Skip to main content

A year after it was first published, this letter by Fr. Chazal is still very relevant today. Let it be a warning to the faithful to be wary of these "lone wolves", i.e. priests who believe they have no need for a superior and who are seized by a "truly diabolical spirit which leads them to seek proofs of every kind of defects and vices" in everyone else, to use the Archbishop's words (see Between Jansenism and Modernism).

The following letter by Fr Chazal was sent to Fr Pfeiffer and Gregory [Taylor] at the start of 2015. Up until now, its content was kept private in the hope that this fraternal correction would bear fruit without the need to publish the underlying issues and possibly confuse or scandalize the faithful.

Almost two years later, Fr Chazal judges that it is time the faithful are made aware of the fact that the problems with Fr Pfeiffer go back quite a few years, and that any attempt to fraternally correct him has fallen on deaf ears.

50 Questions

Dear Father Pfeiffer, as to I, II & III,

Dear Gregory, as to I,

I have no idea how to cool down this whole thing as long as you make it life and death.

As you can read, your behavior fills me with perplexity and questions... My goal is that you apply some thinking before engaging further on this new path of yours. Are your really sure you want to go there? Could you take a second look?

This letter is huge, it is a heavy caliber fraternal correction, but you have a lot of armour, so i have no qualms. By all means feel free to return the favor after some time.


(1) What's the difference between fr Zendejas and fr Ortiz, fr Roberts, bishop Fulham, mgr Perez and his three others, and so forth? You like those priests, don't you?

(2) Fr Zendejas refuses to be under fr Joe, so no, it is not bishop Williamson organizing the undermining of fr Pfeiffer's organization. But he definitely likes that multiplication of independents. Is this a crime? Are we mandated by Heaven to make a monolith? l for once ever refused the idea. I always wanted the Marian Corps feudal, and the powers of the SG massively curtailed, and I will not back down on this.

(3) The phone call went awry, fr Z refusing to obey doctrinal summons, or any constraints on his view of the apostolate. So he kept polite, and refused to confront fr Pfeiffer, saying it was okay with him, meaning "to some extent", a typical clerical mental restriction, which I don't like. So some dishonesty, perhaps, but out of desire to avoid to confront fr Joe on the first day.

(4) As to 1, I felt horrified at the massacre of souls, the consequences were too obvious for me: we had, somebody had, to break the silence. it happened to be us, It could only be done by the loudest means, illustrated by the whereases of our decrees of expulsion. We have broken this wall of silence, now others are following up, but it need not have the same intensity, and once our office of whistle blowing is fulfilled we have to reintegrate the ranks to some extent.

(5) Fr Zendejas felt his hand forced and explicitely rejects any perceived pomposity or believes that the time to reconstruct local strongholds has begun. He totally refuses to play on Fr Joe's terms. he is perhaps not interested in bashing Menzingrad as much as we. I think he is somehow happy of getting fr Joe to explode, just as there is a definite glee in bishop Williamson's St Catherines speech. Anyways, the fultonic style of fr Joe gathers total approbation (your case) or irritation, in the case of fr Zendejas, I have no doubt. It is as if father wants to say tacitly “You are not my type, and if you say the same to me, we are in agreement." I know Zendy so much, Greg. l lived with him, he is amazing. You just can't study Zendejology in just one week.

(6) As for .2, contra factum non fit argumentum. Fr Violette is furious, because indeed, the Ridgefield priory is under direct attack. Financially it is already in the red and now the ex pastor of the place is going to undercut them further, because he has talents to preach retreats, and he is a natural born pastor.

I would have helped this turn of events.

(7) You bring the selfish quotes, but don't forget he also says I am left in the wild with nothing, and it is true!

Put yourself in his position for goodness sake‘s:

(8) If you take away Nabot's little vineyard, where is he supposed to live from, since Nabot is obstinate and will not sell to Boston. What is the alternative of fr Zendejas taking nothing of what there is? Can he actually find a congregation that is not already taken over by fr Joe or others? For my part, if he wants Brisbane or Melbourne, or Wanganui, my choicest spots, fine.

(9) Then you accuse that his clarifications on the AFD (he also mentioned the cns interview, the chapter, the use of the 83 code, the omission of the mass issue in the doctrinal talks, the weakness of Bishop Tissier on the question of ordinations and the fact that he asked to be dismissed because he thinks the society is now liberal), that these clarifications are contrived, like a school boy reciting a poetry whose beauty escapes him. Well, that is your opinion. You may have grounds to distrust, but he has expressed himself several times. He has made his public stance, and you don‘t like it and you don't trust it, fine, but it has been made.

(10) Fr Doran, Fr Gonzales, other priests need to join the fray in the US; badly. What are your terms in exchange of you not warring against them? Doctrinal terms? i think they are willing to oblige if you keep cool, otherwise leave them alone, let them do it exactly the way they want it to be. I am your (unrequited) number one fan, but you are not everybody‘s type.

You are totally free to dislike Father Zendejas' idea of mass by invitation only. I hate the idea as well. We have to go public, our office is a public one. But perhaps he is insecure. I didn't like his praising of cardinal Burke, I think to hang any hopes on these useless prefab conservatives (Burke is famous for enthroning a transsexual "nun" while bishop of la Crosse. He is a Levada of some sort). There are some shady areas in his speech, but not many, not enough for me to vote guilty. But if you say what you think based on these evidences, I am with you.

Then your leitmotiv is why do you side with the aggressors? Why do you turn on us?

This fight Should never have started.

(11) Fr Zendejas should have been left alone, and you could have thought to begin to divest your missions instead of clinging to them possessively. I think this problem is going to repeat itself. You are so totally stretched thin that you cannot see it anymore, people have to wait for ages so long as it is one of you that returns, not one of them who are not embracing your concept of organised resistance. Hence the faithful start to say, I am with fr Pfeiffer, while the others say i am with fr X, Y, Z, just like in Corinthians. Those who can't bear the drought of Sacraments you count as weak and expendable, adding further fragmenting. In an army you have to make do with fortifications at times, or less mobile infantry and artillery. Priests like Fr Zendjas help you to fight the drought of sacraments that is hurting the faithful. If Fr Zendejas is the liberal you suppose him to be, don't you think that the faithful won't be able to see through him as they saw through fr Violette? They would call for you a second time. I would have used Fr Zendejas to fix the enemy in the east, with Fr Ringrose, Fr Dominic bastions in the East to trounce the enemy in the center core of the Nation. if you can persuade Fr Perez and his crew to be convalidated, quit tradecumenism and get exnovusordocardinated, the same can happen with the South West corner, and if you can find a modus operandi with Fr Girouard, the same can happen with the Northwest corner, etc.

(12) But is Franky only dreaming? I remember your talents as a head hunter of priests, and you complained so much and so often on how the bar was placed too high for them. Case in point is Fr Zendejas himself, and all your efforts to visit him, talk to him, persuade him... it worked!

(13) I dream you get that sleeping talent awake in you again, but for the moment it is just a dream. If you want to lead a group of priests, the first condition is to gather subordinates. More importantly, let us not posture ourselves as great missionaries, flying superheroes, from flock to flock. Please leave this posturing to Frs Couture and Stehlin. I hate plane, and it's official, I long when all this craziness will be over.

(14) Most worryingly, the Z case resembles the case of Fr Girouard in Post Falls and Seattle, and i would like to know your version of this before i pass any conclusion. But there again, a modus vivendi has not been found with this brave soldier of Christ. Whoever is responsible, i find it lamentable in the view of the dearth of priests in the Norwest corner.

Fr Girouard is de facto barred now from these two places because he is not the pastor of these congregations, and you reject his policy, which is in fact blatant redlightism, because Fr Girouard is asking the faithful to stand up, sign a list to be submitted to Fr Vassal testifying that they have nothing to do any more with the liberal xspx and will not be seen on their precinct anymore. In the view of your own redlightism, this should have filled you with delight, but instead you elected to have yourself confirmed democratically as sole Pastor and can the policies of fr Girouard.

(15) Your are also significantly estranged with Frs Pinaud and Rioult, with, yet again, a split over there in Quebec. Then, perhaps, there is the case of fr Trinh who has joined the resistance a little while ago, on the occasion of a sermon lauding HEBW, a heinous crime indeed in the code of Menzingrad. Are you also estranged with him? Has he any hope of taking over, i mean, directing a parish according to his pastoral view of things, either in a place already visited by you or not visited by you since the resistance began in 2012? I really wish a specific answer on this.

For i am pretty sure the other independent priests of the resistance in the United States are watching carefully the treatment meted on those brave priests who attempt to pick up some groups and the mounting number of lay-folks who are now understanding our tenets. These bastion priests cannot be bullied, so you have to explain to them that your are going to be a good partner (or leader, perhaps, why not, after some time...), not by a promise, but by the fair and generous treatment you show to those other priests in the moment of their newly hatched weakness. Otherwise you will have only yourself to blame if the already entrenched independent priests get alienated from you.

(16) I wonder: what is the state of your union with the good Fr Gruner? I am still grateful to you for introducing him to me, for there is much more to fr Gruner than it seems.


As for the divagations on inthissign, olmc, I really think, Boston you ve got a Pablem. As St Paul sayeth: oportet crazire, sed crazire ad sobrietatem.

(17) You don't want to see the damage done, or you are afraid of Pablo who has a lot in hand and is incrusted in Boston. One of the problems is that you also look terribly weak in front of Pablo. Wether he obeys you or disobeys, or both, which is more likely, he gets things done all right, but to your disservice now, because as far as Bishop Williamson is concerned, it is either him or Pablo.

I tried to get him rant at Bishop de Galarreta several times, all in vain.

(18) Fr Valan is right. Take down those idiotic posts... or better said, shoot them down before they go up. What is the meaning of the chick on the beach?, the pyramids behind the mexican flag?

How can he say that the Bishop mocks the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in his Q&A of Nov 5th?

(19) Pablo does not even behave publicly as a Catholic: he cited to me your father preventing Mexicans (never saw many in bluegrass) as a reason not to attend mass. I think he has a part in the destsuction of the family in KC. Pablo would be fine with a crew of rough mexican truck drivers, but there is too much self styling, self promotion, almost childish.

It is a form of suicide by youtube, a Pablo the mexican destructions.

You were warned.


(20) And then if you end up cutting ties with the Bishop, the rift becomes total. What you were accusing others, fomenting fragmenting, becomes exactly what you bring about, because for all his limitations, Bishop Williamson is the lynch pin of the resistance, ordaining a deacon here, confirming there, pontificating up and down the hemisphere, blessing a church here, demolishing Menzingrad ver there, etc. Like the Archbishop he says he is no leader, but the de facto situation is what counts. He is a backseat leader, and we could clearly see it in Avrille that he runs the show. We are a herd of cats, the resistance is worse than Noah's ark.

(21) It truly amazes me that as soon as you claim we should have a SG, you fill in his shoes. You haven't built up any legitimacy, how can you be so ambitious?

Nobody is yet ready for a bishop Pfeiffer, despite the ballot in Vienna ll (1 third voting for bishop Pfeiffer, one third against, one third undecided, if I recall well). You speak neither french nor spanish, and we were caught totally unprepared when you said you are the world leader of the Resistance in Avrille.

(22) Moreover, it is obvious that with your severing with His Lordship, and the good number of seminarians you have been blessed with, you are going to look for a bishop soon, for the Catholic Church is run by bishops, not by priests. Of themselves priests are close to zero, their value is like a plane without aircraft carrier over the ocean. To attack the Bishop as you do makes it much harder to recruit people for the resistance, may they be priests or layfolks.

(23) Otherwise, how are your fine seminarians going to be ordained? lndia needs Suneel to be ordained soon, Fr Valan is very worried. We need Suneel on the grid in India soon enough. So i offered my services to Fr Valan for that purpose, minding that you might take it bad.

Where are you going to get your Holy Oils next year, and who is going to perform your Confirmations, consecrate the Chalices?

The rest of the world of the Resistance is absolutely not prepared for this mess; we make do with Bishop Williamson, should he even fail us some years down the line. You know how much I begged him to consecrate, but l keep my patience, and judging from what you tell the faithful about your bishop, clearly your patience is at end.

(24) The bishop is not ordaining your seminarians? Same here, he gives no guarantee to ordain my dweebs. Your seminarians are not yet overdue for Holy orders. Canonically it is the bishop who examines the candidates, and the more i teach, the more i realize they need to learn actually, and we need to toughen up seriously the rigor of their training. Here they do the cooking, accounting, etc., they will take care of animals and we are not going to hire anybody except for construction. No paint on the walls, no plastic seats on the toilets, and the list goes on and on. Yes, we have been cocooning a soft clergy for far too long, and it stops now. The Bishop is right.

(25) Don't you see that this split might damage your own groups in the US? Let alone your relations with the rest of the world? Did you check the other leaders of the Resistance? Dom Thomas Aquinas, Fr Bruno, Fr Faure, Fr Trincardo, Fr Ringrose the wise, Fr Pierre Marie, etc? You sure did not!

We are not as one organisation by the force of things, but there is a code of conduct, and we must walk in a line abreast.

You have to stick to us as much as we stick to you and refrain to attack you publicly. Just recently you accused him of asking Rome to lift his "excommunication" in 2009 (your Dec.8th sermon). What's next?

(26) Don't attack the Bishop, through Pablo or otherwise, and don‘t attack other priests who have espoused the ideas of the resistance, with disappointing imperfections I concede. Your attack in St Catherine's was off the mark, read the Bishop's quote again. Anyways there are others who put their foot in their mouth, no?

Your isolated stance against HEBW and the related priests might look brave to be sure, but foolish, especially in the view that the bishop bashes Menzingrad and the newchurch quite often, despite his opinions on the rosary crusade of 2007, Dawn Mary and so forth. He is wrong on 2007 more out of apparitionism than anything else. Note that he says one can disagree with him on Yawn Mary. I still lack the strength to read the 5th sequel.

(27) I thought we were agreed on the imperfection of the Resistance...

(28) You have to keep in mind that the man accounted himself very well for 35 years, and while we were chilling out with fr Ghela, he took the brunt of Bishop Fellay‘s and other liberals' divagations. He never believed the year 2000 peanuts of Cardinal Hojos, stood continuously against the party line on this and was demoted from Winona as a consequence. After 2009, Bishop Fellay threatened to expel him for not using the Jewish lawyer Max Krah. l remember clearly my visits in London before the 2012 crisis. He was cornered, put away, finished. Not a pretty sight it was. I think things have improved a lot since, all my thanks to Bishop Fellay for setting him loose, with all the priests and faithful this brought to us. It was the single-most favor done to us by HEBF.

Before any of us took the decision to stand up, he authored in fact, almost entirely, the so called "letter of the three Bishops“, and he attacked Bishop Fellay at the priest meeting on May 10th 2012, saying clearly "He is a traitor". It was the Dino at the top of his game, holy anger, the wheels of Ezekiel, outstanding. He knew the risks, Fr Couture was there, to report everything to Menzingen in real time. He put him back to his place memorably.

Then he alerted the faithful in Korea the week later. Korea would not be part of the resistance without him. Then he was excluded from the Chapter, yet persisted to undermine the deal with Rome and the fraudulent Chapter in his summer Eleison Comments... and he was expelled.

This was not enough for you, and you have always expected more ever since.

(29) Despite some lame teachers, our training in Winona was quite good, and wise, and why don't you remember that neither you, nor me, would have been ordained in Econe? With HEBW, we are relegated to the potential parts of the virtue of Justice.

(30) There is progress in the stance of the Bishop, as in his latest interview where he insists that people must bail out of the XSPX.

(31) We also gave the benefit of the doubt to Bishop Fellay, and I have no regrets about it, for years, until 2012 where he left us no choice. So if the stance of Bishop Williamson worries you, why don't you do the same? What is the sudden hurry, why don't you continue to sway him privately. His patience with us, in replying to our question is amazing. I really believe he is a humble man.

(32) Don‘t cerianize yourself. Of course one would wish his Lordship to use more precision in some of his statements, but he is no Bishop Fellay, he is not leading us back to the novus ordo. And he is no Tissier or Galarreta, because he stood up and refuses still to collaborate to the sell out and the inoculation of liberalism at all levels. He taught us many elements in the fight against liberalism that we are applying now unconsciously.

(33) Should he fail us, the sum total might still be positive. But I don't want to tell him that. My point is this: you are not even giving him the time to fail us.

(34) Then i see it coming: in that case he can never be wrong, like bishop Fellay, even when he is wrong. No. His recent treeish comment is wrong, Our Lord didn't put any half bad tree in between, for at the hour of our death we become either wholly bad or wholly good, and it is either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven for us. But he is not dead yet, and it can go either way. Dark clouds are clogging his judgement; his three episcopal confreres have failed, and since the seventies he has attempted to train counter revolutionary priests and there are minimal returns to show, all his past pessimistic prophecies regarding the Society are now fulfilled. So better leave it to God in that case, because so far we have just showed the inanity of our labours. Let God take the matter in his own hands as the prophecies indicate, because each time we have tried we've ended up with dismal results... and when he looks at your way of running things, he is all the more skeptical, dark, pessimistic. (As for me i think he believes i am utterly crazy).

So you are wrong to attribute this to liberalism, when in fact it is discouragement. I will not follow you on this, and will encourage my (backseat, informal, loose, benevolent, broadstairishly leisurely) leader. Should he turn liberal, l'll dump him, rest assured.

It is more in line with the Cross to carry what burdens his mind, which means of course plenty of uncertainties for us and our faithful. It's the Cross. Nails, pain, thirst, etc. No way around.

If he is the one who will pass on the torch of episcopal succession, the choice of candidates of 1988 will not have been that poor on the part of the Archbishop, and on account of him God will save his Legacy. Doctor White can finish his book, and then we can put a final slab over his grave with these few words written on it:"Fidelis inventus est". But for you he is already dead and buried, and Pablo has written the epitaph.

(35) Anyways, as you fall out terminally with him, the next question is inescapable, and people around you are asking it. How are you going to run your ordinations? And since the answer is ziltschish, next question, who is going to be your next bishop then? Knowing you, you are not going to have just birettas floating around the bluegrass countryside with no Orders underneath, especially with the number of starving mission stations you have. And you do have a tempting number of seminarians. Just as you ask your followers absolute faith in God providing a bishop (when in fact we should believe still that God provides a broadstairian version), you are going to ask them to trust that one of the many other bishops, floating around is the elect. But after a couple of years or so.

I know a Josey when i see one:

You are going for it, all alone, bravely, in the unknown and through the night of Faith, and i wish you the best of luck, hoping it does not turn out ugly, ridiculous. There again, you are not keeping line abreast of your confreres, because as you said in Avrille, you are the head of the resistance, worldwide.

(36) Avail yourself a little climbdown, "Ubi humilitas, ibi maiestas".


(37) And now we also have to swallow that people who wanted to keep their private details that way, are wrong to ask that, in yet another lack of kindness on your part while the insults of Pablo are left unpunished. The resistance forums showed a great degree of agitation and despondency, not that i think they represent the whole of our crowd, but i don't like the look of it, something is amiss, we are wasting our energies and sound like a cult.

I think you are asking too much of your followers, and it is as your Mom said, "With Joe, it will be with a lot of pain".

Now what is admirable in you is that you also take the pain on yourself quite courageously, but you show sometimes signs of strain, i can't believe how grey your beard is in a well lighted place.

You ve been fighting hard for 20 years, but have a double check. What is the state of your sleeping clock, for regular, (I don't say lengthy), sleep is necessary to think straight. I don't think you are about to drop dead, yet l know you can press on until you break, but you might be less effective in gathering, and more in scattering by concocting one new indispensable principle every fortnight, the last one being that people should not care any longer for their private details.

(38) As far as the ogernised resistance is concerned, you should perhaps be careful of what you pray for. Your mandate of Vienna I is expired, so the Marian Corps is now leaderless. Then, we have only five voters, you, me, fr Hewko, fr Suelo and fr Valan. Now it is illegal for you to vote for yourself (cf de electione in the Code: To vote for oneself, says Prummer, invalidates the election, and renders the voter ineligible and incapable to vote), as for me two things: I categorically refuse a SG of the same type as a the de facto pope of the sspx. And i think you can't represent us any longer. If it is a hung vote, the only one who could be able to cut the gordian knot would be the Bishop, but now as you split with the bishop, you split the Marian Corps. Your move against the good bishop, far from organizing us is disorganizing us and makes the day of menzingenites. So please give due consideration to this de facto consequence before you act.

(39) Your argument that Christ instituted a heirarchical Church runs on two obstacles: 1- That concerns the Papacy and episcopacy, not to be SG or non SG (of a lame, pious union, with just the letters of praise). 2- That alone does not make you a SG by default.

(40) Also, Fr Stehlin is not your superior.

Let him sleep with the fishes (liberals love to be fished suicidilly & sillily).

If nothing had happened in 2012 he would be your much revered superior, but, two things:

1. Through Bishop Fellay, he refuses to be your superior. So i find it ridiculous to run after him saying "you are my superior, you are my superior". At least Bishop Williamson grants canonical dispensations, confirmations, ordinations and so forth, that suppose being endowed with jurisdiction.

(41) 2. The reason for us to invoke canon 209 in case of probable doubt of jurisdiction of the ordinary hierarchy, is the peril of heresy and liberalism of this hierarchy. I use canon 188.4 for that purpose: the church deprives heretics of jurisdiction (at least). Now if Fr Stehlin and the like decide to lead us back into the arms of this heretical hierarchy, they lose the purpose of this Canon 209 (unwittingly). By doing what he is doing, Bishop Fellay is taking away the foundation of his (supplied) jurisdiction; and one sign of this is his repeated, blundering way of using it like an ordinary jurisdiction, as in the case of the Dominicans of Avrille. In using supplied jurisdiction, Bishop Fellay is daring when Archbishop Lefebvre was cautious, and the other way around... and end up losing it altogether, especially by placing himself directly under novus ordo officialities to expedite his canonical affairs, and by hoping to place the Society under a dual authority shared with novus ordo ordinaries and dicasteries (Cor Unum 105). In a way Fr Angles is right, this bimorphicjurisdiction of HEBF's Society is a canonical Frankenstein that cannot last for ever, but for the moment Bishop Fellay hasn't got the courage to choose any alternative. Typical of him.

Therefore you are an independent priest now, unless of course you incardinate yourself to Bishop Williamson, but for some reasons...

(42) The peril of the Faith of the faithful makes you in turn receive jurisdiction over them from the Church, not the faithful themselves. If you or fr Girouard call a local election, it does in no way give you jurisdiction, but is just a means to call you. Should another priest who defends the faith show up in Post Falls, they can seek shelter under him, owing you nothing but a debt of gratitude, which they must pay in conscience. If you become a peril for the faith like fr Stehlin and HEBF, your jurisdiction drops instantaneously.

(43) Being an independent is not the best proposition if you are cut off entirely from the other confreres. There has to be a degree of accountability, a degree of conformity among us all, even amongst independent and hard headed warriors, and we must be capable to meet each other and tell each other the truth, square off things and get confronted if we go too far, and this is what i am presently doing, with you being entitled to retort in full to me. The memory of lively Vienna I and II is still happily on my mind. You can have your differences with us, but do not isolate yourself totally, and please do not deem or treat your brothers in arms as liberal, duplicitous pussies. Vae soli. Woe to the loner, for if he falls, he has no one to pick him up. Your energy got us this far, would you like to continue?

(44) Then as far as the red light, I don't know how to reconcile it with your endorsement of Fr Perez, a very nice man, to whom we should talk in the hope he joins us. But he hasn't done so, and needs conditional ordination with his three others, cut his ties with the novus ordo and the xspx.

Here is my position, i don't think it has changed much.

(45) There is no more obligation to go to xspx masses, because the Society is not fighting for the faith any more. Only what is wholly good generates the duty to attend, yet only what is wholly bad generates the duty to abstain.

How can i forbid the mass of fr Tim, your own brother, or the masses of the Capuchins where my own brother is? They are not headed to a safe path, but why do you pronounce them dead yet? Priests are joining us from their ranks; does it means that all of a sudden resistancehood made them perfect from the bad thing they were before? No! They just made safe the life that was in them as they exited the sinking ship. Resistancehood is not like the grace of Justification.

Moreover, my orange light has in fact shades of red. i actually don't allow people to attend the mass of fr Cranshaw who is a real liberal, or father Laisney, or fr du Chazaud who said that one can say the new mass to bring people to the old mass, or a fr Jackson who said that the new mass can be said well. So it is more case by case for the moment, because those priests differ not from the priests of the Fraternity of St Peter who have not only abandoned the fight, but tuned against the truth. As a whole the society is compromised and the hull is torn open under the water line, but as you can clearly see some good priests are bailing out, like father Picot. So i believe it would be imprudent to redlight the whole thing at this stage, but there again under certain conditions:

.1 That no financial support be extended to the xspx.

.2 That attempts be made to rescue other good people who have no clue yet of what is going on, and there are more of this kind that we believe.

.3 That the elements of the sspx crisis be well understood.

.4 That the good priest remaining inside be urged to make a stand.

.5 That the faithful be known as being part of the resistance by xspx priests and faithful (xspx spies do take a good care of that, though).

If those five points are observed carefully, normally, the xspx does the work for you, my dear, and will throw you out. Normally.

And when people approach me to get the permission to go to xspx masses, i never grant the permission, because the Society as a whole is compromised and its official doctrine is false while liberalism is festering now almost everywhere in different kinds, and in different degrees. I always say "If you don't know better you don't sin, but knowing what i know, it would be a sin to let you go on this dangerous pass, and i trust you will know soon enough what i know myself so as to know that you yourself cannot go". We speak of the xspx as presenting a good mass, a good worship, but with the poison of liberalism attached, and it was because of these attachments that the Archbishop forbade the indult mass. Hence it is so logical now that so many xspx priest don‘t condemn modult proprio masses, or advertise them, like Fr Stehlin while in Poland.

Then i add that those who have bailed out have made the better choice, and that when the ship actually goes under by an official agreement endorsed by the members, as happened with Campos, then i will totally forbid attendance (and not just abstain from giving permission and forbid case by case only, as i do now). things will be more simple, but we are not yet there.

I believe that this has borne good results for the operation survival in Austrasia, because it did not hinder our work of warning the faithful who are not all on the internet, and who would not listen to us if we were perceived as merely seditious malcontents. We have several cases of parents whose children are on the brink of abandoning the faith totally if they themselves stop going to mass. in Singapore, the resistors are buying vestments and chapel furnishings... so they are preparing for the long haul with us, no doubt. And they are extending financial support to us. And they divulgate the news to other good people who were left totally clueless and are impossible to reach otherwise.

We are like in the intermediary period between Pentecost and 70AD, where the Apostles would still attend the Temple ceremonies and the prayers at the synagogue, but note that each time they went there, there were sparks.

After 70AD the jewish religion is not just mortua, dead, but mortifera, deathly.

(46) Interestingly, it is the bastion priests like Fr Girouard or Fr Ortiz, who can advocate hard core redlightism easily, because their faithful have no excuse to still attend xspx masses.

(47) On sedevacantism, your putting to Hell those who don‘t believe Francis is the Pope, is another youtube unfortunate statement: it was never the position of the Archbishop, all the while the Archbishop said that we cannot collaborate with open, disruptive and bitter sedevacantists. For the most, the faithful who have become sedes are more victims than perpetrators, no need to club them. I never remember you coming in so hard before, but perhaps it is because you felt threatened in Quebec. There are plenty other arguments, theological arguments against sedevacantism, and it is a sufficient arsenal, use them instead.

(48) And please mind that if you cut yourself off prematurely with HEBW, you have to look for another line, and there are no other lines that don't fall under suspicion of doubtful validity, except the sede lines. it will be hard to find a desedeified bishop, like bishop Fulham; and the latter is totally off the radar, and probably not interested in consecrating you. Perhaps you should convert an eastern rite bishop then get consecrated... i am just saying this to show you the hazardous nature of your adventure.

(49) If it is as you say, the bishop will not consecrate, time to move on, so you say, but no, let this point become obvious for all of us. At this juncture His Lordship insists he will do his duty, and some of us don't believe it will be the case, but it is not the time to challenge the promise made, yet. Indeed, the matter is in his hands to find the suitable candidate(s), not an easy task, because, except of course in the case of fr Joe Pfeiffer, all of us are unsuitable cases it seems.

(50) A glut of Youtube exposes you to criticisms. Any statements that you may regret today is for ever recorded and easy to find. That is why I would rather advise a middle course, because some people do make a great use of what we put for us, but our sermons can become boring, not well prepared, imprecise, repetitive with other previously posted sermons, and above all we must not posture ourselves into Youtube St Pauls of some sort. I think you are getting repetitive on bishop Fellay. His new manoeuvres and compromises need to be exposed as well, like who is Bishop Schneider who went in Flavigny, what happened in the European Parliament... but maybe i am wrong on this.

Methinks, before that thing got even started, you were already through with the bishop, and there is not much i can do, no matter hard i tried. You've got your pack of excuses now.

Sometimes i get that sinking feeling that the love of Uganda is one and the same as the love of Amin Dada. We did the right thing in 2012, but in 2015 we have to dress up the line of musketry, and we are not the leaders of the Resistance either, but just priests who have accepted local responsibilities, helping others if necessary, but not hurting the others if it is unnecessary. i want the harmony of muskets.

And I can't transfer from one self proclaimed infellayible little pope to another, which is the case if you keep on making it a matter of life and death, a matter of fidelity and betrayal, or a matter of theology. If you are too forceful, you end up with the opposite of the desired effect. When you got elected "boss" by four votes out of four, you promised to govern with humility... Show time!

Anyways, yours is such a momentous decision, that it needs to be talked over. And once taken, i wish you the best of luck on your new path, quite a crooked line if you ask me. God's routine, you will retort.

One last advice for you to ignore: Make a retreat, then only, decide.

ln Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal+

This letter was written beginning of 2015.

1. It turned out that Bishop Williamson went on to consecrate two bishops.

2. Fr Pfeiffer made a run for Moran... and failed lamentably.

3. From the start we showed great patience to his excesses and attacks.

4. So the Resistance is better organized after 4 years, part of this is the ability to bring fomenters of chaos and delinquent priests to accountability, unlike the XSPX.