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: http://cor-mariae.proboards.com/thread/870?ixzz2n0Y7xU36=undefined&ixzz2n3HI594d=undefined#ixzz2n4pEZeQI

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

There are too many in the world of Catholicism that somehow try to reconcile Vatican II with Catholic Tradition.  Whether it be that Vatican II can be read in the light of Tradition, that it is in continuity with Tradition (e.g., Pope Benedict XVI’s Hermeneutic of Continuity), or even that there are errors in the Council’s documents but that these errors can be corrected and when done so would consequently make the Council acceptable, none of these positions are in line with what the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre taught, especially during his latter years, about the Council.  The Archbishop saw the Council as perverted through and through.  And what do you do with such a thing:  condemn it, as a whole, into the dustbin of history!

 

Here are a few quotes of the Archbishop regarding the Council:

 

“It is certain that with the 250 conciliar fathers of the Coetus we tried with all the means put at our disposal to keep the liberal errors from being expressed in the texts of the Council.  this meant that we were able all the same to limit the damage, to change these inexact or tendentious assertions, to add that sentence to rectify a tendentious proposition, an ambiguous expression.

 

 “But I have to admit that we did not succeed in purifying the Council of the liberal and modernist spirit that impregnated most of the schemas.  Their drafters indeed were precisely the experts and the Fathers tainted with this spirit.  Now, what can you do when a document is in all its parts drawn up with a false meaning?  It is practically impossible to expurgate it of that meaning.  It would have to be completely recomposed in order to be given a Catholic spirit.”

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him”, Angelus Press, English Edition, 1988, quote is contained in the Chapter called “The Robber Council of Vatican II”, Emphasis Mine)

 

“I do not hesitate to affirm that the Council brought to reality the conversion of the Church to the world.  I leave it to you to reflect who the moving spirit of this spirituality was:  it is enough for you to remember the one whom Our Lord Jesus Christ calls the Prince of this World.”

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him”, Angelus Press, English Edition, 1988, quote is contained in the Chapter called “A Pacifist Council”, Emphasis Mine)

 

This fight between the Church and the liberals and modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple of that. And the consequences are far-reaching.

 

“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” 

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Two Years after the Consecrations”, Address Given to Priests in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990, Emphasis Mine)

 

From these quotes, we can readily ascertain with what vehemence the Archbishop opposed the Second Vatican Council.  He clearly understood the poison contained throughout its documents.  This poison could not simply be separated from the texts that were in accordance with Tradition; rather, the poison was well mixed in the cake thereby making only one solution possible, and that is to reject the Council as a whole.  Now although the Archbishop did not explicitly state that the Council’s documents must be rejected as a whole, it forcibly follows from he did say.

 

Let us now contrast the Archbishop’s words regarding Vatican II with those of Bishop Fellay as proclaimed in the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 (emphasis mine).

 

“The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated.”

 

“The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”

 

Furthermore, here is an interview that Bishop Fellay gave to Catholic News Service, which was published on May 11, 2012 (emphasis mine):

 

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church’s tradition — a position which many in the society have vocally disputed — Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

 

“I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

 

“The pope says that … the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. “The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”

 

So on the one hand the Archbishop tells us that the Council’s documents would need to be completely rewritten to give them a Catholic spirit, that the devil was the spirit guiding them, and that they represent a total perversion of the mind.  However, on the other hand, Bishop Fellay tells us that the Council documents enlighten and deepen the understanding of certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, that they must be understood in the light of Tradition without rupture, and that they must be given their place within Tradition.  It is evident how radically opposed these two positions are.

 

For those who argue that Bishop Fellay has turned away from what he had stated last year, please be under no illusion.  The conference that he gave in Kansas City on October 12, 2013 actually demonstrates that he does not find anything fundamentally wrong with what he had spoken or written.  He basically only admitted that he should have been more clear in his meaning.  But even to this I protest that what he had spoken and written is clear enough.  And that by his words he had publicly exposed himself as an adversary, objectively speaking, of Catholic Tradition and an unfaithful son of Archbishop Lefebvre!

 

Dear bishops and priests of the Society of St. Pius X, please come to understand where your leader is taking you, that is, away from the position of your founder (which was nothing other than that of Catholic Tradition) and towards the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” of Modernist Rome.  For those who do realize the new direction, will you not stand up and fight for the Faith?  Nothing less than souls are at stake!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |