Is ‘Tradition, Family, Property’ A Cult?

Is ‘Tradition, Family, Property’ A Cult?

On September 8, 2008 the American Tradition, Family, Property (TFP openly and unashamedly defended traditional marriage at the University of California – Berkeley.  For this (and similar protests, e.g. against abortion) they are to be warmly commended – Editor. 

However, there are some concerns about the TFP – an organisation we’ve never discussed on this blog. Seems its hour has come! Here’s why…

One person, a gentleman and long time reader of Catholic Truth,  took offence during our recent Conference, angry that one of the speakers warned against trusting organisations such as Britain Needs Fatima (BNF) and America Needs Fatima (ANF), because they do not give the full truth about Fatima.  This, as a quick scan of the ANF (BNF) website reveals, is absolutely true.  Check out their “Campaigns” list and there is no appeal to the Pope either carry out the Consecration of Russia in the manner prescribed by Our Lady, or to reveal the full text of the Third Secret.  

I’ve exchanged emails with this gentleman in the past few days, trying (unsuccessfully) to convince him that his anger is misplaced, that it is evident from their own website, that the ANF group is misleading people, but he’s having none of it.   It turns out that he is a devoted adherent of the Tradition, Family, Property (TFP) group, and the America/Britain Needs Fatima groups are run by the TFP  – he will not hear a word of criticism against them, so that got me wondering, asking around, checking online, and I found that there is a school of thought out there which considers the TFP to be a cross between a cult and a secret society.  

In one of his emails, this gentleman referred to “false rights” so I asked him to explain and possibly give an example:  “The Revolution knows that there will always be a reaction by some of the better elements in public opinion to what it is doing, so it prepares a person or group to divert the good reaction into a false solution…[one of these false solutions] is Cardinal Cassaroli [who] was deliberately against tradition and the interests of the Church. [Another] is Marcel Lefebvre.  I stress that this is my opinion, I could be mistaken, but looking at the circumstances and the ‘fruit’ [of the SSPX], I don’t think I am…”

Applying the concept of “false rights” to the Fatima Message, my correspondent adds: Most “false rights like to put most of the burden of Fatima on the pope, and not fight the cultural Marxism which surrounds and pervades our society, making the coming chastisement inevitable.”  

This appears to be saying that the fulfilment of the Fatima Message is reliant on our actions to overcome the prevailing Godless culture.  But that’s not what Our Lady said. She “put the burden on the pope”, to carry out her requests to consecrate Russia in the prescribed manner thus winning the promised period of world peace, and to publish the full text of the Third Secret. 

So, what about the TFP group: they do wonderful work in protesting immorality in various ways and the young TFP men – like those featured in the above video – are to be admired and congratulated on their courage.  Are the critics of the TFP wrong then?  IS the TFP a cult – or is it a valuable apostolate, helping to fight to restore Catholic morality in western secular societies? 

Comments invited…  

Comments (75)

  • RCA Victor


    I’m looking forward to the comments of well-informed bloggers on this topic, since I am not familiar with TFP or its founder Oliveira. However, just to point out the obvious: first, if “America Needs Fatima” is a creation of TFP, then it is automatically suspect as one of those very “false right” organizations (better described as diversions) your correspondent decries. Second (on the other hand), the comments below the blog article you linked above are as suspicious as those on other websites such as “Culture Wars” (referred to in a comment by “Father John Mary”), which contain numerous slanderous statements against former leaders of the SSPX, including a former Headmaster at St. Marys in Kansas. Third, if your gentleman correspondent thinks that the SSPX is a “false right” organization and that its fruits are not good, then I would maintain that he is not in touch with any reality except that of his own making – especially since he appears to be impervious to reason and facts.

    (Hmmm…”not in touch with any reality except that of his own making….” kind of reminds me of the mentality of…..a cult!)

    July 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm
    • Neil McKay


      As the gentleman referred to in your letter above, I ask that you have the curtesy and honesty to publish the whole of the letter I sent you which you refer to above.

      July 4, 2016 at 11:52 pm
      • editor



        I did not publish your email in full because, frankly, I do not consider that it shows you in a good light. However, at your request, I am perfectly happy to publish it in full. The entire letter from you follows:

        Dear [Editor]

        You asked about the term ‘false right’.

        You may not like the reply, you probably won’t fully understand it and blow your top, but I’m not interested in popularity, but in truth. Someday, hopefully, you will understand.

        The Revolution knows that there will always be a reaction by some of the better elements in public opinion to what it is doing, so it prepares a person or group to divert the good reaction into a false solution.

        Such people don’t obviously go about with a sign saying ‘false right’, obviously, and those who gave them the black vocation do not speak of it, as secrecy is necessary for success, but circumstances clearly show that the actions of people like Cardinal Cassaroli, for example was deliberately against tradition and the interests of the Church.

        There are lots or examples over the years, but for brevity, I will give an example of one known to you- Marcel Lefebvre. I stress that this is my opinion, I could be mistaken, but looking at the circumstances and the ‘fruit’, I don’t think I am.

        Lefebvre was a liberal at the time of the council- it cannot be denied that he signed all the council documents.

        After the introduction of the new mass, the reaction had to be dealt with.
        Mon Lefebvre conveniently stepped forward, and gathered at many of the ‘problem’ Catholics as he could, and led them, as you say, into a ‘lifeboat’. With the excommunications- not “excommunications”- the lifeboat drifted- or, if you prefer, appeared to drift from the barque of Peter.

        Whether it did or not is irrelevant- the appearance of being outside, or not quite in- the Church means many good Catholics keep SSPX at arm’s length.
        Thus traditional Catholics who could have played an important part in the civil war going on in the barque of Peter were in their holier than thou lifeboat, calling on us in the barque to join them in their wee lifeboat! How absurd!

        I asked a friend on the present position of SSPX, and he sent the following:

        “The situation is muddled because Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have made it so. Nonetheless here are some basic points:

        • They are not excommunicated, but suspended a divinis
        • They are considered as being in the Church, but with no canonical status
        • Since they are suspended a divinis and have no jurisdiction:
        o They cannot absolve sins
        o Perform marriages

        • Examples of the muddle:

        o During the Jubilee of Mercy, they are allowed to hear confessions
        o Also, a marriage performed by them in one part of the world (I cannot remember where), was declared null by the local bishop, but upheld by Rome.
        o SSPX Priests were allowed to celebrate mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in 2014.

        • Here is an informative document from the Ecclesia Dei commission:

        You doubted my word about others feeling the way I did about Peter’s talk, and mentioned you had asked others at First Saturday’s about it.

        Could that be because the ones you asked were in the ‘lifeboat’, and the talk- the protestant equivalent of an altar call- for us to save the barque by jumping into the lifeboat- would make those in the lifeboat happy, but might not necessarily appeal to those in the barque?

        Even in the lifeboat itself, there is a kind of schizophrenia. Some go there for mass, but go to the barque for confession. Some take their children to the barque for Confirmation, which signals that they are uncomfortable with certain things in the lifeboat.

        Most false rights, whether in SSPX or not, like to put most of the burden of Fatima on the pope, and not fight the cultural Marxism which surrounds and pervades our society, making the coming chastisement inevitable.
        Anyway, that, in brief, is my understanding of ‘false rights’.

        Wishing you, sincerely, all the best,
        God bless,

        July 5, 2016 at 12:22 am
    • Fidelis

      RCA Victor,

      I tend to think of them as a cult myself. I only hope they don’t divide families in the way cults tend to do.

