavors.

**The monastery where the Dominicans of Avrillé have always been is a "nice comfortable place"?    :stare:



[Please excuse any confusion in this post; finding out about the auto-correct after posting doesn't leave much time for editing…. ]

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Centroamerica

Fr. Grosso is not with any of the resistance priests.  He is with a group that attacks the resistance as far as I know.  The same goes for Fr. Meramo

Fr. Méramo started to resist Bp. Fellay's betrayal long before any of the commonly considered resister priests?  Who dare to say Fr. Méramo is not part of the so-called resistance.  Who decides who is and who is not part of the so-called resistance?

Even Bp. Williamson had to admit that Fr. Méramo and some others were resisting Bp. Fellay´s betrayal before he and other priests started to do it.

Fr. Méramo was expelled from the SSPX in 2008 or 2009.

Fr. Grosso decided to join the so-called resistance in 2010, and the group you refer to does not attack the resistance, but disagrees in many things with many priests that resisted somehow Bp. Fellay.

So, again, who decides what the resistance is and who belongs to it?  Fr. Pfeiffer seems to disagree with Bp. Williamson and Fr. Zendejas.  Fr. Meramo and Fr. Ceriani disagree with Bp. Williamson.  

That's putting it lightly.  This time last year Fr. Ceriani was obsessed with Bishop Williamson in his criticisms.  Bishop Williamson could hardly mutter a word in a conference and Fr. Ceriani was writing a new blog entry for Radio whatever.  He still reposts a Kyrie Eleison about every month knit-picking every word.  Even many of the faithful followers of the blog became nauseated with his constant criticisms of the Bishop.  He really, doesn't seem to have anything else to talk about.  And in doing this they publicly insult plenty of people calling them the flaccid resistance and a bunch of other terms they made up. That pretty much would say that they are not part of the resistance more so than anything. To top it all off they accuse Bishop Williamson of heresy, being a mason, being an English agent, and a list of other insults.  Their purpose for existing is to attack Bishop Williamson.  They depend on no bishop, so naturally, they have no seminary and are not gaining vocations in this much needed crisis in the Church and shortage of priests.  Granted the complete counter-productiveness of this group (3 priests?), and add that to the fact that Fr. Ceriani was not long ago one of the sharpest anti-sedevacantists, one would be justified in wondering of Ceriani has not been set up as a sort of opposition in Latin America by Menzingen.  No doubt Menzingen pays very close attention to this situation.  Fr. Ceriani "attacks who would be his friends", and most unnecessarily, since as Papal Supremacy has pointed out, sedevacantists are working together with the resistance.  So what is their real beef?  They don't have one.  Let's not deceive ourselves.

You are not telling the truth: Fr. Ceriani was not anti-sedevacantist.  But that is not what this thread is about.

Centro, you are missing the point completely.  We are not discussing who agrees with Bp. Williamson nor who agrees with you.  Frs. Ceriani, Meramo, Turco and Grosso are in the so-called resistance long before 2012.  Nobody has expelled them from it, as far as I know (and I would like to know who could do so).

So are you accusing me of lying, and if so be precise.  Here in Brazil, everyone has read the docuмent from Fr. Ceriani saying that Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus Oficio was now defunt, even though it was promulgated the same as Quo Primum, IN PERPETUITY.

I don't know where you have been, but Fr. Ceriani did more against the sedevacantists here in Latin America than any priest, probably ever.  They still have his docuмents in the Benedictine Holy Cross Monastery, so effectually, the biggest Spanish-speaking living sedevacantist priest is also being taught to today by Traditionalists as being the strongest to ever argue against Sedevacantism.  Go figure.

Another thing is that sedevacantists, such as all the priests you name (as far as I know) refuse to be associated with the recognize and resist crowd.  So saying that these priests are resisting is a little off to say the least.  It's not that anybody has kicked them out of the "resistance".  It's that they only serve to cause confusion and attack those decent priests who are resisting, so the best thing to do is ignore them.  The resistance isn't something that anybody could expel them from.  That just serves to show how little you know of the resistance.  

