6 thoughts on “Great Conference from Fr. Chazal”

  1. Thanks Br Joseph. I do my homework. I hope Fr Chazal and Fr Joe Pfeiffer will do theirs.

    I don’t think they’re doing their homework, with all due Respect.

    1) It seems that Fr Chazal and Fr Joe Pfeiffer et al are biased.

    They accuse the SSPX of changing, when the Priory here in Singapore hasn’t change a single thing. The SSPX still keep all Sermons, Biography, Cor Unum, etc. writings of the Archbishop. In fact, they don’t change at all. They still teach the Catechism, St Thomas Aquinas, etc.

    The Modernist Bishops/popes wanted Msgr Lefebvre to change. He didn’t.

    Fr Chazal and Fr Joe Pfeiffer et al are accusing the SSPX of change, when if reality, there’s no change, objectively.

    And that’s the weird thing.

    The Angelus Press continues to publish all the books of the Archbishop:


    3) Does Fr Chazal & Fr Joe Pfeiffer et al. publish the books of the Archbishop? Or perhaps they should start looking at the “errors” from the books of the Archbishop, which are published by SSPX? Just in case the SSPX added some of their so-called new doctrine. They should do an Imprimatur, because they’re very smart on finding errors.

    4) Finally, How did Msgr Lefebvre dealt with Modern Rome? When Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis in 1976, he continued to talk with Rome, for at least the next 10 more years!

    He was willing, as he said, to try out the Experiment of Tradition, to get a go ahead from Rome.

    Msgr Lefebvre said to Cardinal Ratzinger, “It is impossible because we are working in two diametrically opposed directions: you are working to de-Christianize society, the human person, and the Church; we are working for Christianization. We cannot agree. ” (July 1987).

    And yet, why did he allow the visit of Cardinal Gagnon in December 1987, a few months after he spoke to Cardinal Ratzinger?

    Msgr Lefebvre even wrote a lenghty proposal dated 21 November 1987:


    A comparison of this proposal with the Protocol of May 5 is very interesting. In his letter of May 24 to Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre did not ask for anything other than what was already asked for in this proposal to Cardinal Gagnon.

    In other words, Msgr Lefebvre wanted to have a so called experiment of Tradition, for Modernist Rome to recognize the SSPX (which Rome unjustly suppressed anyway), without changing anything of course. This is a FACT.

    Please read this fully:

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2012/apostle33-editorial.pdf (Fr Couture: AS WE ARE!)

    I don’t understand Fr Joe and Fr Chazal claiming no Resistance on SSPX, when the SSPX still has these documents/newsletters on Fr Couture’s site!

    5) If there’s one so-called figure that did the Resistance, it’s Archbishop Lefebvre.
    Now if you view the sspxasia.com website, you can find many of Msgr Lefebvre’s sermons.

    Why do you accuse the SSPX of Non-Resistance? When in fact, the SSPX keep what Msgr Lefebvre said! Look at the Sermons above,

    For the past 3 months now, the Priory here in Singapore is putting in the bulletin the very words of Archbishop Lefebvre on bulletin, based on the book: “The Mass of All Times”. It’s on the part where Msgr Lefebvre criticized the Reforms of Vatican II.

    Now, we don’t put the bulletins online, but hey, the SSPX is still continuing what Archbishop Lefebvre did.

    So, Fr Chazal and Fr Joe et al should stop accusing the SSPX of all this non-sense of so-called no resistance!

    I never even see Fr Chazal and Fr Joe promoting the complete books/works/perspective of the Archbishop.

    • Some books of the Archbishop are being sold in the US and Canada (I have no knowledge of Asia) but many titles are not available. The ones that are sold are often recently edited.

      The Resistance has not grown to the point of establishing a publishing house. If you would like to donate the funds and help find more priests to do the work, I am sure it could be arranged.

      Your comments on the reaction of the Archbishop precede the consecrations and are irrelevant. Up until the consecrations, the Archbishop was more hopeful that Rome would return to Tradition. When it became obvious to him that this would not happen in the foreseeable future, his opinion changed. Since then, we have 25 years of experience to observe how Rome deals with Tradition. Look at the nine Ecclesia Dei groups.

      You are correct that the Archbishop must be our guide. We in the Resistance insist on it.

      As I said do your homework. It is clear that you are reading only the SSPX view. Read the materials on the sides I provided in a previous response.

  2. What the Archbishop Lefebvre taught is none other than the Catholic Faith. That’s all.

    The Priory here in Singapore, in so far as I know still continues to teach the Faith. They still keep all the Books of the Archbishop too. The SSPXAsia.com website still keeps the Sermons of the Archbishop.

    (no change at all in position, no toning down)

    If there’s one figure that is Resisting, it’s Archbishop Lefebvre.

    Fr Daniel Couture even had the latest Newsletter on a Failed Council


    Why is Fr Chazal saying that in all the websites of the SSPX, no more resistance?

    With all due respect, they still keep the Archbishop Lefebvre sermons, books, etc! All of them!

    • As I said, review our material. The direction of the SSPX has changed. Do your homework, do not rely on the SSPX to do it for you.

  3. Can you give this information to Fr Chazal and Fr Joe Pfeiffer?

    Do you know that in Singapore, even though they don’t put material online, they still continue to put articles in the bulletin on Archbishop Lefebvre? For the past 3 months, the bulletin was about Msgr Lefebvre criticizing the New Mass. It’s from the Book: The Mass of All time by Angelus Press (pages 200 onwards). This is the part where the Archbishop pinpointed the grave errors of Vatican II and the New Mass.

    So they put that in the Bulletin!

    So, it seems that Fr Chazal and Fr Pfeiffer is biased to say that the whole SSPX is sinking.

    • It is great that they still remember ABL, but it would be nice if they would continue to follow what he taught. Please review the material on this site to see why I make this statement.

      An SSPX priest told me last October that the SSPX is toast. He was correct.


Leave a Comment