Below is a recent letter written by Fr. Chazal to a group of faithful. Fr. Chazal wrote this letter in response to many concerns these faithful had previously written to him; especially with Fr. Chazal allowing Fr. Kramer, who is a stated sedevacantist, to live with and teach his seminarians in Asia. As Fr. Chazal was trying to address the groups pertinent questions, he had actually opened more cans of worms. I have highlighted father’s letter with 9-different colors. Each represents a different topic and ideology that is concerning and also needs to be addressed. ========================================================= Dear ---------, Fr Kramer is a sedealterist, and i wrote on the topic. About a year ago on Cathinfo. The position of the Society is that sede priests are not to be disturbed if they don't make it an obligation and disturb others. Must i change that stance now that i am in the resistance? I think the Archbishop was wiser than others on this. The sspx was always happy to take money from sede priests, Fr Schaeffer, Fr Raffali. Fr Kramer is not giving us anything and, because of his poor health is giving us worries more than helps, as we have the heavy burden of Fr aSuelo to carry as well, but i guarantee you he is a very interesting person to have, i hope he will keep the Fatima Crusader on its tracks. He does not want to lead it, but hand it over to Brother Andre once it is made safe from xspx weaseling maneuvers. Moreover the sedealterist position of Fr Kramer discredit further sedevacantism, in the sense that it shows further that the question of the eclipse of the Faith in the successor of Peter is a gordian knot. Beyond separating from heretics, there is not much we can claim to affirm on the office bearer in Rome. We leave it to other times, to better theologians than us. To me sedevacantism is a sort of presumption, and very antinomic. I think unwittingly Fr Kramer evidences this. On jurisdiction, i cannot even give you absolution if i don't have jurisdiction. We do not claim to have more than supplied Jurisdiction, yet we follow canonical rules as much as we can. We are opposed to the idea that this type of jurisdiction allows us to ignore the common law of normal times: pretty much the contrary, we must strive to do our best to follow the wisdom of the Church, have canonical records, a three tiered hierarchy, tribunals, exactly as Archbishop Lefebvre told us to have. Bishop Fellay is handing over judicial matters to novus ordo officialities who are criminal themselves. He is making a great mistake. In the "Renaissance Catholique" crisis in 1989, the Archbishop clearly stated the principles, and as you can see all over Austrasia there are hardly any transfers, because we are through with the instability of sspx pastors in general, who always get replaced once they know their flock. You have to understand we have also our customs and bylaws... we really want to help your souls, but for us a lay committee telling the priest what to do is verboten. I would upbraid fr Picot if he allowed it. Again, let me repeat myself, i brought Fr Valan and Mc Donald, because they can help you with their advice to understand our position, and they are involved into assisting Fr Picot s apostolate. The committee claims the administration of the apostolate in -------, and this is not a purely lay matter. But, for instance, i do encourage you to organize yourselves for establishing a school, of which we would be just the Chaplains. The failure of the xspx in that domain and our overextension calls for such a lay independent operation. So, no, dear -----------, i am no clericalist, but i will not complicate Fr Picot s apostolate. If you have grievances, bring them forth to me or to a bishop, but i think he is an excellent pastor, suppleta ecclesisatica iurisdictione. Cordially, Fc+ ========================================================= Let me try to unravel those 9-strange ideas in the order he wrote them. 1. Fr Kramer is a sedealterist: First, the word "sedealterist" is Latin meaning, the "seat is altered", changed, different. There is absolutely no difference between sedevacantism and sedealterism regarding the present pope. They both believe that the present pope is NOT the pope nor has any authority. The only difference is sedealterism believes that there is another pope existing elsewhere. In Fr. Kramer's case, he believes that Benedict XVI is still the pope. Which he isn't for the fact that Benedict XVI went through the process, though they debate that it was not "legal" according to norms; nonetheless, Benedict XVI had made many formal statements and act in abnegation of the reign of the seat of Peter. Further, Benedict XVI had submitted to the legal and canonical process of the election of the new pope. Benedict XVI had also bent his knee in act to honor and submit in obedience to the new pope [Francis] as the present reigning pope of the [Catholic] Church. I will address more of this below in the other statements of Fr. Chazal. 2. and i [Fr. Chazal] wrote on the topic. About a year ago on Cathinfo: this is very interesting for a few reasons. Is Fr. Chazal making it know that he has a membership on cathinfo under a DIFFERENT name; not his own? Fr. Chazal continues to openly support [the faction] cathinfo and on many other occasions when we in the faith openly deplore the behavior and calamity that takes place there 24/7. 3. The position of the Society is that sede priests are not to be disturbed if they don't make it an obligation and disturb others. Must i change that stance now that i am in the resistance?: Stating this, Fr. Chazal just validated and confirmed the groups, and our, concern. He too recognizes him as a 'sede". Understanding that you know what a sedevacantist is, and it being a serious error in our day, by Fr. Chazal identifying him as such, and having Fr. Kramer with him, Fr. Chazal is encouraging and dwelling with the principle that the pope can be believed as true or not to be believed as true. What a schism conveyed in the minds of his seminarians! On top of this, Fr. Chazal was having a discourse with that sede bishop Sanborn individual. This is a loss of principle to Fr. Chazal as with a loss of practice to stay away from that dangerous environment. He just endorsed their existence as a principle to live in. Bizarre! 4. Fr Kramer is not giving us anything and, because of his poor health is giving us worries more than helps, as we have the heavy burden of Fr. Suelo to carry as well, but i guarantee you he is a very interesting person to have, i hope he will keep the Fatima Crusader on its tracks: What does this mean? Fr. Kramer is strategically staying there (to find anyone) to receive health aid? But it is ok because he is a human that is 'very interesting' to have around? Because he has some tie (?) with the Fatima crusader? What about doctrinal purity? 5. Moreover the sedealterist position of Fr Kramer discredit further sedevacantism, in the sense that it shows further that the question of the eclipse of the Faith in the successor of Peter is a gordian knot: Fr. Chazal says 'in the sense' which he can only do as he knows the essence of those two groups are the same. He is trying to 'split hairs' to justify his acceptance of Fr. Kramer to dwell and teach at his seminary. 6. Beyond separating from heretics, there is not much we can claim to affirm on the office bearer in Rome.: Another discredit of catholic principle. Only God can dispose a pope through another pope or a canonical council of the church. So the office is affirmed until God says so. It is up to us to believe, like those in the Old Testament when the patriarchs and prophets erred to idolatry, and hold up the true faith that God is in authority; not man. 7. To me sedevacantism is a sort of presumption, and very antinomic. "Antinomic" means: 1, : a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or between inferences correctly drawn from such principles. 2. : a fundamental and apparently unresolvable conflict or contradiction. Fr. Chazal is admitting again to give credence to the error of the sedevacantists by saying that they have a "valid" principle and it is "unresolvable" Not it is not! It is resolvable in the catholic truth. Sedevacantists have no right to denounce a catholic pope; that is schism; and in many of their groups take it to a heresy. 8. I think unwittingly Fr Kramer evidences this: Evidences this? Means also: something which shows that something else exists or is true -hence, the use of his word "alterist". Confirming again that Fr. Chazal knows that Fr. Kramer thinks differently than the church. 9. we must strive to do our best to follow the wisdom of the Church, have canonical records, a three tiered hierarchy, tribunals, exactly as Archbishop Lefebvre told us to have.: Then why follow, and tell us to do so also, to put another foot in the camp of Bishop Williamson "loose" nonsense when Bishop Williamson is against that wisdom and tiered hierarchy that ABL had told us to do? Mind games or hypocrisy? Fr. Chazal is leading with two standards and is confusing the catholic faithful.