Psalm 73 – The Persecution of the Catholic Church

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.

A Challenge to Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX

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.

“Where Can I Attend Mass?” Video by Peter Romanus

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.


Change 1962 Missal to 1965 with Novus Ordo Calendar – Pseudo-Traditional Groups

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.

SSPX-Marian Corps Is Not Sedevacantist

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,

Francois Chazal+


Read more: