We at the SSPX-Marian Corps Toronto wish all of you a most blessed Christmas!
Please download here the latest bulletin from the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Brazil whose Prior is the warrior Benedictine Dom Thomas Aquinas.
As the world gets worse each day and as the situation of the Catholic Church has become more disastrous under the pontificate of Pope Francis, it becomes easier to despair that there is no way out of this mess. Humanly speaking, one may be correct; however, we have the promise of Our Lady of Fatima that Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Our Lady of Good Success brings the same message of hope. Let us never forget then that no matter how bad things get, Our Lord is in total and complete control. When He so decides, His and our Mother will intervene. What we are asked to do in the meantime is to weather this storm by keeping the Faith; the light will shine again one day.
Let us avoid the temptation of falling into Sedevacantism or into the hands of the conciliar church. We must keep on the straight and narrow path as exemplified by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose memory and mission the SSPX-Marian Corps Toronto carries forward.
A beautiful prayer and meditation at this unprecedented time in history is Psalm 73, which foreshadowed the intense persecution Holy Mother Church is currently undergoing. With the Psalmist, let us cry out to God to take us out of this crisis.
In April of 2013, Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, gave a conference at St. Mary’s, Kansas. The conference was entitled “Resistance to What?”. It was an attack on the public resistance, offered by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson and several SSPX priests who have been or are on the verge of being kicked out of the SSPX, against the new direction of the SSPX championed by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay. As the title clearly states, Fr. Themann is of the position that nothing has substantially changed in the SSPX that would warrant a public resistance. In response to this conference, the December 2013 Supplementary Issue of the Recusant publishes an excellent, thorough refutation of Fr. Themann’s arguments. We at the SSPX-Marian Corps Toronto now challenge Fr. Daniel Themann to respond to this refutation.
Father, since you seem so confident of your position, please do us the favour and defend your arguments against the wounds inflicted on them by this refutation.
Please listen to this solid sermon by Fr. David Hewko, SSPX-Marian Corps.
I must admit that the Peter Romanus YouTube channel produces some good stuff. However, I do have a beef with one of its videos entitled “Where Can I Attend Mass?” (see below). The video promotes Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX-Marian Corps; however, it also promotes the neo-SSPX under Bishop Fellay as if the neo-SSPX is not fundamentally different than the SSPX founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. The person(s) behind Peter Romanus fails to understand that the neo-SSPX is in the same category as the Fraternity of St. Peter and other Ecclesia Dei communities. Why? Because the neo-SSPX has abandoned the position that Rome must convert prior to any canonical regularization. It has adopted a principle (First Condition of the SSPX 2012 General Chapter) that is not Catholic. Its leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, fundamentally accepts the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” proposed by the former Pope Benedict XVI as evidenced by the Bishop’s abominable Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012. How then can Peter Romanus advise us that we can attend neo-SSPX chapels when Archbishop Lefebvre believed and acted to the contrary?
Peter Romanus, if you want to be truly faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, then please stick with Bishop Williamson, the SSPX-Marian Corps, and the other Resistance priests who now carry forward his memory and mission. Keep away from Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX priests who have instead abandoned the Archbishop.
Fr. Gregory Hesse (+2006), Doctor of Sacred Theology and Canon Law, gave a conference at St. Michael’s Church (run by Fr. Hector Bolduc until his death in 2012) in Wisconsin in 2001. In this conference, Fr. Hesse says that representatives from several pseudo-Traditional groups (FSSP, Dom Gerard Calvet, Michael Davies, Una Voce, etc.) met earlier that same year to decide what should be done with the 1962 Missal. According to Fr. Hesse, these representatives agreed that the 1962 Missal should be changed to the 1965 Missal with the adoption of the Novus Ordo calendar. Yuck! So much for these groups trying to preserve the Mass of all time; rather, regardless of any good intentions, they worked to destroy it!
Here is the relevant extract of the conference. You can directly listen to the audio by left clicking on the “Play” button. If you prefer to download the audio file to your computer, right click the “Play” button and then left click the “Save audio as” option.
