Readers of The Seraphim who have perused the Resistance Writings section may already be familiar with Fr. Eric Jacqmin from our publication of his protest against a practical accord with modernist Rome.
In the following letter (which comes to me via email, from a friend of a friend of Fr. Jacqmin), he reveals not only the causes of his transition from the “recognize and resist” position of Archbishop Lefebvre to sedevacantism, but in the course of doing so, makes some rather alarming revelations uncovered by conversations in 2015 with the three remaining SSPX bishops:
According to him, they were either sedevacantist themselves (+Tissier de Mallerais), acknowledged that a public heretic could not be a true pope (+Fellay), and that all three were willing to permit secret sedevacantists to exist within the SSPX!
In consulting one (Resistance) priest on this letter, he informed me that this was actually old news, and that this letter was already in the public domain (where, he did not say). Thus far, I have been unable to ascertain its original date of authorship, though it obviously came some time after Fr. Jacqmin’s 2015 expulsion from the SSPX.
Presuming the contents of the letter are true, they are somewhat troubling for their dissimulation: How can an allegedly convinced sedevacantist like +Tissier de Mallerais continue to publicly promote the R&R position, condemn sedevacantism, and punish its adherents and promotors within the SSPX? The same could be asked of the other two bishops: Why tolerate in private that which you condemn in public?
In any case, the letter is sure to raise some eyebrows.
Before my dismissal on 15 August 2015, I had spent twenty-six years in the FSSPX, having held various offices in different countries, and I had devoted myself unsparingly and with sincere intention to serve God, the Church and souls. I was completely unaware that I was in error regarding the situation of the Supreme See, and that I was ignorant of the infidelity, and even a certain perversity, of my superiors.
Of course, before entering this congregation, I had reflected on which doctrine or opinion was the true one: sedevacantism or the position of the FSSPX of “accepting the popes after 1964 and resisting”.
The argument of Monsignor Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that I found in my research was then the following: a formal heretic is outside the Church, but not a material heretic. To be formal, the heretic must have been admonished twice by his superiors and persevere in his error. Since the popes have no superiors, they cannot be properly admonished; therefore, even after having publicly expressed a heresy, they can never become formal heretics. Consequently, they can never be considered or placed outside the Church. And to consider a true pope as an antipope is schismatic, something to be avoided like hell itself.
In 2015, having been appointed chaplain to the Carmel of Quiévrain, I had more time to study. I found in the *Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique* articles which demonstrate that, according to the Tradition of the Church, indeed “the Supreme See is judged by no one”, but that there is this exception: “unless it is established that he has deviated from the faith”.
I searched further and found that this doctrine is common in the Church. No one had ever spoken to me about it in the FSSPX.
I decided to consult the teaching Church, that is, the bishops of the FSSPX. There were three in 2015:
1) At the beginning of the month of July, Mgr Tissier de Mallerais came to visit the Carmel and took his meals with me. I shared my findings with him. He replied that I was right, that Vatican II is heretical, that Paul VI was a heretic and therefore was not pope until his death (sedevacantist position). But he assured me that he would not speak about it, nor would the other superiors, because otherwise the FSSPX would lose too many faithful and priests who would not want to follow. He warned me that I had no right to speak about it to the faithful or to the other priests.
2) I then telephoned Mgr Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the FSSPX at the time, to ask him what was happening. He told me personally, in July 2015, that I was authorised to be sedevacantist in private and to celebrate the “non una cum” Mass, on condition that: I speak to no one about it and especially not publicly, and that I mention the name of “Francis” in the public prayer (as during the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament or in the solemn prayers of Good Friday), with the following mental restriction: “Francis, pope (as people think)”.
He told me that the errors of Vatican II are not heresies and therefore not serious enough to consider a pope as deposed. But he admitted that if a pope utters a public heresy, he would lose his papacy.
Some time later, Mgr Fellay signed a letter accusing “the pope” of heresies. The “Filial Correction” (September 2017), signed by 250 theologians, priests and traditionalist academics, indeed accused “Pope” Francis of having supported and propagated seven heretical propositions, notably in his apostolic exhortation *Amoris Laetitia* concerning the family and the sacraments. Mgr Fellay was the most prominent signatory of this initiative.
Mgr Fellay never proclaimed that Francis was therefore a heretic and an antipope. Illogical behaviour on the part of the Superior General.
3) Mgr de Galarreta had visited the Carmel a few weeks later, still in that same month of July 2015, and complained that the talks and theological discussions between the FSSPX and Rome were blocked on the following point: the theologians of the FSSPX had proved that Vatican II is contrary to Tradition and therefore heretical, but the theologians of Rome replied: “We are the living magisterium, therefore we decide how Tradition must be understood, and we declare that Vatican II is in agreement with Tradition, and vice versa.”
I replied to Mgr de Galarreta that there was a solution: namely that, if the healthy part of the Church establishes that Rome has deviated from the faith, we can declare that the pope is outside the Church. Mgr de Galarreta asked me for my sources. I printed them all and handed them to him, and Mgr de Galarreta later thanked me, saying that it was very interesting.
4) The sisters of the Carmel gradually noticed that I no longer recited the prayers for the “pope” during the Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament as usual, but replaced them with another formula. They threatened to throw me out. They consulted Mgr de Galarreta, but he told them: “Let him do it.”
Bishop Fellay had also said to me: “You need the FSSPX more than you think.” Yes, I was sixty-three years old, without savings, without a wealthy family, with only a handful of faithful willing to follow me. I had no unemployment benefits nor pension. I had only the Gospel, which says: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” I therefore trusted Jesus more than this unworthy bishop and… I never lacked anything. Apparently, this is something Mgr Fellay had not foreseen.
And the Mother Superior of the Carmel, for which I served as chaplain, said to me in mid-August 2015: “We pray that you die before committing a mortal sin by becoming a sedevacantist.” She refused to listen to my arguments and even threatened me that, during the sermon, she would have all the sisters sing the Creed if I dared say anything to the faithful.
She added: “We had already prayed for another priest who was about to fall into mortal sin, and he died.”
… I am still alive at seventy-three years of age and in good health. I had forgotten to answer her: “Pray for the same grace for yourself.”
5) Mgr Lefebvre admitted at the time that 15 percent of traditional faithful are sedevacantists. And Mgr Fellay told me that several priests in the FSSPX have accepted the “mental restriction”. Indeed, I know a priest of the FSSPX who secretly celebrates the non una cum Mass, but who does not have the courage to leave the FSSPX. Others have said to me: “We think like you, but we do not take it so seriously.” I do not understand how priests can be so lax.
I can attest to all this under oath if necessary. Of course, I refused to act in this way, because it would be a mortal sin to deceive the faithful on such an important matter, and it would be lying before God Himself during the Holy Liturgy. To accept an antipope as pope is schismatic. Then one would have to tell the faithful that one hour of fasting is sufficient to receive Communion (according to Paul VI after his heresy) instead of the three hours prescribed by Pius XII, as well as to change the fasting and abstinence on the prescribed days. All this is grave matter; therefore I would have plunged the faithful and myself into mortal sins by obeying my superiors.
Obedience stops at sin, and all the more so at mortal sin, of course.
O my God, give us the courage always to seek Your will and rather to die than to betray Your truth.
Our Lady, Guardian of the Faith, save us.
I was a kid in the sspx following my father to church in the 1980s. Several sermons were on how the pope was not the pope. Mortal sin for not following sinful instructions? I think being head bully is not the way of Christ. My conscious is clean...i avoid sin and I am not going to follow sinful men who have boyfriends or want to say homosexuality is not a sin. As our BVM said at Canan "Do as he says" and so i try to do as He instructs. And I follow the 10 Commandments given by The Father. They have the buildings and we have the faith. You cannot be excommunicated by heretics.
The "bad dad", if you like, was given by Archbishop Lefebvre as the necessary Catholic attitude towards these unfaithful shepherds, putting faith above obedience, where it belongs, and the only "sifting" of Peter was that of rejecting those non-infallible teachings which were opposed to the Faith and the constant teaching and practice of the Church. This is the 100% certain teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre right up to his death.