1

On Sunday 17th January, our community, formerly known as "the Victorian Resistance" has been officially renamed "Our Lady of the Southern Cross".

We are a lay community of Catholics in Victoria who organise our own activities in religious fellowship, group prayers, social and charitable activities. In addition, we take the initiative in our own simple way to continue practicing and promoting the traditional Catholic Faith of our Fathers prior to the establishment of the counterfeit Church spawned by Vatican II Council.

We are independent of priestly groups or religious orders and recognise Pope Francis as Vicar of Christ on earth.

We make our own, the statement of Archbishop LeFebvre who asked Rome:

“Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? ((Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988)

We look forward to coordinating and sponsoring priests who are faithful to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Faith and who continue to fight for Rome to be restored to the true faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.________________________________________________________________________________

Issue 2 : 20th February ________________________________________________________________________________________

The factor that caused the creation of OLOSC was due to the need to clear up a doctrinal question revolving around Fr. Kramer. Is he or is he not a sedevac-antist? If so why is he permitted to say Mass and minister to the seminarians in the Philippines? How and why does that effect us?

Let us perhaps deal with the last question first.

A situation is developing where many Catholics are being held to ransom if they do not accept, without question, what the visiting priest tells them – and/or what the priest does NOT tell them about his own position in relation to doctrinal matters. Is he ambivalent/indifferent/uncaring where lack of clarity is concerned? It is a sad fact that many priests are themselves forming into factions that are in conflict with other bodies of priests who disagree on doctrinal matters. In the process each assembly of priests serves

2

the laity that gathers round him/them to receive the Sacaments. What is not made immediately clear is the disunity or indifference caused by doctrinal differences. The picture of disunity gradually manifests itself when hostility towards another priest/s is displayed.

Should it matter to us that there is disunity of this kind? After all, we just need to receive the Sacramentsto practice the faith.

Well no! If priests are divided on doctrinal matters how are they 'doing what the church intends' when they offer Mass? The Eucharist is the Sacrament of unity, not division. And what sins against the Catholic faith are being forgiven in the Confessional if the priest is doctrinally compromised?

We attend the resistant priests' masses because the neo-SSPX became doctrinally compromised. Why would we tolerate it in the resistance movement?

In short, we are seeing that if a priest picks and chooses what doctrine he adheres to, or to what degree he adheres to it, then he is not teaching the Catholic faith. God does not change....

Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever. Heb. 13 : 8

So yes, establishing the priest's doctrinal credentials should matter to us if we want to save our souls. Losing our faith is the price we pay if tepidly we settle for the Sacraments without establishing the priest's doctrinal credentials . And so we come to the cause that gave birth to OLOSC...

Is Father Kramer a sedevacantist?We, in the land of the Southern Cross, need to know whether Fr. Kramer is a sedevacantist because of his association with Fr. Chazal, who left the neo-SSPX due to the lapse of Bishop Fellay into compromising on doctrine. We understood that he would guide and keep us unerringly along the path of doctrinal purity. Doubt crept in with the publication of Father Chazal's contradictory statements regarding Fr. Kramer.

Contrasting Letters of Fr. ChazalLetter 1

Dear Fr Kramer,

In the course of this year you have been a great help to our Resistance against the liberalisation of the worldof 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 gettingharder 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

3

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 linesof 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 isgoing 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+

4

Letter 2 (This is Father Chazal's reply to an associate who wrote to him seeking clarification of his position)

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 ofthe 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.

5

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 ecclesisaticaiurisdictione.

Cordially,Fc+

As Fr. Chazal's letter was trying to address the group's pertinent questions, he had actually opened more canof worms. Each of the 9-different colors below represent a different topic and ideology that is concerning and needs to be addressed. The black section is the critique

Let us 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 thepope nor has any authority. The only difference is sedealterism believes that there is anotherpope 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. More of this will be addressed 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. Fr. Chazal just made 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. Can either of you two, or both of you, try to find that supposed article of Fr. Chazal on cathinfo using the search term "sedealterist" to see what you come up with. This could be another open confession of Fr. Chazal supporting[his] duel-ideology and merging of trad-ecumenical thought.

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 both 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 practise to stay away from that dangerous enviornment. He just endorsed their existance as a principle to live in. Bizarre!

4. Fr Kramer is not giving us anything and, because of his poor health is giving us worriesmore 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: 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

6

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 officebearer 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 resovable 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 heirarchy, tribunals, exactly as Archbishop Lefebvre told us to have.: Then why follow, and tell us to 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.

*************************So we had to do our own homework which resulted in the following: (Further links are provided at the end for those with an internet)

There are 2-simutanious positions Fr. Kramer holds: 1.) A stated sedevacantism relating to Pope Francis out of heresy, and separately2.) An actual belief that Benedict XVI is still the pope.

1). A stated sedevacantism relating to Pope Francis out of heresy:

On Nov. 28, 2013, Fr. Kramer openly stated and announced on his Facebook page that he rejects Pope Francis' claim to the papacy due to manifest heresy found in his published "Apostolic Exhortation" Evangelii Gaudium.

On the same day, when asked by someone on his facebook page what he means by this, Fr. Kramer responded to affirm his announcement: "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."

2). Separately, an actual belief that Benedict XVI is still the pope:

The next day, Nov.29, 2013, Fr. Kramer then announced on his same facebook page his belief from the suspicion and possibility of Benedict XVI being the Pope to now believe that he is still the actual Pope.

7

So you can see that Fr. Kramer has a time lapse of events and an evolving of belief.

A). By heresy, in Fr. Kramer's belief, Pope Francis is no longer the Pope = sedevacantism. And separately, B). By evolving, in Fr. Kramer's mind from a theory to an actuality = Benedict XVI still is the Pope.

In both cases, Fr. Kramer is wrong.

Fr. Chazal had even termed a coinage that Fr. Kramer is a sedealterist. What is it? First, the word "sedealterist" is Latin meaning, the "seat is altered", changed, different. Yet, there is absolutely no difference however between sedevacantism and sedealterism regarding the present accepted 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 as explained in the introduction above.

It is further noted for Fr. Kramer, that if or when Benedict XVI dies, Fr. Kramer is up a creek without a paddle - he has no pope. And sedevacantism becomes more visible for him. It is an untenable position.

Emphasising the points:

Correct:1. Fr. Kramer, like us, acknowledges the anomaly of Benedict XVI's resignation.2. Fr. Kramer, like us, acknowledged and submit(ed) to the papacy of Pope Francis when

elected. -Key point.3. Fr. Kramer, like us, recognizes that pope Francis states heresy and is a (material) heretic; as

noted above.

Wrong by going too far:

1. Fr. Kramer stated that the pope he recognized as legitimate is no longer a pope because of his recent (wrongly judge by him as a formal) heresy = in result to him as sedevacantism. (Shown above.)

2. Fr. Kramer, the next day, stated that Benedict XVI is the pope going from suspicion to a [convenient] reality.

Reverse psychology:

• If Fr. Kramer did NOT think that pope Francis was the legitimate pope from the get go, and Benedict XVI was, then Fr. Kramer would not have any regard, reaction, or paid any attention to pope Francis or any of his writings because he would be to him an "impostor pope".

• Instead, Fr. Kramer did have a reaction of scandal from recognizing him as a pope: "I have been saying for years that when a pope will officially teach explicit and clear heresy...", and then to denounce in consequence the writings of pope Francis, followed with an announcement from him to say he is a heretic pope, with an affirmation stating: - "The conclusion is inescapable. Sedevacante."

• Fr. Kramer therefore cannot claim "sedevacante"-the seat is vacant if he believed that Benedict XVI was the pope unless he believed that pope Francis was the real pope at that time.

• Thus, Fr. Kramer became a sedevacantist and is still a sedevacantist while showing in "default" or in "utility", that Benedict XVI is now the pope; or he would say [still] the pope.

By convenience or by utility, a "default" is not a catholic concept.

8

The position to hold Benedict XVI beyond the anomaly, explained above, as still being a legitimate pope is untenable.

Due to the lack of leadership the resistance movement has become a vehicle for many of the clergy from the Bishop down, through priests, to express private opinions. Father Kramer spreads his private opinion publicly - thus a priest (or Bishop) misuses his office. Just as “default” is not a catholic concept, private opinion is not doctrine. The Pope misuses his office when he interprets doctrine according to his personal theology - and now we see echoes of the same thing amongst some ofthe resistance clergy through the freedom accorded them under the umbrella of the 'loose federation of priests'. Have we learnt nothing from our propensity, or sheer laziness, to obey the Pope, Bishop or priest without question even when we know they have contradicted church teaching? Has the servile obedience to accept the errors of Vatican II taught us nothing – even when we knew they were wrong? Is it not the same servile obedience that allows the likes of Father Kramer and sedevacantist priests to misuse their positions of trust? Our Lord had some strong words to say about those who sit on the fence. The time has come to reject false teaching outright and fight alongside those few valiant priests who oppose the substitution of private opinion for doctrinal purity. After all – our souls are at stake!

“Holy abandonment is found ‘not in resignation and laziness but at the heart of action and initiative.’ It would be dishonest to pray for victory without really fighting for it. ... ‘The things I pray for’, St. Thomas More prayed magnanimously, ‘dear Lord, give me the grace to work for.’ ” (His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

*****************************************

Those who worked to disarm the truth and surrendered it to error bear a heavy responsibility. I Accuse the Council!

*****************************************

9

What are we resisting?This writer received an email, from someone who was being bombarded constantly with emails promoting sedevacantism. Her bewilderment reflected the confusion infecting the resistance movement as a whole, and which primarily is caused by sedevacantists. One could almost see her throwing her hands up to the sky as she then asked, what (on earth) ARE we resisting? It was a good question that forced me into summing up what it is that I am resisting.

> The resistance is about challenging the heresies that are coming from the counterfeit/conciliar church.

> Confused Catholics the world over were shown the way to do this by the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre who,saw it was his obligation to 'pass on what (he) had received' in order to save his soul.

> He led the way through the swamp of confusion, which, if we followed, we would unceasingly carry on thefight for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church which saves souls. In other words we fight and pray for Rome to return to the true faith.

> Sedevacantism is a sin against the true faith as it spreads the teaching that we have no Pope.

10

Sedevacantists keep confusing us with this or that saying of this or that theologian. Whereas, the Church has already sorted out what theologians have said. The Church compacted everything into the simple Catechism* that you and I follow. After the Vatican II council a new 'Catechism' produced a new church that is not catholic. (See upload below). Rome has been occupied by the enemies of Christ - the resistance aims to eject them and restore all things in Christ.

One thing became obvious as I continued to read the email is that the author knew her faith because she knew her catechism. Opening up in good faith to a fellow-Catholic's personal opinion catapulted her into doubting she had the faith. Continuing my reply....

There is no need to argue and debate anything if you know your catechism full stop. And you do. Pity those who have gone astray by praying for them. Don't enter into any dialogue with them whatsoever. If you try tounderstand their point of view you are trying to understand the devil's point of view...so stay well away from any discussions of this kind unless you want to know what the devil thinks about our faith!!

Unfortunately, some resistance priests have become sedevacantists or have compromised the true unadulterated teaching of the church that only a council of cardinals, or a future pope, can declare the See of Peter vacant.

* In the church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a dimunition of his faith. Allthe faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith supported by the catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey. (Archbishop Lefebvre in Open Letter to Confused Catholics. Chapter 18, para 9.)

********************************

Letter from Fr. Altamira to Bishop Faure

Dear Bishop Faure (cc. Bp. Williamson), dear Fathers,

Permit me to speak frankly to you: it seems to me that we are not showing ourselves to be honest, either with ourselves or with the faithful.

We are doing what Bishop Fellay does and we will provoke the same consequences. In the current situation of the crisis in the Church and the “crisis in the Resistance”, there is not a lot left and what is left is ill. What’s more, our comrades who are still in the SSPX (priests and brothers), seeing the way we are, will never join us. One of them said: if we do do something (against Bishop Fellay), we won’t come over to the Resistance. Bishop Fellay and his group continue and will continue to laugh at us. The fact that we are the way we are is the best thing that could have happened to him.

On the subject of Bishop Williamson:Some (four) have tried to defend Bishop Williamson and his words about the New Mass (USA, Eleison Comments, etc).

I have the impression that we are not showing ourselves to be honest: if Bishop Fellay had said those things,we would have criticised him roundly. But it’s Bishop Williamson who said them: “So let’s not say anything, we have to defend him.” Please excuse me if I speak frankly, but what we’re doing is shameful, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

Bishop Faure defends Bishop Williamson with insistence (in his declarations on his trip to Mexico, in emails,

11

etc.) Bishop Faure affirms that there is no error in the Eleison Comments, which is debatable. It is more serious if one takes into consideration the words of Bishop Williamson in the USA (if anyone wants to listen to it again, here’s the link. I don’t approve of the mocking style, but the information is exact.

https://youtu.be/vzI4WKwDlPk

I will merely remark that, from a moral point of view, what Bishop Williamson said to this lady is unacceptable.

Even more serious if one takes equally into consideration the other information concerning Boshop Williamson (the “Nazi” business, the reintegration into the apostolate of Fr. X, his words to several priests ofthe SSPX, etc.

Another argument of Bishop Faure to try to defend Bishop Williamson’s miracles in the New Mass is the factthat God can work outside the Catholic Church, and that God has made miracles among certain sacrileges. But that’s a sophism since, if God permits a miracle, for example, in a false religion, from all evidence it doesn’t serve as a guarantee of what is false or evil, but will be against all that. The same goes for a miracle in the case of a sacrilege, with hosts, it is always against the sacrilege, never in its favour.

However, the “miracles” put forth by Bishop Williamson clearly favour the new Mass, including the “fruits”: thus, the “great” national sanctuary in Poland… at the service of the false religion of the Council.

Dear colleagues: I believe that it is time to cease trying to look for arguments to defend what is indefensible.Otherwise, we could incur a divine curse. “The Eleison Comments and declarations in the USA are only ambiguous”: isn’t that funny: that’s exactly what Bishop Fellay does. Dom Tomas said more or less the samething to defend Bishop Williamson.

Fr. Cardozo has already written two articles against this subject of so-called miracles of the New Mass.

And that’s without even getting to the subject of the risk of invalidity of the modern episcopacy and priesthood. On this subject, and quite logically, Bishop Williamson endorses the thesis of their validity.

And all this without forgetting the other problems which we have (re-read the letter “The same causes will produce the same effects”).

I imagine that you have already seen the abberant video of Francis about his intention for 2016 and the different religions:

https://youtu.be/EWNkxXhH9eQ

Faced with the scandals and heresies of Francis:

1. Surrendering to False Rome. Bp. Fellay: I’m going to Rome. Bp. Williamson: I’m going to Rome. Bishop Faure: I’m going to Rome.

2. Agreement. Bp. Fellay: I want an agreement. Bp. Williamson: A canonical regularisation or a juridical status would be desirable, of course. Bp. Faure:…?

3. Francis. We criticise Bp. Fellay because, publicly, he doesn’t say anything, or almost, about Francis. Bp. Williamson: same thing. Bp. Faure: same thing.

4. We deny the theological and factual possibility of sedevacantism. And this, against good theology which

12

speaks of the possibility. And we evoke the possibility of making sermons against sedevacantism, which is absurd: you can’t make sermons against facts which are possible.

5. Fr. Altamira is a sedevacantist. That’s not true: I pray for Francis, sub conditione. But I do not exclude nor put to one side colleagues who refuse to do so, be they in France or Spanish-speaking America. And even less so after such a video.

Dear colleagues: Permit me to share with you my opinion, in all simplicity: we need to change course. We are acting like Bp. Fellay and his group. He will destroy the SSPX. And we, we are doing the same to the Resistance, almost before it has been born (and the same goes for the USML).

“The interests of the group are more important than the truth, the priests of the Resistance qho refuse are put to one side, isolated, marginalised, they find themselves alone.”

If we continue to act thus, the risk is great that God will leave us and that withdraw his blessing. Pray God that some of you decide to act in the face of this situation, to resolve it. I fraternally greet you in Jesus and Mary (Sunday 10th January)

Fr. Altamira

******************************

Bishop Williamson Fails to Make Necessary Distinctions

• Bishop Williamson states: [T]he obligation to stay away from the NOM [i.e., new mass] is proportional to one’s knowledge of how wrong it is. Eleison Comments #445, January 23, 2016.

Bishop Williamson’s statement fails to distinguish between a Catholic’s subjective and objective obligation. It could be that someone has the strange false notion that God obliges him to attend a Buddhist ceremony or a new mass, or commit some other objective evil. But everyone’s objective duty is to always stay away from the new mass and all other evil.

Right-thinking Catholics must inform conciliar Catholics that the new mass is evil and urge them to stay away from it. We must tell them that if they don’t understand that the new mass is evil, they must inform their consciences better. We would give a similar response to a Buddhist about his evil ceremonies.

• Bishop Williamson continues: [W]ho will dare say that out of these multitudes there are none who are still nourishing their faith by obeying what seems to them (subjectively) to be their (objective) duty? Eleison Comments #445, January 23, 2016.

It is not our duty to judge who is subjectively and interiorly culpable for the objective evil they commit. But Buddhist ceremonies and the new mass are always evil and any spiritual nourishment a person receives while immersed in any evil is not because of the evil—but is in spite of this evil.

• After noting that some persons come to Catholic Tradition after attending the new mass for years, Bishop Williamson continues: And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how would they have come to Catholic Tradition? Eleison Comments #445, January 23, 2016.

Bishop Williamson here seeks to conclude that the new mass can’t be evil for at least some people. His position is like saying that, if a person was harmed by attending Buddhist

13

ceremonies for years, then how could a Buddhist ever convert to Catholicism?

The answer is that God can move someone to the truth, even if he is now immersed in the evil of the new mass or of Buddhism. If a conciliar Catholic comes to the full traditional Faith and practice of the Catholic Church, perhaps it was because he recited the rosary daily.Whatever tools—such as the rosary—God uses, the man’s conversion certainly did not occurbecause the new mass is a source of good for him. The new mass is always evil.

The situation is like a Buddhist converting to the Catholic Faith. Whatever tools God chooses to use, the Buddhist’s conversion certainly does not show that Buddhist ceremonies are good. Buddhist ceremonies are always evil.

• Bishop Williamson continues: [N]ot all the elements that can nourish faith are necessarily eliminated from it, viz., the new mass. Eleison Comments #445, January 23, 2016.

No one is saying that all possible elements of the new mass are bad singly. But the new massitself is always evil. In the same way, a Lutheran service is always evil and no one should ever attend it, even though it contains some good single element such as the “Our Father” (Lord’s Prayer).

Again, it is always objectively evil to attend the new mass (as it is always evil to attend Buddhist ceremonies), however uninformed a particular person’s conscience might be.

• Bishop Williamson continues: [T]here is still something Catholic in what has become of the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Eleison Comments #445, February 6, 2016.

Bishop Williamson confuses the Catholic Church as the pure Bride of Christ, and the Church’s human element.

The Catholic Church, as the pure Bride of Christ, is completely holy and spotless. Only individual Catholics (including popes) sin:

The Catholic Church is Holy. ... The misdeeds of some members, or abuses occurring within the Church are due not to the Church, but to the perversity of men.

The Catechism Explained, Rev. Francis Spirago, p.244, TAN Books and Publishers 1993 (reprinting the 1899 edition).

Thus, as the pure Bride of Christ, the Church remains entirely uncorrupted by Vatican II because nothing can corrupt Her. It is not (as Bishop Williamson says) that there is still something Catholic in Her. Rather, She is fully pure and Catholic. (Immediately below, we discuss the Church’s human element.)

• Bishop Williamson continues: [T]here is still faith in the Newchurch. Eleison Comments #445, February 6, 2016.

Vatican II has greatly corrupted the Church’s human element, i.e., persons (including the hierarchy) who identify themselves as Catholic. There is a Catholic Church and also a conciliar church. They are:

two churches which have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions, the heir of the conciliar decisions of Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Ætate, and Dignitatis Humanae, and which is the spirit of Assisi and the antithesis of the social reign of Christ the King. ... [A]ccording to

14

the degree which the authorities and the baptized adhere to this new kind of church, that constitutes a new church.

Quoted from Bishop Tissier’s analysis (emphasis added).

Thus, the Catholic Faith can abide in a person who attends/says the new mass. We suppose this is what Bishop Williamson meant to say. However, he is wrong to say that the Catholic faith [is] in the Newchurch itself because persons constitute a new conciliar church in the measure that they are not acting and professing the true Faith. Id.

Let us pray for Bishop Williamson, that he makes the necessary distinctions in the future.He has done much good in the past and could still do much good in the future.

Letter of Saint Athanasius to His Flock (4th Century A.D.)

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises --- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The trueFaith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle --- the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

15

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it hasnot succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

(Coll. selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum, Caillau and Guillou, Vol. 32, pp. 411-412)

*********************************

This is an example of the freedom enjoyed by the loose federation of priests to interpret doctrine according to the personal opinion of this or that priest.

There is a "trend" building of modernist speech following Bishop Williamson's leadand his independence for priests to do what they want. As expected, when there isno order nor unity of cause, wayward thoughts begin to seep in.

Fr. Zendajas writes articles a couple times a month what he calls a "Blue Paper". Within his No. 300 article, he wrote many alarming statements that need to be addressed.

16

The Recusant had made a necessary analysis of this particular Blue paper No. 300 in their - Issue 31 - November - December 2015. Here is some extracts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fr. Zendajas:] “If there could be salvation outside the Conciliar Church, then is there salvation “outside the SSPX” or other traditionalist groups?”

[The Recusant:] The first sentence of the entire letter does not make sense. It looks like a conditional clause but is really a non-sequitur. There is no question of if there could be“salvation outside the Conciliar Church [sic].” Archbishop Lefebvre said that it was your duty to separate yourself from and have nothing whatever to do with the conciliar Church. If one has to ask such questions, one ought rather to ask if there could be salvation inside the conciliar church! One rather suspects the answer is a resounding “No!” at least for the likes of you and I. The second part of the sentence asks about there being salvation outside the SSPX “or other Traditionalist groups” (so, outside of being a Traditionalist, in other words). This is very much a Bishop Williamson preoccupation, as the very latest Eleison Comments it making clear. It is neither useful nor helpful to speculate and one wonders why he should open his letter by sowing doubtin the mind of the reader about the usefulness of Tradition or whether even one can find salvation outside the conciliar Church!

[Fr. Zendajas:] “As Catholics we are always compelled to choose between Truth and “obedience.”

[The Recusant:] This statement is simply not true. Was it just a slip of the pen, perhaps? The two alternatives are not really alternatives but belong to different choices. Either weare compelled to choose between truth and error, or we are compelled to choose between obedience and disobedience. Truth and obedience are not alternatives, they go together. Of course, it is true that since the Council many Catholics have had to choose between truth and the appearance of obedience, but that is not what Fr. Zendejas says. Furthermore, that appearance of obedience is only a mirage: in reality, by obeying an unjust law or ruler, we are disobeying a higher law, a higher ruler: the truth, Almighty God; just as in disobeying something unlawful, we are really being obedient. Ss. Thomas More and John Fisher chose the truth over the mere appearance of obedience: in reality, in disobeying Henry VIII they were being obedient to Almighty God. St. Thomas teaches that a law which is unjust or evil (the abortion act, would be a good example) in reality is no law at all, since the authority for laws must come from God. But Fr. Zendejas is not making this distinction. Notice, for example, that he says that weare always compelled to choose (not “often”, not “since Vatican II…” nor even “...in modern times…”). Likewise he begins not with: “As Traditional Catholics...” but: “As Catholics…” This seems to suggest that it is a normal state of affairs, whereas it is reallya symptom of the crisis in the Church. Authority is a good thing and exists for a good reason: it is there to help compel us to do the good which we might otherwise be too weak to do even if we know it. Fr. Zendejas’s words appear to destroy confidence in authority itself. (Again, I wonder if I am imagining the preoccupation of a certain Bishop in his writing…?)

17

“Present Ecclesiastical” what…??![Fr. Zendajas:] “Moreover, we must likewise choose between practicing the dogma “outside theChurch there is no salvation” and the present ecclesiastical orientation…”

[The Recusant:] Throughout his whole letter Fr. Zendejas skilfully avoids naming what the problem with the Council is, or what it has constructed. There reference in the first line to the “Conciliar Church”[sic], (asking whether there can be salvation outside of it!)is the one only reference to that abominable pseudo-institution. For the whole rest of theletter he seems to rely on euphemisms, with “the present ecclesiastical orientation” being only the first of many such.

Gently Exonerating the Council[The Recusant:] Fr. Zendejas then goes on to talk about the: “modern ecclesiastical orientation” [again, what is that exactly?] “...which started with the spirit of the Council” - ah, so the spirit of the Council is to blame, not the Council itself then? Bishop Fellay himself could hardly have put it better! He goes on:

[Fr. Zendajas:] “The Modernist spirit has been continued nowadays by the New Evangelization’s fever..”

[The Recusant:] Notice the phrase “Modernist spirit” where you would expect to read simply “Modernism” The two are not the same thing: think about it. And what is this “New Evangelisation’s fever” which is responsible for continuing a bad “spirit”? Who knows. It can get very confusing very quickly when you try to decipher what Fr. Zendejas is saying. Just purely out of interest, I counted the number of other euphemisms he uses in the letter. “New orientation” appears three times, “orientation” twice, as well as “new direction,” “new system” and “new ecclesiastical tide” once each.

However difficult to follow Fr. Zendejas may sometimes be, however, what is clear is what he is not saying. One can search the letter in vain for any talk of “errors of the Council” or the fact that several things pronounced by the Council are irreconcilable with what the Church has always taught (concerning Religious Liberty, for example), oreven any discussion of how doctrinal error sooner or later makes itself felt everywhere: in the law, in the liturgy, in the whole post-conciliar chamber of horrors. Nothing of that.Thank God Archbishop Lefebvre never spoke or wrote this way, or there would have been no SSPX and no Tradition! And while we’re speaking about Archbishop Lefebvre…

Taking Archbishop Lefebvre’s Name in Vain[Fr. Zendajas:] “In the conflict between “obedience” and Truth, better-informed Catholics have chosen the Truth, as did Archbishop Lefebvre. In his thinking, with the Church according to Tradition, the Archbishop’s sensus fidei maintained that only Truthwill ensure union with the invisible Head of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ. “

[The Recusant:] First of all, remember what we said above: he ought to write about “theapparent conflict between obedience and Truth,” since the two in reality can never be in conflict. (Perhaps that is why “obedience” is always in quotation marks, but if so he does not make that clear anywhere and the rest of what he says tends rather to suggest

18

otherwise).

Then there is his talk of “better informed Catholics”, an unfortunate choice of words. The experience of many shows that “better informed Catholics” after the Council tendedto lapse, to become modernist, to go along with the changes and not to resist. Like the Resistance to the conciliar neo-SSPX, the Resistance to Vatican II was not composed of “better informed Catholics” - it was a mixed bag of all kinds of people, some well informed, some not very well informed, some in between. Saving your soul is not primarily a question of intelligence or of wide-reading. Hell is doubtless filled with some of the most well informed people ever to have existed. Neither does Archbishop Lefebvre deserve to be lumped into this category; history will not remember him as the most “well informed” of the council fathers, but the most virtuous, the most courageous,the most apostolic, the one who loved souls and the truth most, etc. Likewise, surely anyCatholic of the Resistance worth his salt must protest at the outrageous statement that it was “the Archbishop’s sensus fidei” which motivated him (a ‘sensus fidei’ means a mere instinct for what is Catholic, usually spoken of as belonging to the laity).

[Fr. Zendajas:] Thus, he resisted the Post-Vatican II ecclesiastical orientation (religiousliberty,ecumenism and collegiality), in order to remain in the one Church of Jesus Christ.

[The Recusant:] Notice that the errors of the Council are referred to once again with a euphemism. What did Archbishop Lefebvre resist? He resisted the post-Vatican II orientation! Please note: not only is he said to have resisted an “orientation”, but it is thepost-Vatican II orientation, not the orientation of Vatican II. What is the difference? Your guess is as good as mine, but I would say that if I were an indult/novus Catholic, I would have no problem denouncing a post-conciliar orientation as all that that implies isthat something bad happened after the Council (which in turn implies that the problem is not necessarily in the Council itself).

What did he stand for?It gets worse:

[Fr. Zendajas:] “He [Lefebvre] continued to act ‘within the Church and according to the Church,’”

[The Recusant:] This sounds like the sort of thing Bishop Fellay might write. Of course Archbishop Lefebvre was within the Church! That fact should be so obvious to the author and his readers that to say so only gives the effect of calling it into question. Bishop Fellay does this all the time.

[Fr. Zendajas:] “...resisting the new ecclesiastical tide” - not the actual Council itself, in other words! - “in the measure that it attempts to distance itself from the doctrines and practices of the Faith,”

[The Recusant:] - so he didn’t even resist this ‘new tide’ completely, only in the measure that it was different from the Catholic Faith (which suggests that it was not always different!).

[Fr. Zendajas:] “...and desiring-in spite of many disappointments-that union with the

19

Vicar of Christ can be re-established as soon as possible without having to compromise on any point of doctrine. No matter what, this is what he stood for!”

[The Recusant:] Read that last bit again. What was it that Archbishop Lefebvre stood for? According to Fr. Zendejas, he stood for re-establishing union with the Pope (when did he break it?) as soon as possible and without having to compromise doctrine. Fancy that. And there was me reading the Archbishop’s own writings and mistakenly thinking that he had no desire to belong to the conciliar church!

Notice the nice little touch at the end about re-establishing union “without having to compromise” doctrine: Fr. Pfluger and Bishop Fellay have said often enough that they are merely seeking to work inside the Church, and that it is the right thing to do as long as there is no compromise required, etc. Here, for example, is what Bishop Fellay wrote in 2012:

“Let it be understood that we have ruled out the possibility of our embarking on an alliance that would consist of swallowing the conciliar poison and compromising our positions. That is absolutely not what we are talking about.

Nevertheless, considering the lessons of Church history, we see that the saints, with much moral courage and a strong faith, brought back souls that had gone astray in terrible situations of crisis, with much mercy (and firmness), without falling into a reprehensible excess of rigidity, as was the case with the Donatists, for example, or withTertullian. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the saints did not refuse to work with and in the Church, in spite of the Arian occupation (for example) and the numerous Arian bishops still in office.” (Letter to Priests, Cor Unum, March 2012)

We have already pointed out often enough before in these pages what is wrong with Bishop Fellay’s thinking. He sees no distinction between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church, and consequently when he sees the historic separation between the SSPX and the conciliar church, he becomes afraid that he is outside of the Catholic Church. It is entirely logical therefore that his priority should be to “re-enter” the [conciliar] Church, and the talk about not having to compromise cannot hide that. In practice modern Rome can afford to generously grant the appearance of no compromise for the time being. Remember how the Good Shepherd Institute some ten years ago announced that “no compromise was necessary” - as did Dom Gerard of Le Barroux. Who had the last laugh? But even if an agreement could be struck which really did require “no compromise”, it would still be wrong, being a mixing of darkness and light, so to speak, and an implicit approval of pluralism.

But as I say, this is old hat. We have discussed it in these pages often enough before. What is fascinating here is that Fr. Zendejas not only shows that he has the same thinking as Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pfluger - worse than that! - he imputes this thinking toArchbishop Lefebvre! “If only we could re-enter the Church! Just as long as we don’t have to compromise doctrine, we have to try to do it as soon as possible, it the most important thing!” That is what he stood for? Poor Archbishop Lefebvre. His thinking and actions falsified, his memory abused, and not only by the neo-SSPX, but now by the neo-Resistance too!

20

What happened at the Council?The diligent and persevering reader will have seen how Fr. Zendejas goes on to completely and explicitly exonerate the council:

[Fr. Zendajas:] “Hence, the apparent conflict between “obedience” and Truth rests on AMBIGUITY.” (Emphasis in the original) It rests on ambiguity? Not error, then?

“For instance, at the time of Vatican II there were those ambiguous terms, whichcould be understood in one way by Catholics and in another (contradictory) way byModernists…”

[The Recusant:] It is true that there are ambiguous passages in Vatican II, planted there by the liberals so as to pass censor by the “conservative” Council fathers and then be interpreted by the liberals afterwards in the most liberal sense possible. However, that isnot the whole problem. There are also other passages in the Council which are most decidedly not ambiguous. I defy anyone to read what Dignitatis Humanae says about Religious Liberty and then tell me how it can be reconciled with the teaching of the Church!

[Fr. Zendajas:] “Certainly, deeds speak louder than words. In today’s Official Church Pope Francis is an ultra-Modernist prelate—a master of contrarieties, who says he is not against Catholic teaching and yet favors a humanistic world!”

[The Recusant:] The phrase “Official Church” is a classic Fellayism, designed as it is to paper over any distinction between the Church and the conciliar church. And the idea that Pope Francis is a man of contradictions is likewise a Fellayism - wishful thinking tothe point of lunacy. Pope Francis is a modernist pure and simple. He knows what he thinks and is far more consistent in his thinking than either Bishop Fellay or Fr. Zendejas! And then of course, we come to this little gem:

[Fr. Zendajas:] “In the days of the Council, the teaching of novelties about humanism (man-centered Church) were opposed and then silenced by more or less honest means and men, but adherents thereof have since been installed in key positions of power during the post-Conciliar period, so that the new system DEMANDS obedience to such “personal” orientations against the whole previous Magisterium of the Church.”

[The Recusant:] Where does this ridiculous version of history come from? Even Bishop Fellay has not attempted to radically falsify history in this way (not yet, anyway…). TheCouncil taught not just novelties but error; not just about humanism, but all kinds of error; the errors were not opposed by many, and were never silenced - they are still in the Council texts for all the world to see! And it is false to claim that the “new system” (whatever that is) only came to power after the council through key appointments. Theappointments of modernists to key positions was well underway when the Council began, but appointments are as nothing compared to the calamity of false teaching which took place. What is the effect of this fantasy nonsense if not to exonerate the Council entirely from any charge of error? In like manner, a little further on in the letter he goes on to say:

[Fr. Zendajas:] “The conflict is between the new orientation [!] which some [who?]

21

strive to force on the Church [“strive”? Have they not succeeded yet?] and the Catholicsense of the faithful; in other words between the new direction [!] which is imposed on the government of the Church [by whom?/from where?/how?] and the conscience that each and every priest and bishop should have…” (Emphasis and comments mine)

[The Recusant:] There is much more one could say, but the whole letter is very long andlife is too short (and paper and printing are expensive!). Besides, I value my sanity too highly and even though we have only covered around half of the whole letter, surely that is enough to show that something is very, very wrong! The persevering reader who reaches the end will not, I fear, feel any the better for it.

“Resistance to What?!”[The Recusant:] I suppose we ought to be grateful to Fr. Daniel Themann giving us this phrase which is so apt in this particular case. Fr. Zendejas is supposedly a “Resistance” priest. A year ago he left the SSPX unannounced for reasons which he preferred to keep to himself, and turned up in the Resistance parish in Connecticut without the invitation of the Resistance priest who was their pastor and founder, announcing to the faithful at Sunday Mass that he was their new priest. He has since “taken over” faithful of the Resistance in Texas and in Philadelphia. He survives on the generosity of souls who, when he “took them over”, were faithful of the Resistance, hence it is fair to say that he effectively lives off the Resistance though he does not even agree with it or share its doctrinal position, principally its unbending opposition to Vatican II. He is the clerical cuckoo in the nest: “in the Resistance but not of the Resistance.” Taking souls away from other Resistance priests but teaching something which in a number of ways is remarkably similar to Bishop Fellay’s teaching. It will doubtless come as no surprise to the reader to learn that he spent the week or two immediately before and immediately after this first “Resistance appearance” (in late 2014) in the company of Bishop Williamson, whose thinking he substantially reflected in his sermons of that time.

So, the question begged is: What is Fr. Zendejas ‘Resisting’? The answer seems to be: the Resistance! Reflect on what we know of the enemy’s tactics: we know who is responsible for the crisis in the Church, and we know the long war which this enemy has waged against the Church. We also know how they wage it, and the successes they have had through dishonest means (infiltration, subversion, replacing Catholic bastions with a hollowed-out shell devoid of true teaching…). We know the dedication and singlemindedness with which they prosecute their campaign, the burning hatred which motivates them to wage war against the Church without giving up or tiring, and we know that they did not give up and go home at Vatican II. The question is not whether orif the SSPX fell victim to them - all we lack is the specific details (who, where, when, etc.) Likewise, we can be assured that they will try the same thing on the Resistance. Weknow that they use ‘useful idiots’ as their willing pawns, giving them some short term gain for their cooperation in the long term campaign. Whether and to what extent Fr. Zendejas or Bishop Williamson are a conscious or willing part of this will remain a mystery, but in any case, strictly speaking it is not something we need to know. All we need to know is that this teaching is something different. If we accept it, whatever the short term gains, we lose everything in the long run.

I do hope that anyone misguided enough to attempt a defence of Fr. Zendejas does so ondoctrinal grounds, on the battlefield of ideas not personalities. In the meantime remember that our most precious possession is the entire, unblemished Catholic Faith,

22

part of which must necessarily be is our “nullam partem” with the Council. The SSPX accepts the Council. And now so too, it seems, does Fr. Gerardo Zendejas. There are a significant number of souls who once resisted but are now being softly and silently led back again in the direction of conciliarism. Do they realise it? Let us pray that at least some of them will wake up and realise the danger before it is too late...

Holy Martyrs of Mexico, pray for us. Source : abl3

***********************************

Streaky Bay has joined us in our stand to accept priests who have kept the true faith under the guidelines of Archbishop Lefebvre who said:

Mission statement

Streaky Bay is a sister-group to OLOSC Melbourne. We, too are a group of lay Catholics who organise our own activities and prayer meetings independent of leadership from the loose federation of priests. Our commitment to doctrinal purity is paramount in the priests we invite to help us keep the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic faith according to the guidelines laid down by Archbishop LeFebvre.

Dear Father Chazal and Father Picot,

We wish to draw your attention to our Mission Statement which expresses the wishes of our prayer community from this date on. As you will see it is self-explanatory. More importantly, however, we have come to realise that you have become doctrinally compromised with regard

23

to the matter of Fr. Kramer. The latter priest has taken to publicly proclaiming his private opinion regarding Pope Francis whom we unconditionally accept as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Father Kramer spreads his private opinion publicly - thus a priest (or Bishop) misuses his office - private opinion is not doctrine.

To make matters worse, Fr. Chazal has written on this subject twice. His first letter to Fr. Kramer refused to accept the latter priest's stand, yet in reply to one of us, he has contradicted himself in a second letter where he says the opposite. These can be viewed here

In conclusion we wish to make it clear that we are not a parish. We are no different to the various groups across USA and Canada that simply provide for the immediate needs of the visiting priest, namely air fares, accommodation, transport etc.

For well near 45 years, with the assistance of that great missionary priest Fr. Cummins and following Archbishop Lefebvre, we have kept the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Referring to our conversation with you regarding your change of direction it is with greatsadness that this chapel at Maryvale is no longer available to you or any priest who compromises on doctrine.

God bless,John CashCoordinator Streaky Bay, South Australia

24