Dear Fellow Canadians,
Fr. Olivier Rioult’s book entitled “The Impossible Reconciliation” is now available on Amazon Canada.
The SSPX-Marian Corps is not Sedevacantist. We simply carry forward the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which is none other than Catholic Tradition. Since the neo-SSPX under Bishop Fellay has abandoned his work, we have no other option but to carry the torch ourselves.
Fr. Francois Chazal’s Letter to Fr. Paul Kramer
Dear Fr Kramer,
In the course of this year you have been a great help to our Resistance against the liberalisation of the world of Tradition, especially with your conference in London a few months ago about the new mass.
Alas I cannot follow you when you publicly declare that Francis is no pope while Benedict is instead. Yet I must thank you from the onset because you are dealing a severe blow to sedevacantism in the process.
It confirms that sedevacantism is in fact a logical Pandora s box, leading more to confusion than order, since, yet again, another theory emerges… one among so many species.
Just recently I bumped into another sedevacantist who told me that mgr Guerard des Lauriers is a traitor. But that Bishop is a founding father of the movement. Among the non conclavist sedevacantists, it is getting harder and harder just to know what the different schools think. Such total talmudization I refuse to find myself embarked on.
Archbishop Lefebvre was keen to say that the theory has some serious reasons, but it leads to no certain conclusions. It looks very clear at the start, yet ends in great confusion, leading to a dangerous fragmentation of the Remnant of the Faith. Theologians are split into those who don t even consider the case ant those who do… and among those who do, there again, their sentences are split.
We should be content with the principle of Nullam Partem with heretics, not denying the existence of heresies when they appear in Rome, unlike the XSPX, who threw us overboard on account of us sticking to that principle.
But the Archbishop always refused to tread beyond this point, the overall sterility of the sedevacantist movement proved him right. Just one look at the city of Cincinatti is enough to see: the turf wars, the mutual excommunications, the endless doctrinal hair splitting, the comparatives between the different lines of bishops and the quarrels around the validity of this or that line… all of it like the vain genealogies denounced by St paul.
I am aware that you believe that somebody is still on the See of Peter, but that reminds me too much of the theory of the two Paul VI, or the theory that cardinal Siri is the Pope (and the theory went on with a secret, Siri appointed successor of Peter). Conclavist sedevacantism is back.
Knowing you as a Fatima priest, especially as somebody so aware of the wickedness of ex pope ex card. Ratzinger, in your book “The Devil s Final Battle”, in which Ratzinger plays second fiddle only to the Devil, I don t see why you make such a difference betwixt Francis and Benedict.
That Bishop Fellay mourns the good old days of pope Benedict in his recent DICI interview is no surprise… his liberal mind wanted to have a deal with the darling of the conservatives…. and such a deal would be much harder with the Francis administration (even if he still calls them the Church, and he denies that Francis is a theoretical modernist, and leaves many doors open, maintains the AFD…).
I don t see a difference of degree between these two modernists, between these two heretics. Only their approach differs. Benedict would do things differently, but the Revolution must move on; Francis has a “charism” that he lacks. Benedict recognizes and encourages that so called charism, for destruction. This recent attack on the authority of Peter, which is going to turn the office of the Papacy into a presidential job, was concocted, not by Francis, but by Benedict. Some of his unknown speeches refer to the redefining of the “Petrine ministry”. Francis just executes the sentence of his predecessor.
I am very sure that you studied both of them sufficiently to see that their principles of theology are the same. They are two faces of a same coin, just like the parties in our modern masonic democracies. Francis is going to wreck further the faith in the official church, but there is no questionning that Benedict proved extremely dangerous to us, Traditionnal Catholics. I am glad he is gone, with Francis there is clarity to some extent.
So I hope and pray you will give us some relief on this issue. As you say, we are in the final moments. It is much better to keep our heads up to the Great Sign in the Heavens (Apoc XII), than to lower our spirit into some new confusion. Our poor little sheep are shepherdess enough as they are.
With all my best compliments on this wonderful feast of the Immaculate Conception,