I would be willing to bet that 8 out of the last 10 posts on RC by Fr. Ceriani were about Bishop Williamson, if not all ten, which is probably the case.  Only a lunatic would rave on about Bishop Williamson in every single post and sermon.  It's nuts.

So let me put it in bold for you.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani published the most anti-sedevacantist docuмent debunking the popes ability to promulgate any docuмent IN PERPETUITY, namely cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio.


No, Fr. Ceriani does not have a bishop whom he sends his faitful to for confirmation nor young men with vocations.


Yes, Fr. Ceriani does indeed publish frequently and consistently knit-pick attacks on Bishop Williamson monthly.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani does publish texts attacking the resistance as being the flaccid resistance.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani is a rabid sedevacantist


So, Adolph can you disprove any of these statements?

Can you come forth and demonstrate how it is that I am a liar?

Can you explain why it is that you deliberately don't attend the Masses of Resistance priests even when they offer Mass in your area?

Do you really want to continue this discussion?

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Centroamerica

Fr. Grosso is not with any of the resistance priests.  He is with a group that attacks the resistance as far as I know.  The same goes for Fr. Meramo

Fr. Méramo started to resist Bp. Fellay's betrayal long before any of the commonly considered resister priests?  Who dare to say Fr. Méramo is not part of the so-called resistance.  Who decides who is and who is not part of the so-called resistance?

Even Bp. Williamson had to admit that Fr. Méramo and some others were resisting Bp. Fellay´s betrayal before he and other priests started to do it.

Fr. Méramo was expelled from the SSPX in 2008 or 2009.

Fr. Grosso decided to join the so-called resistance in 2010, and the group you refer to does not attack the resistance, but disagrees in many things with many priests that resisted somehow Bp. Fellay.

So, again, who decides what the resistance is and who belongs to it?  Fr. Pfeiffer seems to disagree with Bp. Williamson and Fr. Zendejas.  Fr. Meramo and Fr. Ceriani disagree with Bp. Williamson.  

That's putting it lightly.  This time last year Fr. Ceriani was obsessed with Bishop Williamson in his criticisms.  Bishop Williamson could hardly mutter a word in a conference and Fr. Ceriani was writing a new blog entry for Radio whatever.  He still reposts a Kyrie Eleison about every month knit-picking every word.  Even many of the faithful followers of the blog became nauseated with his constant criticisms of the Bishop.  He really, doesn't seem to have anything else to talk about.  And in doing this they publicly insult plenty of people calling them the flaccid resistance and a bunch of other terms they made up. That pretty much would say that they are not part of the resistance more so than anything. To top it all off they accuse Bishop Williamson of heresy, being a mason, being an English agent, and a list of other insults.  Their purpose for existing is to attack Bishop Williamson.  They depend on no bishop, so naturally, they have no seminary and are not gaining vocations in this much needed crisis in the Church and shortage of priests.  Granted the complete counter-productiveness of this group (3 priests?), and add that to the fact that Fr. Ceriani was not long ago one of the sharpest anti-sedevacantists, one would be justified in wondering of Ceriani has not been set up as a sort of opposition in Latin America by Menzingen.  No doubt Menzingen pays very close attention to this situation.  Fr. Ceriani "attacks who would be his friends", and most unnecessarily, since as Papal Supremacy has pointed out, sedevacantists are working together with the resistance.  So what is their real beef?  They don't have one.  Let's not deceive ourselves.

You are not telling the truth: Fr. Ceriani was not anti-sedevacantist.  But that is not what this thread is about.

Centro, you are missing the point completely.  We are not discussing who agrees with Bp. Williamson nor who agrees with you.  Frs. Ceriani, Meramo, Turco and Grosso are in the so-called resistance long before 2012.  Nobody has expelled them from it, as far as I know (and I would like to know who could do so).

So are you accusing me of lying, and if so be precise.  Here in Brazil, everyone has read the docuмent from Fr. Ceriani saying that Pope Paul IV's cuм Ex Apostolatus Oficio was now defunt, even though it was promulgated the same as Quo Primum, IN PERPETUITY.

I have read it too.  That docuмent does not make the author an anti-sedevacantist.  So, your argument is null.

I don't know where you have been, but Fr. Ceriani did more against the sedevacantists here in Latin America than any priest, probably ever.  They still have his docuмents in the Benedictine Holy Cross Monastery, so effectually, the biggest Spanish-speaking living sedevacantist priest is also being taught to today by Traditionalists as being the strongest to ever argue against Sedevacantism.  Go figure.

I have been in the world, just like anybody else.  You are trying to probe Fr. Ceriani was anti-sedevacantist.  He was not.  But that is not what this thread is about.  Even is he was anti-sedevacantist, that does not mean he is not part of the so-called resistance.

Another thing is that sedevacantists, such as all the priests you name (as far as I know) refuse to be associated with the recognize and resist crowd.  So saying that these priests are resisting is a little off to say the least.  It's not that anybody has kicked them out of the "resistance".  It's that they only serve to cause confusion and attack those decent priests who are resisting, so the best thing to do is ignore them.  The resistance isn't something that anybody could expel them from.  That just serves to show how little you know of the resistance.

No, they do not refuse to be associated with the R&R crowd.  They do refuse to be associated with those who, to their eyes, have not taken a clear position against Bp. Fellay and the modernism.  No one of those who have follow these priests can say they did not resist Bp. Fellay's betrayal and still oppose to it.

I would be willing to bet that 8 out of the last 10 posts on RC by Fr. Ceriani were about Bishop Williamson, if not all ten, which is probably the case.  Only a lunatic would rave on about Bishop Williamson in every single post and sermon.  It's nuts.

Again, this argument is null, since it does not probe Fr. Ceriani is opposing Bp. Fellay's betrayal.  You might not like what he says, but that does not mean he is not part of the resistance.

So let me put it in bold for you.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani published the most anti-sedevacantist docuмent debunking the popes ability to promulgate any docuмent IN PERPETUITY, namely cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio.

No, he did not.  Being sedeplenist is not the same than being anti-sedevacantist.

No, Fr. Ceriani does not have a bishop whom he sends his faitful to for confirmation nor young men with vocations.

He does not have a cardinal nor a pope on his side.  That is, again, a null argument.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani does indeed publish frequently and consistently knit-pick attacks on Bishop Williamson monthly.

Again, your argument is null.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani does publish texts attacking the resistance as being the flaccid resistance.

No, he writes against what he disagrees with.  That is not attacking the so-called resistance.

Yes, Fr. Ceriani is a rabid sedevacantist

And, who said the so-called resistance is formed exclusively by sedeplenists?

So, Adolph can you disprove any of these statements?

Yes, I can.

Can you come forth and demonstrate how it is that I am a liar?

I never called you a liar and I am not (and never was) interested in demonstrate you are.

Can you explain why it is that you deliberately don't attend the Masses of Resistance priests even when they offer Mass in your area?

Again, you are not telling the truth.  But again, I am not calling you a liar.

Do you really want to continue this discussion?

No, I do not really want to.  But I will if I have to, in order to defend the truth.

So your argument is "your argument is null", "your argument is null" and "again, your argument is null".

That's quite the technique you've got there.


So basically, a priest whose arguments against Bishop Williamson far outnumber his arguments against Bishop Fellay by the thousands, is a "so-called Resistance priest" to you.  Even Boston, Kentucky would have a hard time holding up to your standards.  Heck even Pablo doesn't quite make the cut.

Do not blame it on me nor "my technique". It is you, who have not been able to give a valid argument to say Fr. Ceriani is not part of the so-called resistance.

What?  Fr. Ceriani disagrees with Bp. Williamson?  So?  Who says every member of the so-called resistance has to agree with Bp. Williamson?