      July 5, 2016 at 7:29 pm
  • Athanasius

    I have been aware of the TFP and its activities since the 1980s and I can say without fear of contradiction that the organisation is a cult, mostly a personality cult based around its Brazilian founder. There are far too many stories to recount here of the strange ideas of the TFP. Suffice it to say Bishop Antoinio de Castro Mayer distanced himself from the organisation with a very clear condemnation of its deviations from the truth.

    Dr. David Allen White makes reference to this event in his biography of Bishop de Castro Mayer called “The Mouth of the Lion”. Here’s an extract from an overview of the book:

    “In the early years His Excellency worked closely with Plinio Correa de Oliveira, the eventual founder of TFP. Archbishop Lefebvre would say that “TFP saved Brazil from Communism” but as time went on Bishop de Castro Mayer had to distance himself from the organization due to strange tendencies and stories which he had investigated to his satisfaction. He even advised Catholics to steer clear of the organization. Dr. White speaks about some of these tendencies in Part III, Chapter 7 of the book. To simply name a few of them without context here seems out of place, and I would simply say that Bishop de Castro Mayer worked too closely with Plinio for too many years and was too just a man to arbitrarily dismiss a former colleague and his organization. If the Bishop warned Catholics away from TFP, it was not with an idle tongue.”

    And here’s the testimony of a former member:

    Many other such proofs could be brought forward to demonstrate the falsity of this organisation. However, the most important and obvious proof of all lies in what the speaker at the Catholic Truth Conference said concerning the TFP run ‘Britain Needs Fatima’ and ‘America Needs Fatima’. These alleged Fatima Apostolates downgrade, obscure or eliminate the most essential parts of Our Lady’s Fatima Message, namely, the public release of the FULL Third Secret and an insistence that Russia MUST be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope together with the bishops of the world in a public and solemn ceremony, without which conditions Russia will not convert and the world will not be granted a time of peace.

    While the TFP is to be congratulated for its defence of the unborn and its opposition to public immorality, even these are useless crusades if the fullness of truth is denied, obscured or otherwise supplanted. BNF and ANF both do harm to truth while proclaiming fidelity to Our Lady. The devil is very clever, who knows well how to administer a fatal drop of poison to an apparently healthy spring. St. Paul warns us of the devil’s ability to present himself disguised as an angel of light. I regret that the TFP is one such manifestation.

    July 5, 2016 at 12:24 am
  • Athanasius

    Neil McKay

    You wrote: “Lefebvre was a liberal at the time of the council- it cannot be denied that he signed all the council documents.”

    Actually, it can be denied and has been denied by the Archbishop himself. It seems you, like other ill-informed or ill-willed persons before you, have confused the obligation of all Council prelates to confirm their attendance with signature at every Council discussion on schemas with the actual signatures of approval of the schemas themselves. Archbishop Lefebvre attended all 16 schema discussions and signed accordingly to confirm the fact, as the rules demanded. He only signed 14 of the 16 documents, however. He rejected two as dangerous to the Faith and refused to sign them.

    If you take the time to read the history of the Council, I suggest a start with “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”, you will not in good conscience ever suggest again that Archbishop Lefebvre was “liberal”. I have read many attacks on the Archbishop’s position, but I have never read anything so absurd and at odds with historical record as your claim here today.

    As for the false lifeboat theory you propose in relation to the SSPX, whose Masses you used to attend in Edinburgh, I believe, it’s an odd claim from one who claims allegiance to the so-called Traditional Catholic organisation TFP.

    Had Archbishop Lefebvre not taken the position he did, there would be no freedom of the ancient Mass in the Church today. There would be no FSSP, ICK, Good Shepherd Institute, etc. It was the Archbishop’s brave stance under persecution that ultimately forced the hand of the Roman authorities to provide for the faithful who wanted the Mass of the saints and martyrs. Anyone who refuses to credit Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX for the re-birth of the true Mass in our time is, not to put to fine a point on it, a deceiver. The Traditional Mass would be as rare as hens teeth in the world today had it not been for that saintly prelate.

    And if you read the full history of his and his priests ‘suspension a divinis’ by Paul VI with objectivity, you will discover that it had more to do with His Grace’ determination to keep forming and ordaining clergy for the Mass of all time than with any wilful or harmful breach of Church discipline on his part. The harm, remember, was being caused by the New Mass, which has since decimated the priesthood and institutions of the Church.

    July 5, 2016 at 1:01 am
    • catholicconvert1


      Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature on schemas etc., did +Lefebvre actually have to sign documents such as Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio for example in order to confirm his attendance? Were these just preliminary documents in formation as opposed to the final documents? I have never heard about this before.

      God bless


      July 5, 2016 at 12:16 pm
      • Petrus

        Catholic Convert,

        Yes, I believe he did sign the documents. As I said to someone recently, it must have been incredibly difficult. The whole drama was playing out before his eyes. Archbishop Lefebvre was incredibly loyal and obedient and it would have been extremely difficult for him to make sense of what was happening.

        However, the main thing is he quickly realised what was going on and always spoke out against the errors of Vatican II. The allegation that he was some kind of liberal double agent is laughable.

        July 5, 2016 at 12:22 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        But was his signature to show he attended or to confirm his assent to the documents? If it was the latter, surely the Archbishop, knowing they contained errors, should have withheld his signature? I hasten to add that I am not insinuating that the Archbishop was spineless or a liberal double agent.

        July 5, 2016 at 12:27 pm
      • Petrus

        I think I remember reading in the biography written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais that it was a piece of paper indicating who had taken part in the debate. I can’t be sure of this.

        July 5, 2016 at 12:33 pm
      • Athanasius


        No, you misunderstand what I said. Every prelate at the Council had to sign a roll call sheet, for lack of a better term, to show that he was present when the schemas were being discussed. Archbishop Lefebvre was present for all debates and therefore signed 16 times to reflect that.

        Once the documents were generally agreed upon all prelates then had to sign them if they accepted them. In Archbishop Lefebvre’s case, he refused to sign two of the 16. Here is own explanation in the matter:

        “…I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism….”

        Read the entire interview with Archbishop Lefebvre here:

        July 5, 2016 at 2:33 pm
      • catholicconvert1


        But if modernism was so dominant in all the Vatican II documents, then why did he sign the first 14? Surely, he should have refused to sign even if the documents contained even the slightest hint of modernism?

        July 5, 2016 at 9:25 pm
  • Athanasius

    A strange thing happened when I tried to use the “Contact Us” facility on the ‘America Needs Fatima’ website to express concerns about the inaccuracies in their reporting of the Message of Fatima. I got a message saying “Your IP address has been temporarily blocked for security reasons”. How very odd! Could it be something to do with my recent exchanges with the World Apostolate of Fatima on its false presentation of the Message of Fatima? This is sinister!

    July 5, 2016 at 2:48 am
    • Neil McKay

      Athanasius….I wonder why people hide behind a name…my name is up front, I have nothing to hide.
      Interesting, the entry before your first one was12.22am then yours was 12.24am followed soon after by your other two entries, 1.01am and 2.48am…it is obvious that this was written by the editor or one of her clique, and Athanasius is just a name to hide behind. Don’t you sleep well? I do, I have a clean conscience.
      The analogy of the life boat was first used by the editor to me- I merely took it further, as it is quite a good one.
      The ANF are organising over 1500 public square rosaries for October 13th, the 99th anniversary of Fatima. Others are being organised in other countries, all in honour or Our Lady and in reparation to her Immaculate Heart.
      SSPX, if they were so inclined, could barely organise a dozen worldwide.. so little can be done from a lifeboat, so much from the barque or Peter.

      July 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
      • Petrus

        Neil McKay,

        It is standard blogging convention for users to use a username. This happens all over the world, in blogs secular and religious. You may choose to blog under your own name, of course, but you have no right to demand that our bloggers do likewise.

        I could say much more on your scandalous comments, and believe me, I will, but right now I will limit myself to these brief points.

        The America Needs Fatima website is full of inaccuracies. They claim:

        1. Our Lady promised “divine forgiveness” as part of the Fatima revelations. Please quote the words of Our Lady that show this.

        2. The consecration of Russia will happen after the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Please quote the words of Our Lady that say this.

        America/Britain Needs Fatima do not campaign for the Consecration of Russia. From what I read of their website it looks like they no longer believe this is necessary.

        You mention that the TFP/ANF/BNF organised rosary rallies around the world. That is, of course, good. But I bet they stand in the market places with their red and gold capes flapping. I’ve found that very odd. I’ve taken part in a few public rosaries and no one has ever felt the need to dress up. I remember passing a small group of elderly Legion of Mary members praying the rosary in public and what impressed me most was their humility. The red and gold capes would certainly not have the same effect.

        You mention the SSPX and rosary rallies. The SSPX have organised many rosary crusades, most notably for the Consecration of Russia.

        I think what is shining through is your hatred of Tradition. This hatred has manifested itself in your rage at the recent conference and your comments ever since. This rage does not come from God and is no doubt a bad fruit of your modern Catholicism. Your lack of charity on this blog, and elsewhere, is astounding. It is a common trait of a liberal Catholic who is trying to defend the indefensible.

        I urge you to retreat from this blog until you are in a better place/better informed because you are going to do yourself, and the organisations you directly/indirectly represent, no favours.

        July 5, 2016 at 9:19 am
      • editor


        You have chosen to use your own name to blog. That’s your right. The convention in blogging is to choose a username. It’s nobody else’s business or right to criticise a blogger for taking a username. In fact, it comes across as petty. We all know Athanasius’ own name – he fairly regularly submits blog articles for publication where his own name is used, with “aka Athanasius” to identify him to bloggers. I doubt very much if you do not know his real identity so why imply malice in this way?

        I cannot believe your allegation that I “or one of my clique” (?) wrote some or all of the Athanasius posts, due to the timing. Ridiculous – and so off the wall that I wouldn’t know how to answer it except to say – and I never lie – that the only posts penned by me on this thread are written under my username, “editor” to express my own personal views.

        If you are going to participate in this discussion, I suggest you avoid ad hominem attacks and stick to the issues. .

        July 5, 2016 at 10:02 am
      • Therese


        You are not doing yourself or your organisation any good by making spiteful, personal comments. Is this the behaviour of the “better element”?

        July 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm
      • Athanasius

        Neil McKay

        It is fairly common knowledge that my real name is Martin Blackshaw and I hide from no one. I posted those comments very late because I happen to be extremely busy with work and other things right now, so late viewing of the blog is my only opportunity to keep up. There is no conspiracy and I stick by what I have said.

        The more I refresh my memory on the TFP, the more I realise just how accommodating it has become to the Modernist cause. I also note that it never uses the title ‘Catholic’. The organisation, despite its good beginnings and the many well-intentioned Catholics who presently support it, has become a very dubious entity, something akin to the Dorothy Day lot. In other words, it’s way too fixated with this world rather than the next, despite its relgious overtones. It is also anti-clerical and Its Fatima department is spreading deliberate falsehoods about Our Lady’s message.

        July 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm
      • Fidelis


        “It’s way too fixated with this world rather than the next, despite its religious overtones”

        I agree with that, and I think one sign of that is the way they campaign and run petitions about various blasphemies, etc but Our Lady gave us the First Saturdays to make reparation for that.

        I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to hold protests about these things, but I’m not sure these activities don’t take away from the core Fatima message. I was quite shocked to read the ANF website and see that they don’t give the truth about the Consecration and the Third Secret. Why are they not telling the truth?

        July 5, 2016 at 7:27 pm
    • Petrus


      I believe it is sinister. As I said at the Conference, these organisations are false friends of Fatima. In fact, such is their danger, I would go so far as saying they are instruments of the devil. I don’t mean that their members are deliberately trying to derail the true Fatima message, although some may indeed be, but they are more likely to be useful idiots – believing that they are doing good but following the devil who has appeared to them as an “Angel of Light”.

      July 5, 2016 at 9:23 am
      • Athanasius


        I agree. The people who write up the articles for these websites know exactly what they’re doing. They are deliberately twisting the Fatima message and misleading the faithful. When that kind of dishonesty is on display it is a sure sign that we are not dealing with an apostolate of God.

        July 5, 2016 at 2:38 pm
  • westminsterfly

    I think they are a bit cultish. I remember being invited to a TFP ‘do’ years ago in London. Some aristocracy was there – Duke of Braganza or someone like that, I can’t really recall now (and wasn’t much interested at the time to be honest . . . ) and I think they put far too much emphasis on hob-nobbing with nobility and that kind of thing – someone once called it the ‘wannabe gentry’ syndrome.

    They also tried to dominate the London Rosary Crusade one year – all in their red capes and carrying a banner so tall it dwarfed everything else. One of their number, Antonio Borelli, wrote a piece supposedly ‘clarifying’ Fatima which Christopher Ferrara replied to here:-

    July 5, 2016 at 11:27 am
  • Petrus

    Apart from their daft views on Fatima, the TFP tend to target a specific type of young man. They are usually well presented, intelligent but subservient. It’s a bit like Opus Dei in that regard. Definitely a cult.

    July 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm
    • RCA Victor


      I was actually wondering whether there was any connection between TFP and Opus Dei, as they sound like the same type of organization.

      July 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm
      • Athanasius

        RCA Victor,

        At least Opus Dei only requires a vow of celibacy of its priests. The TFP require it of young laymen who don’t intend to take holy orders. Nothing wrong with celibacy in the single state, which is a requirement of the divine law, but tying young men to such a vow seems to me to be encouraging a depreciation of the Sacrament of Matrimony in the minds of young Catholics.

        July 5, 2016 at 3:20 pm
      • Petrus


        Opus Dei require their Numerary and Associate members, both male and female, to be celibate. Supernumeraries can be married.

        However, I do have slightly more time for Opus Dei. It doesn’t quite seem so odd as the TFP.

        July 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm
    • westminsterfly

      I know exactly what you mean. Are there any women members? It does seem to be all younger men – and I make that observation from the event I attended, from the videos I’ve seen and from their presence on the London Rosary Crusade of Reparation (which was never organised by TFP, but by a separate committee of priests and laity)

      July 5, 2016 at 3:30 pm
      • Fidelis

        Westminster Fly,

        I don’t know any TFP members but I have a friend who knows some of them and she says they have a very unhealthy attitude to women. There’s a danger that dysfunctional young men would be attracted to that sort of lifestyle. There won’t be the same checks and balances you’d get in a Religious House/Monastery.

        What’s the point of it? If young men want to live a celibate life and not marry, why not be a priest or religious brother? I can’t see the point of it at all. I know there have been attempts to set up lay houses in the past but I’ve never heard of any that were success stories. One that was a scandal, but no successes.

        July 5, 2016 at 7:22 pm
  • Athanasius


    I also seem to recall many years ago that they wanted to start some kind of Catholic village in Spain to separate themselves from sinful world. Well that certainly isn’t the Catholic spirit, which is militant in trying to convert sinners. Anyway, it all fell through eventually.

    All this parading around with big banners and capes trying to resurrect the spirit of the Crusades is madness. They’re all nuts! The Crusades era was one of great licentiousness in behaviour, in literature, in warfare and in many other ways. Yes, there were also very great saints and holy religious, but it wasn’t the glorious Catholic era that these nutters make it out to be. There were many immoralities around then.

    July 5, 2016 at 2:44 pm
    • westminsterfly

      Athanasius, No that wasn’t TFP, I think you’re referring to the St George Educational Trust. Another lot to avoid like the plague. The BBC picked up on that issue:-

      July 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm
      • Athanasius


        Yes, you’re absolutely right. I knew it was one of these extremist groupings that try to infiltrate Catholic Tradition. Thank you for the correction.

        July 5, 2016 at 3:13 pm
  • Athanasius


    I think it all stems from a grave misunderstanding of the lay apostolate and how far it can go in matters of social justice without clerical guidance and direction, what we might call the supernatural element. The TFP, as far as I know, does not subject itself to the Church’s authority. It is an autonomous body of lay people taking upon itself a “crusade” of counter-revolution to re-establish in the world the reign of Christ the King. But that can only come through Our Lady’s triumph, not through lay social action. At least it explains why they misrepresent the message of Fatima to play down the urgency of a Papal/Episcopal consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.

    For example, on the America needs Fatima website they report that Our Lady told Sister Lucy that the Pope will eventually consecrate Russia to Her, but that it will be “too late”. In fact, our lady only said that it would be “late”. Late means that it will still be done in time. Too late means that the world’ salvation falls to the TFP. Get the drift?

    July 5, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    • Petrus


      That makes perfect sense. To think Neil had the nerve to walk out of a conference address when the speaker promoted the true message of Fatima! Talk about diabolical disorientation !

      July 5, 2016 at 8:18 pm
  • editor

    I thought I’d check to see what, if anything, the TFP / ANF thought of Father Gruner RIP. I was disappointed, although not surprised, to find that they were among the chorus of voices spreading the falsehood about Fr Gruner being “a suspended priest” with EWTN helping all the way.

    I’m afraid, Neil, that the more I’m learning about the TFP the more concerned I become. I would (and will) do everything I can to prevent the young men in my family ever becoming involved with them.

    July 5, 2016 at 9:29 pm
  • Athanasius

    Neil McKay

    I would very much appreciate your response to the various points that I and others have raised here.

    You wrote earlier today that I was hiding behind a pseudonym. I disproved that allegation. You also suggested that Editor and “her cohort” had conspired to post simultaneous responses to you. That has been shown to be untrue. You began at the outset by saying that Archbishop Lefebvre signed all 16 documents of the Council. I proved that wrong. And, as many of us have commented, the organisation calling itself America needs Fatima is deliberately misleading Catholics on the Message of Fatima and the need for the consecration of Russia.

    You have been silent on all these responses. I would like to think it is because you have had your eyes opened. Is this the case? If not, then I would appreciate a fact-based counter argument from you. Sudden silence when evidence is put before you is not the most honest way to debate.

    July 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm
  • Vianney

    I don’t know their position now, but at one time members of the TFP wouldn’t attend the Novus Ordo Mass but would stand outside a church while it was being celebrated and at Communion would go in, receive the Host, and then leave. I could never understand why, if they had a problem with the Novus Ordo, would they think it was ok to receive Communion at it. I have been told that they attend Mass celebrated by Opus Dei priests and I assume it is Novus Ordo so perhaps they have changed their stance.

    July 5, 2016 at 10:29 pm
  • Athanasius


    One former member in the US says that where he was housed with them they had a priest come around once every two months or so to celebrate Mass and consecrate a lot of hosts, which, for the following two months would be administered from the house chapel tabernacle each day by a layman. It is very strange stuff.

    July 5, 2016 at 11:05 pm
    • Petrus

      I think this thread is really important as we all need to protect our sons, nephews etc from this danger.

      July 5, 2016 at 11:13 pm
  • ambrose397

    I have been following these comments withinterest.
    It is interesting how several people have claimed the TFP is a cult, some giving links to ‘prove’ this, but the links exposing these falsehoods are ignored.
    For example:
    THE TFP ANSWERS an Unsigned Attack on Its America Needs Fatima
    I don’t see how anyone reading the above in good spirit could possibly think the TFP were a cult.
    Would it not be more honest to quote both?

    There is an old saying ‘People in glass houses should not throw stones.’
    Similar accusations to those made against the TFP have also been made against SSPX. For example:
    Is the SSPX (in all its chapels) supposed to be a disinterested outpost of the One True Church, or a private club set up for its own benefit?
    The SSPX (is a Cult?) (From EWTN Q&A)

    As for the TFP being anti-clerical, the TFP enjoy the support of many good priests and bishops, such as Bishop Schneider – a good sign. They are also disliked by many liberal and false rights- also is a good sign!

    Their actions are fully covered by Canon. 227
    “The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.”

    As for the honour given to their founder, Plinio Correa de Olivera, it is common for founders of religious groups, especially if they are seen as holy, to be given a reverence, even while still alive.
    Church history abounds with examples of such “reverence.” Fervent Catholics tried to pull threads or cut strips of cloth off the garments of Saint Dominic, Saint Francis, Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Vincent Ferrer, Saint Bernadette Soubirous, for example.
    Unable to reach Saint Vincent, some Spaniards plucked hairs off his horse to keep as relics! Grateful French Catholics mobbed Saint Joan of Arc to touch her or have her touch keepsakes for them.
    These saints also had their enemies, who hated such veneration. St. Joan of Arc’s ashes were thrown into the Seine to try and stop it happening.

    As for the consecration, none of the above comments categorically show where the TFP/ANF say it has been done. I have only seen attempts to put one’s interpretation on the words to say what one wants it to say!

    Our Lady says that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world. Since these errors, which include sex education, the legalising of abortion, divorce and sodomy, are leading souls to hell, spending all one’s energies on petitioning the pope to consecrate Russia, then folding one’s arms, while knowing that the errors of Russia are leading souls to hell, is not charitable. We have to fight these and other such errors, and this is what the TFP are doing. I do not understand your difficulty in seeing this!

    July 5, 2016 at 11:28 pm
    • Petrus

      Again, a post full of nonsense. I think the record of the SSPX in resisting the modern errors speaks for itself. Catholic Truth has certainly led many successful campaigns against modern errors. So I don’t think the accusations of folding ones arms and doing nothing hold water.

      However, I guess there’s one thing worse than folding your arms and waiting for the pope to act. That is ignoring and distorting the words of Our Lady. This is what the TFP does. This is why it is dangerous and this is what it should be avoided at all costs.

      July 6, 2016 at 12:05 am
    • RCA Victor


      I am puzzled as to why you linked to the PDF “THE TFP ANSWERS an Unsigned Attack on Its America Needs Fatima,” when this document in its entirety is a defense against charges made against TFP, not ANF, by some utterly obscure outfit called “Unity Publishing,” which displays nothing but an antiquated website. Why TFP felt it had to respond to this obscure group is not clear.

      Moreover, the only references to ANF are in the heading of Chapter 1, the footnote on page 3 bottom, and several pictures near the end of the PDF. Hardly a defense of ANF’s failure to address Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia and the release of the Third Secret, neither of which have been done. Or to put it more plainly, there is no defense in this document of ANF’s position regarding these two items, therefore the document is entirely mis-named.

      So are you able to answer a simple, direct question? What is the position of ANF on the failure of multiple Popes to accomplish the Consecration and the release of the Third Secret, as requested by Our Lady? Quotes and sources please.

      July 6, 2016 at 2:15 am
      • westminsterfly

        RCA Victor
        Unity Publishing is in fact a man called Rick Salbato (I don’t know if he is still alive) who considered himself to be an authority on all sorts of ecclesiastical affairs. Needless to say, he was a fervent attacker of Fr Gruner and the Fatima Network.

        July 6, 2016 at 9:22 am
    • Athanasius


      I have studied all the information you have posted, long before you posted it, and I still conclude that the TFP is a very questionable organisation, to say the least.

      That Bishop Schneider is friendly towards it means nothing. Bishop de Castro Mayer was also very friendly with the TFP and its founder in the early days but was subsequently obliged to open his eyes and condemn it. Bishop Schneider, given time and experience, will do likewise.

      Apart from all else, however, the falsity of this organisation is glaringly obvious on the website of America needs Fatima. The words of Our Lady to Sister Lucy concerning the consecration of Russia are altered on that site to the great detriment of the truth. That is quite enough for me to know with certainty that God is not the author of this organisation.

      If the TFP/ANF want to truly fight the evil of today then let them obey the clear instructions given by Our Lady at Fatima, and let them publicly declare that the Pope and the Bishops of the world do likewise. The Blessed Virgin gave the remedy to the present apostasy and immorality, hence no alternative clerical or lay activity to save the world will succeed, as Vatican II reform should have amply demonstrated by now.

      As things stand right now TFP/ANF is just a side show, an organisation too fixed on its own lay-led counter-revolutionary agenda to trust entirely and with humility in Our Lady’s promise upon the granting of her request by the Pope and the Bishops. Yes, it is that simple!

      July 6, 2016 at 3:08 am
    • westminsterfly

      Ambrose397 you stated:-

      “As for the consecration, none of the above comments categorically show where the TFP/ANF say it has been done. I have only seen attempts to put one’s interpretation on the words to say what one wants it to say!”

      Please read the link, posted above:-

      July 6, 2016 at 9:28 am
    • Fidelis

      If the TFP/ANF do NOT think the Consecration has been done, why are they not campaigning for it to BE done? It’s not about folding our arms and doing nothing, we have to do both – fight the culture AND lobby for the Consecration. Why do you think it has to be the former and not the latter?

      The ANF are very mixed up about the Consecration – that’s the best I can say about their page on that subject, but they are very clear that the Third Secret has been fully revealed.

      What do you think about that?

      July 6, 2016 at 8:19 pm
      • Petrus


        They are very mixed up about a lot of things. It’s hilarious to think that they have written on their website that the Consecration will come after the triumph of the Immaculate Heart!!! To think Neil walked out of my talk because I said they were false friends of Fatima! It’s laughable.

        July 6, 2016 at 8:32 pm
  • Neil McKay

    Thank you Ambrose 297 for your contribution.
    The article at clearly shows that the slanders against ANF and the TFP are nothing but old calumnies being regurgitated, ad nauseum.
    The real detractors from Fatima are those who will not fight the Cultural Revolution going on around them. You really are part of the problem, and not the solution.
    Yes, as Athanasius points out, I did attend the SSPX for a while- but that was over half a century ago, even before the excommunications, and it was evident even then, as the Ecclesia Dei Commission later pointed out:
    “While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff.”
    We therefore felt the need to leave the lifeboat and get back to the barque of Peter.

    July 6, 2016 at 9:36 am
    • editor


      You are not answering the key questions which caused your anger in the first place and led to the posting of this thread. It wasn’t about the SSPX (unless that was the real reason for your anger – that you saw priests and laity speaking positively about the Society and that is what really angered you at the conference?)

      If, however, you were livid – as you claimed at the time – due to the sentence in Peter’s talk that BNF and similar organisations do not give the full truth about Fatima, then – with the disclosure of plenty of supporting evidence, on this thread alone – I would have thought that you would have humbly acknowledged that you were wrong to accuse Peter of calumny (as you did in your initial email to me). Instead you continue to defend ANF/BNF.

      I’d be grateful for your comment on that – once you have responded to the facts given on this thread about the ANF/BNF taken from their own website, we can discuss the rest.

      July 6, 2016 at 10:12 am
      • Petrus

        You attended the SSPX over half a century ago? Has it even been established that long???

        You ignore the key questions. You ignore the incontrovertible evidence. Let me ask the key questions again, since you conveniently ignored them first time round:

        1. ANF states Our Lady promised “divine forgiveness” as part of the Fatima revelations. Please quote the words of Our Lady that show this.

        2. ANF states that the consecration of Russia will happen after the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Please quote the words of Our Lady that say this.

        3. Where did Our Lady state that the Consecration of Russia would be “TOO late”?

        4. Where did Our Lady say that any means, including groups of laity organising campaigns, other than the Consecration of Russia, defeat the errors of Russia?

        America/Britain Needs Fatima do not campaign for the Consecration of Russia. From what I read of their website it looks like they no longer believe this is necessary.

        July 6, 2016 at 11:00 am
    • Petrus

      So you attended the Traditional Mass then went back to the New Mass??? Wow.

      July 6, 2016 at 11:01 am
    • RCA Victor

      Neil McKay,

      Please inform us how you intend to fight against the Cultural Revolution – which is, as you know, a series of lies directed against Our Lord, the Church, and the civilization she founded – by engaging, yourself, in lies of commission (i.e. altering the words of Our Lady, and/or supporting those who do), and lies of omission (i.e. hiding the most crucial part of the Fatima Message, that the Consecration of Russia must be performed by the Pope in union with all the bishops, and that the Third Secret be released).

      If you think you can fight lies with more lies, then you are gravely mistaken.

      July 6, 2016 at 5:18 pm
    • editor


      Your choice of EWTN as a source of information about the SSPX is interesting.

      Of course an adherence to schism can come about over a period of time. We have witnessed it in the acceptance of the protestantised new Mass and all that goes with it over a period of fifty odd years. As a result, the majority of Catholics are thoroughly Protestantised, to the point where they consider those who adhere to the ancient Faith, those of us who cling to what we have always believed, and rejected novel teachings and (in)discipline, as “schismatic”!

      It’s very sad, Neil, and to think I’ve known you for years and held you in the highest regard, unable to work out why you were are so opposed to the SSPX – I’m now truly flabbergasted. Believe me, my flabber could not be more gasted!

      But I’m more sad than anything else. Very sad.

      July 6, 2016 at 7:47 pm
    • Fidelis

      Neil McKay,

      Again, you talk about “not fighting the Cultural Revolution” but the Bishops are not fighting it. Why doesn’t the TFP say that on their site? I get the impression that the TFP are fixated on organising their protests, which are all well and good insofar as they go, but they’re not the answer. The problem isn’t with the culture, it’s really with the crisis in the Church. I don’t see anything on the TFP or ANF sites about that. Why is that?

      July 6, 2016 at 8:21 pm
  • Athanasius

    Neil McKay

    Well, so much for the “Tradition” element of the TFP and its supporters. As soon as a false claim of schism from Modernist Rome against the SSPX is uttered you’re off like a shot. What about the cultural revolution begun at Vatican II and more particularly evident today under Pope Francis? That’s the “cultural revolution” you guys should be fighting instead of agitating in the secular world where you can’t make any significant progress. Get the Church right and all else will fall into line. But it takes guts, the guts to be ostricistsed by a liberal hierarchy and falsely accused of all kinds of sins.

    As for the ANF, I have pointed out to you the glaring misinformation that it posts on its official webiste, actually twisting Our Lady’s message so that it doesn’t fall foul of the same liberal hierarchy. You haven’t addressed that issue, or any of the others I proposed to you. I’m beginning to see you as disingenuous, Neil, a man who likes to pretend to be fighting the good fight while staying on the right side of the Church’s internal enemies.

    One final point. Those “regurgitated calumnies” against the TFP you refer to have not, as you declare, been definitively answered by that organisation. Simply denying accusations is not in any man’s language a proper response. Not that I’m interested one way or the other since I already know all about the TFP and its strange lay-led personality cult, have done for decades. No, my problem is with ANF and its clear misrepresentation of Fatima. They can encourage as many rosaries as they will on that site, along with fastings and other penances, it doesn’t alter the fact that they are not of God. The poison is in their undermining of the central message of Our Lady to the Pope and the Bishops of the world about Russia, as well as in their silence on the Third Secret and their peddling the idea that its about a material chastisement on the world, which it is not.

    July 6, 2016 at 8:20 pm
    • Lily


      You have said exactly what I was about to try to say – LOL!

      I agree completely. Get the Church right, and everything else falls into line.

      July 6, 2016 at 8:25 pm
      • Spiritus

        Athanasius and Lily

        Also agreed that if we have a truly believing and holy Church everything else falls into line. I think that that’s where a lot of good campaigners against the moral corruption of our culture, particularly attacks on life and the family, go wrong; they leave God out of the picture and depend on human effort alone.

        July 9, 2016 at 4:34 pm
    • RCA Victor


      Well said, as usual! I get the impression that Mr. McKay’s real problem is that he has an axe to grind with the SSPX. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was some personal slight involved – or, a perception of a personal slight that was actually a misunderstanding. Seems to be a recurring theme among a small but vociferous minority.

      July 6, 2016 at 9:32 pm
      • Petrus

        It could also be jealousy. A hall was filled at a public venue of supporters of Catholic Truth and the SSPX. Neil’s organisation wasn’t promoted and indeed “Britain Needs Fatima” was exposed as a fraud. It must have been hard for Neil to take, hence the reason for the hissy fit!

        July 6, 2016 at 9:46 pm
      • editor


        I have to disagree with your charge of “jealousy”. I’ve known Neil for a very long time and he has always supported our meetings and conferences. He’s never asked me to publicise his group – to be honest, it didn’t occur to me or I’m sure we would have made an announcement about it, as they do very good work. They organise a regular rosary (I think it’s monthly) outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and to mark the Feast of St John Ogilvie at Glasgow Cross (which I try to attend myself, although I haven’t always managed to get there.)

        So, I really do not think that there is any jealousy at all. I know Neil to be a most charitable and usually gentle person, so I’ve been taken aback at the level of his anger over that one sentence in your talk.

        However, I now know that he has had a long-term relationship (!) with the TFP – something of which I was unaware until his reaction to your comment on BNF – and that explains why he has always been reticent about the SSPX when we talked about it, and is in fact, I now see, really hostile to the Society. I presume this is due to the TFP’s “false right” theory which Neil has applied to Archbishop Lefebvre.

        Anyway, I wanted to set the record straight on the allegation of jealousy – I genuinely do NOT believe that and I do not wish to, in any way, belittle or undermine the good work which Neil does through his Holy Family Apostolate.

        July 7, 2016 at 12:22 am
      • Petrus


        I now believe there’s good cause to warn people not to support Neil’s organisation. I don’t doubt that there’s good intentions and good work being done, but I think it’s now crystal clear they are part of the problem, not the solution.

        July 7, 2016 at 8:47 am
      • Athanasius

        RCA Victor

        I’m not sure Neil McKay falls into that category. I see his position as the same as so many other Catholics who can’t bear the liberalism in the Church but who nevertheless can’t bring themselves to take a full and honest stand against it. It comes down to a false notion of obedience to religious superiors.

        Hence, instead of publicly and fearlessly adhering to the Traditional Mass of the saints and martyrs and defending all the Traditional doctrines against the hierarchy’s conciliar novelties, they acquiesce and then seek to salve their conscience by getting involved with organisations like TFP and ANF. Fighting a secular cultural revolution with rosary in hand, for them, is far preferable to courting the displeasure of the liberal bishops by associating with the SSPX and insisting on the full message of Fatima.

        The latter being the essential supernatural fight comes at too high a cost. Better to be hailed as a great Catholic warrior in the secular domain than castigated and calumniated in the spiritual domain by a Modernist hierarchy. It boils down to Pusillanimity at the end of the day.

        July 7, 2016 at 12:18 am
  • Neil McKay

    I see a good number of the ‘lifeboat’ crew are up in arms! Should you blog not be called SSPX ‘Truth’?
    As I originally stated to an SSPX member at the conference, I was angry with the calumny against the BNF and the pushing of SSPX down our throats. Presenting the SSPX as the only group we should follow seemed so arrogant- like the tail wanting to wag the dog.
    In the last posting, Petrus mentioned I might be jealous- and mentioned the hall being filled. That is an untruth, Petrus- the hall wasn’t even half filled.
    I have spoken to three of the priests there, and they were not happy with the pressure to pervert to SSPX, and none of them have. They handled this pressure so well in the question time! As for a hissy fit, Petrus, you are getting desperate to stoop so low.

    One crew member noted that I had written I attended the SSPX over half a century ago- I meant a quarter century- a small point to pick up on, but I apologise.

    I don’t have the time nor the inclination to answer the avalanche of twisted and sometimes caustic comments by an SSPX jury who act as if they had magisterial authority- a sure sign of a cult.
    I will just pick a few points.

    One entry claimed that Lefebvre had not signed all of the documents of Vatican 2- and quoted Lefebvre as having stated so.
    Yes, until his dying day, Lefebvre claimed he had not sighed all the documents of Vatican 2, but a search in the archives in 1990 revealed that he and Castro Mayer had indeed signed.
    He may have genuinely forgot he had signed, but would you or I forget if we had signed a similarly importantdocument? If he did, in fact, break the 8th commandment to freely, can he be trusted in anything else he said or did?

    As for Fatima, let’s break it down a bit, keeping the sequential order given by Our Lady. Before I am accused of something silly, yes, the numbers are mine. The sequence of events is however from Our Lady.

    1. You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war [World War I] is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI [World War II].
    2. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.
    3 To prevent this [World War II], I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays.
    4. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world [Communism], causing wars and persecutions of the Church.
    5. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.
    6. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc. …”
    It is clear from the highlighted portion that initial reason for the Consecration Our Lady asked was to prevent world war II.
    If this was not done, Russia spread her errors throughout the world [Communism], causing wars and persecutions of the Church.

    Reading event 3, it is clear that the initial consecration was to be done to prevent WW2, and then the other events which would follow….
    Following, at event 4, The errors of Russia have been spread, and are being spread in the Church and In the world.
    At event 5, Now, the good are being martyred, and nations are going to be annihilated, and then Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph.
    At event 6, Then the Holy Father will consecrate Russia, she will convert, and a period of Peace will be given to the world
    This is the sequence of events given by Our Lady- why should we try and alter them? Why not look to the stage we are at, and see how we can help save souls in it?

    Since all that comes through the hands of Our Lady comes from God, the end is therefore obviously from God (Divine) and the Means is through Our Lady!

    I can’t make it any simpler than that, Crew!

    Anyway, I’m off to bed- and off to Lourdes on Friday morning, and I’ll be busy getting ready so I won’t have the time to help you anymore, but I will be praying you in your little ‘lifeboat ‘and for all those in the huge Barque of Peter.

    July 7, 2016 at 1:53 am
    • editor


      “I have spoken to three of the priests there, and they were not happy with the pressure to pervert to SSPX, and none of them have. They handled this pressure so well in the question time!”

      I will ask each of the priests about this, because none of them has mentioned any “pressure” to me.

      There were a couple of questions from people about the SSPX during the question time, but nothing remotely putting “pressure” on the priests. In fact, one of the “priests in good standing” went out of his way to take the microphone to say (in answer to a question about being permitted to attend SSPX Masses) that the Vatican had said it was permissible, so he [as a priest in good standing] could not see any problem. However, I will ask the priests myself, to see if they did feel any “pressure” in regard to the SSPX. I’m not accusing you of falsehood, but there may be some misunderstanding.

