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,
In a post I wrote a few months ago, I argued that there was a grave problem with the official SSPX policy issued from the 2012 General Chapter. In particular, I attacked the First Condition as representing a type of non-Catholic ecumenism and religious liberty.
Here is an anonymous open letter to Fr. Yves le Roux.
I received the following message this morning.
It has been pointed out to me that a SWIFT code is needed for international deposits, for the account opened here for Fr Chazal’s appeal for the Philippines. This is the equivalent of what is called an IBAN or sort code in some other countries.
SWIFT CODE: CTB AAU2S
Account number 1018 5161
Account name ELIZABETH COPLEY
This website contains quite a few posts on the SSPX. Naturally this would be the case because we’ve spent many years attending Masses celebrated by its priests and have often defended the SSPX against the attacks of those in the conciliar church. When the SSPX abandoned the principles of its founder in July 2012, we were heartbroken. Sentiment, however, cannot be the driver of our decisions. Those who adhere to truth know that they must make the right decision and that is to speak out against the new direction and not go along with it. This is what the writers on this website have done. We now consider the SSPX to be in the same class as the other pseudo-Traditional communities such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). This being the case, I thought it would now be opportune to speak about the FSSP itself.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was founded by a group of priests who separated from the Society of St. Pius X after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four priests to the episcopacy on June 30, 1988. It was erected as a clerical society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right on October 18, 1988. Article 8 of its Constitutions states the following:
The particular aim of the Fraternity of Saint Peter is to achieve this objective (i.e., sanctification of its priests) through the faithful observance of the “liturgical and spiritual traditions” according to the dispositions of the Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, which is at the origin of its foundation.
The Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” was the document of Pope John Paul II that confirmed the “excommunications” of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer, and the four consecrated bishops. Note that the article above states that this Motu Proprio for the FSSP “is at the origin of its foundation”. Since the FSSP doesn’t state otherwise in any of its official documents, we must conclude that the FSSP agrees with the validity of the “excommunications” and orthodoxy of the doctrinal declarations in the Motu Proprio. 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 1998. In this conference, Fr. Hesse tears the Motu Proprio to bits by pointing out its doctrinal, moral, and canonical errors, thereby demonstrating that the FSSP is truly a house built on sand. Please take the time to listen below to an 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.