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 тαℓмυdization 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./thread/870#ixzz2n0Y7xU36

The position of the resistance regarding the pope seems to be that they believe this crisis will end when the pope converts and that to me seems very logical. I would not want to think that that is the only possible way that this crisis will end. That is the optimistic view hoping for an end to the crisis, but let us suppose the pope converted today. Where would he go? If he stated in the Vatican the Jєωs and Freemasons there would surely kill him or force him to resign if he was not willing to die a martyr. And the moment we completely exclude the pissibility that this could have occurred to some degree or another we become exactly like the sedevacantists who claim to have the inner knowledge of the post-conciliar pope's hearts in the matter; we would be asserting things which we cannot know for sure. The position that the pope converts and the crisis ends is a very optimistic outlook and a possibility, but if it happens he better leave Rome and pack his suitcases and get out of there, maybe go to Econe at the least. I am interested in how the resistance will act of say Pope Francis declares something obvious and outright against Catholic dogma like participation in the Eucharist of non-Catholics and those in the state of mortal sin. Sedevacantism is being almost rejected as if it was heresy when we should actually be considering that it may be the conclusion of this crisis. To deny that as a possibility I believe is dangerous.

We should follow the resistance of Bishop Williamson.

I agree. As far as I know Bishop Williamson never excluded the idea that one day the Catholic resistance will have to accept a position sede vacante. My point was that a few resistance priests are making it into almost a heresy to even accept the fact that it could happen. This crisis cannot continue forever. God will not permit it. It will only end in the pope's conversion after perhaps a chastisement, or a pope who openly becomes a manifest heretic and intends to destroy everything left of the Catholic Church in which case faithful Catholics will need to react by the best means possible. A situation sede vacante is inevitable if the pope does not convert.

0

There is one, then there is another, and yet again another.  One who speaks out and says,  "we must face the truth and stop living in the ambiguity of denial", and the other who will say, "Oh yes it is true but even so, we cannot speak of our observation to the extent of its obvious conclusions. It will lead to other ambiguities and confusion", and yet others with disparate but similar opinions and accompanying anecdotes.

We can see what is before us and it is confounding and confusing, but to try and clear it up we will confound many and create more confusion. And that is where the battle for the Religion and Faith ends.
We have for fifty years lived by this model, we have failed on almost all fronts save for a relatively few pockets of replicated Tradition and Catholicism.

How long oh my Lord!

FR. CHAZAL: 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.

CANTATE: Hmmm. I wonder if this statement means the same thing that I've been saying: We have to call them what they are - heretics or infidels - and we have to go oout from them; but we need not go so far as to proclaim whether or not they are true popes.

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.

Oh, it does nothing of the sort, Father.

[Sedevacantism leads] to a dangerous fragmentation of the Remnant of the Faith.

And the sedeplensits are not fragmented (aka NSSPX vs. SSPX SO)?

Fragmentation happens when you lose the legitimate central authority in the Church, Father ... aka the Pope.  Only under sedevacante could there happen this material fragmentation within the Church.  Only when the shepherd has been struck can the sheep be scattered.

I'm starting to lose more and more respect for the Resistance.  In fact, I would have to say that the NSSPX position might be more internally consistent.  If Francis is certainly the Pope, then the Fellay position makes the most sense.

Quote

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.

Oh, it does nothing of the sort, Father.

Actually it does. I've been referring to the SV' camp as "the endless genealogies crowd" for years. I was actually surprised to see another person characterize it as such.

SV does lead to confusion, to perturbation, to despair, to historical revisionism, and to flight from the Sacraments. I've seen these things in real souls.  

Fr. Chazal correctly lists some of the bad fruits of being dogmatic about SV.

Also Fr. Chazal strikes me as a priest for the Faith and not for politics. That is something quite different than what we have been served up by the so-called resistance for months. Fr. Chazal is talking about events happening in rome. How refreshing.

CANTATE: Hmmm. I wonder if this statement means the same thing that I've been saying: We have to call them what they are - heretics or infidels - and we have to go out from them; but we need not go so far as to proclaim whether or not they are true popes.

Yes, let's all think it but not say it.  

Every time I hear anything like the bolded, it never makes sense to me.