Fr. Chazal's recent letter

Discussion in 'Resistance Movement (Member 149 is Machabees)' started by Deleted member 149, Jan 15, 2016.

  1. Member 149 is Machabees

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2018
  2. Rose

    Rose Guest

    Fr. Chazal's change of heart regarding Fr. Kramer's stance with regards to the Pope is interesting. In 2013, here is a letter he wrote to Fr. Kramer, disagreeing with his still current sedevacantist views:
    Letter from Father Chazal to Father 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+







     
    JillMcFaul likes this.
  3. Admin

    Admin Administrator

    Thank you Rose for exposing how easy it is to slide into error when one begins to compromise on doctrine. If any of us 'sits on the fence' he/she will be vomited from the mouth of Our Lord. When a priest lapses his flock lapses, who like children are locked into the 'obedience' mould demanded by Vatican II's counterfeit church. We are not pointing the finger at Fr. Chazal....rather we beg for his return to doctrinal purity.

    Pray for Priests
     
  4. It is necessary to link these two concurrent threads together. Here are email exchanges with Fr. Kramer over this very topic: "Fr. Kramer's Newest Position"
     
  5. Admin

    Admin Administrator

  6. Anand

    Anand Well-Known Member

    Is Fr Chazal still operating out of that bamboo seminary or has he moved elsewhere as some people seem to think?