      I spent a lot of time over the weekend with Fr Clovis and a couple of the other priests, and I don’t think we discussed the SSPX at all, We were too busy trying to find a particular brand of whisky (long story, don’t ask!) and fighting the midgies at Loch Lomond, so I can only imagine that, perhaps, they were a bit uncomfortable with being asked by the audience about the Society – possibly in case their comments came back to haunt them on the Bishop’s carpet – but there was no pressure on any of them to “pervert” to the SSPX [I am not clear what you mean by “pervert” to the SSPX].

      As for the “half full hall” – we didn’t ask for the sliding door to be pulled over so we were actually using a massive hall – I think what Petrus means is that the part of the hall designated for our use was, indeed, full. If you’d noticed, it was only that part which was set up for our use – and it was, thankfully, packed. Of course, were the allegedly concerned Catholics of the west of Scotland – Glasgow in particular – possessed of even a modicum of zeal, we’d have needed the use of the other part of the hall but I said as much in our final advertisement for the event, in our newsletter.

      Thank you for your promise of prayers for us all in Lourdes. Much appreciated. Enjoy your trip.

      July 7, 2016 at 8:12 am
    • Petrus

      I also think Neil is being rather uncharitable with his constant use of ‘crew member’. His claims of being a ‘lamb’ are only half true – a wolf in sheep clothing is more accurate.

      His comments on Fatima are still all over the place.

      July 7, 2016 at 8:44 am
    • Petrus

      I note that Neil claims to be a lamb when personally attacked and a lion when defending the truth. Well, why didn’t he correct me during my talk at the Conference? There was a question and answer session at the end of my talk. If I had brought BNF into disrepute , surely Neil had a duty to correct me? Why walk out and speak privately to one person? That’s not the action of a lion.

      Neil could have spoken to me privately about it. I was around the whole afternoon, although I didn’t stay for the meal. I wasn’t at the social event the next day , but Neil could have brought the matter to the editor’s attention. He didn’t.

      I think this thread speaks volumes. Britain Needs Fatima is a danger to the Faith and Neil is defending the indefensible.

      Enjoy your trip to Lourdes, Neil. I hope it will lead to your conversion.

      July 7, 2016 at 8:57 am
    • westminsterfly


      But surely that’s the point Our Lady is making – the longer the Consecration is postponed, the more the punishments for mankind will continue – World War II, the errors of Russia, the good being martyred, and then the annihilation of nations. It seems you are saying that the annihilation of nations is now inevitable, but the promise of world peace is conditional on the Consecration being done, so if it is done, then the annihilation of nations will not take place.

      And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.” Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner.

      July 7, 2016 at 9:54 am
    • Athanasius

      Neil McKay

      I have taken much time to analyse that article and fragment of a document you linked as proof that Archbishop Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium et Spes, with the inference that His Grace was therefore a liar.

      I noticed immediately that there was something wrong with the text and so placed it on a grid to measure line accuracy. The lines are all over the place between the heading, the listing and the signatures, indicating that lines of text have been superimposed on the paper before being copied. And it’s much more than just a skewed copy where all the lines are equally out of sync from edge to edge. This is a case of some straight lines of text and some skewed lines of text, a clear fake.

      I’m very surprised that you did not spot this glaring inconsistency but I’ll assume you’re just very bad sighted. A child would have spotted this document was a fake. That’s probably why no full formal copies of the signed documents in question have ever been presented by the enemies of the SSPX, because they would give the gaffe away.

      There was nothing wrong with the Archbishop’s memory, nor with his moral conscience, when he declared that he had not signed those two documents. He told the truth, the priest who claims otherwise and faked the documents to back him up is the liar. And it just so happens that, guess what?, that priest had a falling out with the Archbishop because the latter rejected his sedeprivationist views. It seems he later recanted everything and reconciled with Rome, but with a vengence against the Archbishop in my opinion.

      One other point on this. The arrow indicating Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer’s signiture does not, in fact, show his signature. I don’t know who’s signature it is, the text is so poor, but it certainly doesn’t say de Castro Mayer.

      Now to Fatima.

      I’m afraid it is you who are taking the events of Fatima out of context. The Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady was not merely to prevent WWII, a material chastisement for sin, although it would most certainly have prevented that war. No, WWII was the beginning of the travail, of worse chastisements to come, of supernatural punishments that would make WWII look like a picnic. Let us not forget that WWII gifted Eastern Europe to Stalin. The murders of Christians that resulted from that takeover easily matches the global number of dead from the war, so that puts WWII in perspective.

      Look again at the chronology of events Our Lady lays out. She speaks first of material punishment (WWII) and of famine. She then goes on to speak of Russia and its errors spreading throughout the world if the consecration remains undone, and that’s where the “In Portugal the dogmas of the faith will be preserved, etc.” of the Third Secret comes into play.

      The entire world is today saturated in the errors of Russia, primarily its aggressive atheism. Let us recall that abortion was first authorised by the State in Russia, as in Communist China, long before our Western nations legislated in its favour. Imagine the number of babies, the most innocent of all, that have been murdered since the war. The number dwarfs that of war victims. This was the work of Russia and its errors. Also, as Fr. Fortunato di Noto has pointed out, the majority of Internet sites hosting child abuse in the West today have their domains in Russia. And, as we know, Russian agents played a major role At Vatican II. It is little understood today that while Russia was at the height of its persecution of religion back in the 1950s and 60s, it was at the same time the greatest proponent of ecumenism, knowing that the mixing of religious truth and error leads ultimately to confusion and apsotasy from God. So Russia pushed ecumenism. It also pushed evolutionism before it was adopted en masse by Western governments. Karl Marx was a great admirer of Darwin’s work. He adopted and incorporated it into Marxism as a means of offering the proletariat an alternative to a Creator. Russia is behind all these great errors of our times, all things which destroy immortal souls. The loss of one soul is worse in God’s eyes than the destruction of the created universe. Too many Catholics are now lost to that supernatural reality and so they think earthly wars and suffering are the worst things that can befall mankind. No, the loss of souls is much, much worse.

      It was Lenin who said, and I paraphrase, “We need a world war to establish Communism in Russia, a second to establish it in Europe and a third to establish it globally.” Russia, then, is what Our Lady’s focus was on, WWII being the catalyst for its growth and spread.

      The way you describe the Consecration request of Our Lady, Neil, similar to ANF, is to play down its importance. You promote Fatima as primarily related to earthly catastrophies when it is in truth a supernatural battle for souls that only Our Lady can win for us. By their repeated refusal to humbly acquiesce with Our Lady’s request, successive Popes have allowed the smoke of Satan (Modernism) to enter the Church and set her on a path of auto destruction. They have stood by applauding the revolution while the world has turned increasingly atheistic and hostile to God under the influence of Russia’s errors. They have themselves failed to stem abuses in the Church, which some have even encouraged, setting themselves instead against those who uphold and defend the Traditions of the Faith handed down.

      As far as this latter assault is concerned, you and others like you are fully on board with them, attacking the SSPX with impunity while remaining silent over the scandals of Pope Francis and others of the new ecumenical religion. You demonstrate in the street against abortion, no bad thing, but fail in the greater matter of defending immortal souls that are being poisoned by the novel doctrines and abusive practices of Modernist/Liberal bishops and clergy. This was and is the main chastisement of the Third Secret of Fatima, the apostasy from the top down together with all the fence sitters who don’t want to be persecuted for standing up for the truths of the Faith. Church history is replete with examples of this kind of vacillation on the part of the majority during persecution. It’s always just a persecuted handful who defend the truth. The rest at best do half truths to keep a foot in each camp.

      The Third Secret of Fatima, intimately linked with that Consecration of Russia, is by no means over. WWII was just the beginning. WWIII was Vatican II and its consequences on souls, a much worse conflict with incalculable supernatural losses to date that will only end when the Pope and the bishops do what Our Lady asked of them. This is what you, BNF and ANF should be shouting from the rooftops, not banging on about what little you can do in secular society. If the Pope can’t keep Catholics in the Church then you have no chance.

      July 8, 2016 at 12:21 am
      • westminsterfly

        Spot on Athanasius, well put. An excellent source of information about Russia’s errors/communism directly affecting the Catholic Church in this country is Fr Michael Clifton’s book ‘The Alliance of Dissent: Turning the Church Upside Down’. It is out-of-print now but second-hand copies are available on Amazon for as little as 62p. Well worth reading.

        July 8, 2016 at 9:34 am
    • editor


      “As I originally stated to an SSPX member at the conference…”

      Just for the record, there is no such thing as “an SSPX member”. Some of us attend the Society Masses in the same way that Catholics may attend the Society of Jesus Masses in the Jesuit church around the corner from the SSPX chapel in Glasgow. Nobody speaks about “Jesuit members” just because some people may attend Mass in that church. And, as a matter of fact, the person to whom you expressed your anger at the Conference is a woman who attends the SSPX chapel as often as she can manage (subject to the availability of public transport) but she also attends the TLM in Sacred Heart, Bridgeton – as I’ve done myself – when necessary.

      I’m disappointed in your caricature of the “lifeboat” analogy which is sometimes used to explain the role of the SSPX in the current crisis. Perhaps I could clarify that analogy by pointing out that nobody in their right mind would ever claim that a lifeboat is a replacement for or equal to,a ship. Lifeboats are for use in emergencies only, and generally do not have a “crew” – just poor souls desperate to save their lives in a situation where they find themselves in grave danger. Crucially, however, lifeboats are not separate from the main ship – the lifeboats are part and parcel of the provisions found on any good, safe ship, to cater for any major tragedy.

      In that sense, we can argue that God has provided us with the SSPX as a lifeboat, not to replace the main ship, but to keep us spiritually safe as we travel through the choppy waters of the current dire state of affairs within the Church.

      I hope that makes the analogy a little clearer.

      July 8, 2016 at 7:33 pm
  • Neil McKay

    I’ve just read your post while posting mine. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words, Athanasius, I assure you I am not a coward when it comes to defending the faith or tradition. I try to be a lamb when personally attacked, but a lion when I see an injustice. And I will pray for you all in Lourdes

    July 7, 2016 at 2:02 am
    • Petrus


      You’ve done a fair bit of personal attacking yourself. I hope you will apologise for that. You also stick to the allegation of calumny – even after it’s been shown time and time again to be a false allegation.


      Thank you for your response on my wondering that Neil could be jealous. It was only a speculation as that kind of rage has to come from somewhere. I’ve never met Neil and have never had anything to do with his organisation so I will take your word for it.

      However, I have to say that given Neil’s views and they way he has conducted himself on this blog, I wouldn’t have anything to do with the Holy Family Apostolate, although they clearly do good work. Their hatred of the SSPX is enough for me, along with the falsehoods they spread about Fatima. It’s an organisation to be avoided.

      July 7, 2016 at 8:40 am
  • RCA Victor

    Mr. McKay’s answer of 1:53 does not answer the direct questions I put to him regarding whether or not the ANF affirms that the Consecration has not been done, and whether or not the Third Secret has been released.

    Instead, he has dug himself deeper into the pit of evasion (which, I repeat, is a lie of omission) by merely listing the words of Our Lady and then trying to insinuate that the request for the Consecration had more to do with WWII than anything else. And accompanying him further into this pit are his straw man arguments about Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX.

    So the bottom line for all the readers of this blog, as far as I am concerned, is this: the true character of ANF/TFP has been revealed by the nature of Neil’s posts. Unless a more responsible, honest person appears in their defense (Ambrose397 being cut from the same cloth as McKay), I think the conclusion is entirely justified that these groups are nothing more than a cult and a diversion from the truth – and therefore evil disguised as good.

    July 7, 2016 at 4:04 pm
  • Cruz de Santiago


    I’m associated with the American TFP and I’ve been reading the comments.

    Rather than trying to address all of the issues/statements brought up here categorically, I’ll say several things:

    1) The reason why ANF has not launched a campaign for the revealing of the full secret is two fold. The first is that there is not a consensus within the organization itself. Some believe it has been revealed and others (perhaps a majority) do not. Additionally, there is not enough clear evidence to launch a large-scale public campaign to tackle the issue.

    2) In regards to the consecration of Russia: I do not know of a single TFP member in either the United States or any other country that believes the consecration has happened. That being said, ANF is in a similar boat in terms of what it can do publicly.

    3) It’s important to understand what the goal of the apostolate is. Obviously, that requires reading and understanding the foundational texts of the TFP (like the book of Nobility or Revolution and COunter-Revolution.) Although it is an essentially Marian apostolate that draws its worldview from the perspective of the messages of Fatima and Our Lady of Good Success (the TFP is one of the official ‘custodians’ of the statue of Our Lady of Good Success that is owned by the Conceptionist nuns in Quito, Ecuador – though under a different name since the modernist/progressivist TFP splinter group “Heralds of the Gospel” owns the rights to the TFP names and symbols in much of South America after the death of Dr. Plinio) and it goes to great efforts to promote devotion to Our Lady and Her messages, the goal of the organization is more civic in scope. Specifically it’s work is to reverse the process of degeneration of Christian Civilization (referred to as the Revolution) by combating communism, abortion, the homosexual movement, etc. In the words of a TFP member from Sicily, there is a movement to “sacralize the temporal.” It is a goal that is both religious and civic in scope.

    Our Lord said that we will “know them by their fruits.” I think the fruits of the TFP are clear, but it’s important to keep in mind what the scope of the group in question is.

    4) The TFP has never publicly attacked the SSPX. However, there is a silence between the two organizations after the publishing of the “John T. Armour” (who, for the record, was never actually a member of the TFP, he just stayed for six months or so at one of the American TFPs locations in New York, despite the protests of TFP members and even the founder of the first TFP, Dr. Plinio… but that’s a long complicated story not worth getting into) letters and some issues with a few students in France. That being said, the two organizations seem to have a lot in common in terms of promoting tradition, the Latin Mass etc. and it’s a shame to see so much animosity between supporters.

    5) I’m confused why people point towards the promotion of the founder of the TFP (Dr. Plinio) by TFP members inside and outside the group as being strange or cultish. He founded the group, he wrote the foundational texts, he formed the school of thought, he personally led and inspired countless campaigns across the world. Why wouldn’t someone in a group have a desire to emulate the founder of their organization, especially when he did many great things? I encourage people to read some of his books if they are curious, so they can understand things better.

    July 11, 2016 at 11:54 pm
    • Josephine

      Cruz de Santiago,

      I think your post is very thoughtful and it makes interesting reading. Too much of this thread has been hot-headed – LOL!

      Your opening paragraphs cause concern, though, because I know I couldn’t belong to an organisation that was divided over the greatly important Fatima issues, the Consecration of Russia and the publishing of the full Third Secret. It suggests a lack of integrity if people are going along with promoting false or incomplete information on these matters of such enormous importance.

      I tend to agree with your final paragraph though, that it’s quite to be expected that members will venerate a founder of an organisation which they revere, so thanks for that.

      July 12, 2016 at 12:58 am
    • westminsterfly

      This seems a bit disingenuous to me. You say that there isn’t consensus, so why does all TFP literature state that the Secret has been fully revealed and the Consecration done? Like the piece by Antonio Borelli, which Christopher Ferrara refuted here?

      July 14, 2016 at 9:34 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: