Rorate Caeli

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: "The irregularity is that of Rome, a Modernist Rome."

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is one of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) consecrated by Abp. M. Lefebvre in 1988. He will ordain 8 new priests (6 for the SSPX and 2 for the Traditional Benedictines) and 13 deacons (all SSPX) on Friday, June 15, in the SSPX seminary in Winona, then preside over 3 confirmation ceremonies from June 17 to 24.


Rivarol, a French periodical mostly dealing with political matters, published the following interview with him today. The interview itself was conducted on the first of June.



Between the sentiments expressed here by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and those expressed by Bishop Fellay in his recent interviews and sermons, there is a wide gulf hard to ignore.


RIVAROL: The imminent "reintegration" of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) within the "official Church" is mentioned widely. What is it exactly? 

Bp. TISSIER de MALLERAIS : “Reintegration”: the word is false. The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has never left the Church. It is in the heart of the Church. There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church. This project of "officialization" of the SSPX leaves me indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction, that attracts those noble souls, that attract lots of young priests, despite our pariah status. One would wish to place our lamp under the bushel for our integration in the Conciliar world. This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to "regularize the war".

R. : But some in the Society of Saint Pius X think that it would be in fact a good thing. Are you not bothered by this "irregular" situation?

Bp. T.: The irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome. A Modernist Rome. A Liberal Rome that has renounced Christ the King. A Rome that had been condemned in advance by all Popes up until the eve of the [Second Vatican] Council. On the other hand, the experience of the priestly societies that have joined current Rome is that all, the ones after the others, included Campos and the Good Shepherd, have been constrained to accept the Vatican II Council. And we know what has become of Bp. Rifan, of Campos, who now has no objection to celebrating the new mass and who has forbidden his priests from criticizing the Council!

R: What do you say to those who believe that Rome has changed with Benedict XVI?

Bp. T: It is certain that Benedict XVI has made some gestures in favor of Tradition. Especially by declaring that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and, in second place, by suppressing the so-called excommunication that had been declared regarding us following our episcopal consecration by Abp. Lefebvre. These two positive gestures drew bitter complaints from the episcopates towards Benedict XVI. But Pope Benedict XVI, while he is Pope, remains Modernist. His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time. Despite his favorable gestures, his real intent by integrating us in the conciliar orb cannot be other than to lead us to Vatican II. He had said it himself to H.E. Bp. Fellay in August 2005, and a confidential note by himself, published fraudulently, has confirmed it recently. (Rorate note: the reference here is to a note attributed to Pope Benedict XVI and referring to the SSPX that was among those publicized in the Vatileaks affair.)

R: But some think that Benedict XVI, coming from Catholic Bavaria, and who has displayed, they seem to know, "deep piety since his youth," inspires confidence. How do you respond to them?

Bp. T.: It is true that the Pope is very pleasant. He is a kind, polite, thoughtful man, a man who is discreet, but possesses natural authority, of man of decisiveness, who has solved many problems in the Church with his personal energy. For instance, problems of morality in this or that priestly institute. But he is imbued with the council. When he says that the resolution of the SSPX problem is one of the main tasks of his pontificate, he does not see where the real problem is. He misplaces it. He sees it in our so-called schism. Well, the problem is not that of the SSPX, it is the problem of Rome, of the neo-Modernist Rome, that is not the eternal Rome anymore, that is not anymore the Mistress of wisdom and truth, but that has become a source of error since the Vatican II council, and that remains so today. Therefore, the solution of the crisis can only come from Rome. After Benedict XVI.

R: So how do you solve this disagreement with Benedict XVI, which is considered scandalous by many of those in the SSPX?

Bishop T.: It is true that the SSPX is a "stumbling block" for those who resist the truth (cf. 1 Petr 2, 8) and this is good for the Church. If we were "reinstated", we would, by that very fact, stop being a thorn in the side of the conciliar church, a living reproach to the loss of faith in Jesus Christ, His divinity, in His kingdom.

R.: But, Excellency, you wrote with your two colleagues a letter to H.E. Bp. Fellay to refuse a purely practical agreement with Benedict XVI. What are the reasons for this refusal?

Bp. T.: The publication of our letter is due to an indiscretion for which we are not responsible. We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. To submit ourselves now unconditionally to the higher authority imbibed with Modernism would be to expose ourselves to have to disobey. And what is the good in that? Abp. Lefebvre said since 1984: "one does not place oneself under an authority when that authority has all the powers to demolish us." And I believe that that is wise. I would like us to produce a text that, renouncing to diplomatic subterfuges, clearly affirms our faith and, consequently, our rejection of the conciliar errors. This proclamation would have the advantage, first, of saying the truth openly to Pope Benedict XVI, who is the first to have the right to the truth, and second to restore the unity of the Catholics of Tradition arround a combative and unequivocal profession of faith.

R.: Some believe that the statute of personal prelature proposed to you will provide sufficient guarantee to you concerning all danger of abandoning the combat for the faith.

Bp. T.: That is incorrect. According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist episcopate.

R.: Could you detail for us this problem of faith that you wish to see resolved in the first place?

Bp. T.: Certainly. It is, as Abp. Lefebvre used to say, the attempt by the Vatican II Council of conciliating the doctrine of the faith with the liberal errors. It was Benedict XVI himself who said it, in his interview with Vittorio Messori in November 1984, by declaring: "the problem of the 1960s (and therefore of the Council) was the acquisition of the most matured values of two centuries of Liberal culture. They are the values that, while originating outside the Church, may find their place, once purified and corrected, in her vision of the world. And it is what was done." That is the work of the council: an impossible conciliation. "What conciliation can there be between light and darkness?", the Apostle says, "what agreement between Christ and Belial?" (2 Cor 6, 15). The emblematic manifestation of this conciliation is the Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the place of the truth of Christ and of his social kingdom over the nations, the Council places the human person, his conscience and his liberty. It is the famous "change of paradigm" admitted by Cardinal Colombo in the 1980s. The worship of the man who becomes God in the place of the worship of the God who became man (cf. Paul VI, address on theclosing of the Council, December 7, 1965). It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary, immaculate in her faith, guard us in the Catholic faith.  

(Source for the transcript: TradiNews)

89 comments:

New Catholic said...

Regardless of his other opinions, there is one point on which we completely agree with Bp. T.de Mallerais:

"R.: Some believe that the statute of personal prelature proposed to you will provide sufficient guarantee to you concerning all danger of abandoning the combat for the faith. Bp. T.: That is incorrect. According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist episcopate."

If the project is true, he is absolutely right, he is absolutely right.


NC

rodrigo said...

His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time.

Untrue. Furthermore, if Bishop Tissier de Mallerais really means what he says in calling the Holy Father a Modernist - i.e. a heretic - then it is hard to see how he can (without being guilty of incoherence) deny the sede vacante thesis.

New Catholic said...

Red, please rephrase that. We will not allow this to be transformed in another Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus debate. All comments on this topic will be deleted, whatever else they might contain.

Adfero said...

Yes, as much as I'd like to see unity, this would be unacceptable.

Barona said...

This man is a schismatic.

Brian K said...

Part of me really wants this agreement, or whatever you want to call it, to happen. It has the potential to bring very positive effects to the One True Church, by fighting from the inside. But on the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that the Bishop makes a very good case. The documents of Vatican II are problematic. If it is true that the SSPX will not be able to state that it contains errors, I hope it is not signed. Because that would be a lie.

Michael B. D. said...

This is a disaster in the making.

"any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us."

+Mallerais talks as if there is no risk in being outside of the visible Church and no upside to being obedient to the Holy Father. I'm sorry, but Catholics should at least be ANXIOUS to be under the authority of Rome.

Instead, his attitude is entirely Protestant: the Pope must convert to me. We're "the pinnacle" of the Church, he says.

It now seems incontrovertible that +Fellay is right. There are some in the SSPX who have done the same as the Progressives: turned Vatican II into a super-nova event in history, one that justifies any action, in this case any dissent.

You risk corruption merely by waking up in the morning and getting out of bed.

And you risk being left behind as the Traditionalists within the Church win victory after victory. We've come SO far from Hawaii.

And yet here is a bishop of the SSPX suggesting that even the appearance that regularization gives is too much. The substance no longer matters. For this man, in this moment, fidelity is defined entirely in terms of resistance.

P.K.T.P. said...

Hard to ignore? You can say that again. I wonder how the neocon spinners will now try to recast this as good news. Yup, Tissier is about to embrace the Pope's offer any second now. I mean to gloat this time, after I was attacked by these nitwits over the last few days:

I TOLD YOU SO!

There, that felt better. Now, I can say that I regrt this outcome. We have not yet heard a peep from de Galarreta. Let's pray for unity under Bishop Fellay, despite what mistakes he *may* have made in this proceess. Yes, let's pray for unity, but not while lying to ourselves about the meaning of Tissier's words. Look the facts straight in the face.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

a) one of the main issues with the sedevecantist thesis is that it is not actually anywhere near certain that a heretical pope would lose jursidiction, both Billot and Garrigou Lagrange maintained he would still have jursidiction and remain Pope
b) This is somewhat troubling, if +Fellay pushes ahead, it seems that some will split no matter what and Bishop Tissier was one of those that knew Archbishop lefebvre best. I suppose the question now is where will the religious orders go?

Reluctant Pessimist said...

"How does one reconcile [the quoted words of Archbishop lefebvre] with Unam Sanctam which states it's necessary for salvation that everyone be subject to the Roman Pontiff?"

Nothing trumps (1) adherence to the Faith and (2) proclamation of the Faith, the latter a fortiori for a bishop. These are the absolutes; all else are contingencies, even if they be a mere one ten-billionth of a percent contingent.

If the post–Vatican II popes have demonstrated anything with mathematical certainty, it is that absolute, unconditional obedience to them and to the overwhelming majority of the bishops they have consecrated has made and will continue to make the Church's mission of sanctification of this fallen world and of those who people it a nullity.

Peterman said...

"we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops"

IF this is correct than I agree with the Bishop on that point, the prelature would be WORTHLESS. For those of us stuck in a diocese with a control freak bishop who allows one TLM per week (at 4pm for example or none at all) this is NOT the news for which we've been waiting.

P.K.T.P. said...

Rodrigo:

Tissier did not express this view with the needed nuances but he does have a legitimate point. He was referring to competing notions of a 'living tradition'.

There can be no doubt that Fr. Ratzinger was a Rahnerite and a disciple of Rahner. Going further and claiming that he is a Modernist heretic is a very serious charge though. Even if true, I see no evidence that the Benedict XVI of 2012 is a material heretic, and certainly not a formal one. That means that he is legitimately Pope, but there may be theological confusion in his mind. I don't see that that, however, justifies separation. We are talking here about separation from the Vicar of Christ, a very serious outcome.

The argument of the Society in the past was that separation was a case of necessity in a time of general error. This argument is at least valid until the Pope offers you freedom to preach the truth. This is not 1975 to 1988; it is not even 1988-2000. In 2000, John Paul II offered the Society a particular church. Fellay admitted thin in 2002, calling it the 'Rolls Royce' structure. Let's hope that that Rolls has not been downgrades to a Mazda personal prelature.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

Before P.K.T.P. gets too excited about his forecasts of doom being vindicated, two things are worth noting:

1. This interview was given on 1st June... and a fortnight is a long time in Church politics;

2. +Tissier d M was one of those advising Abp Lefebvre AGAINST the 1988 consecrations. When they happened, against his own advice, he stuck with his Superior General. Whatever one thinks of his remarks in this interview, this is a man who values the unity of the Society even when he disagrees with leadership decisions.

David Werling said...

LOL. I guess we can count out Bp. T. de Mallerais!

Maybe Bp. Dolan can put him up for while. I hear he has spare episcopal apartment or two.

P.K.T.P. said...

Peterman:

Thank you for joining my chorus line. The Pope could save the p.p. by waiving the final clause of Canon 297. However, even if he did so, the p.p. does not fit, and he would also have to twist Canon 294. As I have been insisting, there is a solution, and it is the Campos writ internationally large.

P.K.T.P.

John H said...

1. This is a sad man. His words have a dark tone to them. He sounds like a Protestant Reformer. He cannot stand by these words and at the same time acknowledge that Pope Benedict is the pope.

2. A bishop that refuses to implement SP is a bishop not in communion with the Holy Father and therefore is a bishop that the SSPX would not need to obey. This is a simpler matter in practise than it seems: if there is a problem with recognition of the Society anywhere, once the SOciety has been given faculties and recognition by the Holy See, it is NOT the SSPX's problem but that of PCED to solve. Bishop de Mallerais is also either deliberately falsifying the issue or is truly naive: he has been going about his business for YEARS without episcopal permission, and all of a sudden, NOW, he will find it difficult to ignore bishops who are defying the will of the pope?????????
Absurd. He does not wish to return and is trying to rationalize. This is closet sedevacantism pure and simple. I hope Bishop Fellay moves forward, for it will open up a LOT of closets, in the SSPX and outside: sedes as well as disobedient bishops, and ALL of them are to be EQUALLY ignored.

rodrigo said...

PKTP,

Having cast a pebble your way, let me say that I agree with the latter part of your most recent comment. But Ratzinger a Rahnerite?! I don't know where you got that idea. They may have been friends, but their theologies have very little in common.

David Werling said...

"Even if true, I see no evidence that the Benedict XVI of 2012 is a material heretic, and certainly not a formal one. That means that he is legitimately Pope..."

What you "see" doesn't make anyone a MANIFEST anything.

Just saying...

P.K.T.P. said...

Rodrigo:

I am NOT forecasting doom. You misunderstand me entirely. I am only advising caution as Bishop Fellay considers a canonical structure from Levada the Spiper which could blow the S.S.P.X right out of the water. I am not saying that this will happen; I am only warning that it could happen. Please make careful distinctions here.

Give me some credit. All the breast-beating neocons said that I was wrong on Tissier just a few threads back. Remember? Where are they now!

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I see PKTP is going on about his 'Campos solution' again, ironic seeing as Bp Tissier complains about that here too. Regardless that wouldn't satisfy Bp Tissier, only Romes conversion would as he makes clear several times in the interview.
If recently founded priories need to be approve too, then the deal is baloney, if only new ones, depending on what form that 'permission' takes and how appeals are handled by Rome it might (emphasis on the might) be an acceptable compromise. If Rome was willing to overrule the local bishops it wouldn't be an issue, if not it could be more problematic and the issue is that Rome has rarely overruled the local bishops on similar matters, if ever.

This interview does predate the +Fellay interview and thus one can hope that he didn't know about some of the deatils +Fellay did, so that might soften his opinion a little.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

John H, I am afraid you are the naive one not Bp Tissier. It is one thing to ignore the local bishops when you are outside the official structure, quite another to do it when you're inside, especially when many NO catholics and semi-traditionalist turn up in SSPX chapels with their more liberal views.

Bartholomew said...

FWIW: If an unmodified PP is the deal, then it should not be made. The Pope acts as if his N.O.bishops are true shepherds. None of them would be bishops if they spent an ounce of energy opposing the post-conciliar revolution. For nearly 5 decades, the miter has been awarded to the sacerdotal collaborators.

P.K.T.P. said...

John H.:

I appreciate your sensible comments. But I think you fail to see the problem here. It is definitely not your fault, as there should not be a problem. But there is one. You see, even after U.E., issued over a year ago now, the P.C.E.D. has not implemented Summorum Pontificum, even though there are 500 outstanding petitions in France alone. U.E. bolstered S.P. on the whole, and yet, since U.E., we have seen zero growth in some places and NEGATIVE growth in others, including the U.S.A. Only Poland seems to be improving steadily.

So the problem is that the P.C.E.D. is on the other side. Levada is the enemy, my friend. As Archbishop of San Francisco, he was the ONLY BISHOP IN CALIFORNIA, out of twelve diocesan bishops, who refused the Traditional Latin Mass, and he refused it on ANY basis, even one Tuesday in alternate months. The local liberal bishops and Levada are not at odds: they are on the same team. We have more friends among the bishops, frankly, than we have in the P.C.E.D.

Even from 2008 to 2011, there was almost zero growth. So U.E. didn't hurt us--but nor has it helped us.

We cannot rely on local bishops, many of whom are Marxists, subjectivists, liberals, Bolsheviks, commies, but nor can we rely on the P.C.E.D. That is why the S.S.P.X must be liberated from BOTH by having its own particular and international church. The Pope, I pray, sees the problem and will have the final word. He should not establish an inadequate provision this late in the game. Surely, he wants to be remembered and the man who solved this problem for a better future, and not the man who dropped the ball into a pool of rancour.

P.K.T.P.

rodrigo said...

I wish one of Bp Tissier's interviewers would ask him what he means when he says that Rome is Modernist, must convert etc. I am well aware that these infelicitous expressions can be found in some of the sermons of Abp Lefebvre, but anyone who subscribes to the clear Catholic teaching on the infallibility and indefectibility of the local church of Rome will experience frustration in seeing self-styled traditionalists appearing to deny the traditional teaching on these questions.

Challenger said...

Apart from the questions, complications, and mechanics of this incipient integration, I would respectfully call upon anybody to please point out exactly where Bishop Tissier is wrong on the doctrinal matters at stake.

How is Second Vatican not a far-reaching break from traditional teaching, as he indicates? How can somebody like him be cast as a protestant or schismatic who does nothing but tenaciously hold to what the Church classically has stood for during the course of more than 1,500 years, and what it proclaimed as recently as 1953?

P.K.T.P. said...

Bartholomew:

Thank you for your sensible comments. More and more logical people are showing up on this blog now. That can't be a bad thing.

P.K.T.P.

Matt said...

Rodrigo said, "Untrue. Furthermore, if Bishop Tissier de Mallerais really means what he says in calling the Holy Father a Modernist - i.e. a heretic--then it is hard to see how he can (without being guilty of incoherence) deny the sede vacante thesis."

No, your conclusion is innaccurate. Whether one believes the Holy Father is a modernist, a heretic, or whatever other word one wants to use, it does not of itself imply the Throne is empty, that the Holy Father is not a legitimate Pope. There is no connection between not liking the Holy Father's mindset or behavior and he not being the Successor of Peter.

Matt

P.K.T.P. said...

Rodrigo:

On the theologies of Ratzinger and Rahner, I would dispute your claim on a number of points, although there are differences too. This blog is not likely the right place for us amateurs to analyse their theologies, however. It all seems immaterial to me because there is no sign that Benedict XVI will force his theological perspective on others. At most, he wants it to be open for consideration. One exception, however, is the position of subjectivists. They can permit the views of their opponents, but they cannot and will not tolerate an opposing view which condemns all others. That is a problem, but it will take time to address it.
P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

You flatter yourself PKTP, it was you that stopped replying not I. Shame that you mar the rest of an alright post with absurd ad hominems, a dose of humility would do you a world of good.

I do not neccessarily oppose a 'Campos solution writ large' though I do not think it viable and I think it would face at least as many problems as a modified PP, but it is certainly better than an unmodified PP. Thats beside the point however as we all know we are getting a 'modified PP + military ordinariate hybrid'.

I will keep +Fellay, all the other bishops and priests of the society especially my SD and the dominicans (for whom I have a soft spot) in my prayers

New Catholic said...

Let us also stop with this heresy accusation charges against specific persons here.

Enough.

P.K.T.P., I ask to refrain from posting further on this thread.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Aversa said...

@JMJ Ora Pro Nobis: Where does Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange discuss the sedevacantist thesis? Thanks

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

No but insulting people and so on does, I have already said that I do not necessarily oppose 'Campos writ large' but it has its own unique problems and as I said on the other thread is simply not viable. To propose some sort of 'universal diocese' as you doing, with a bishop having universal jurisdiction over this diocese is to give a bishop powers dangerously close to that of a pope. As I said elsewhere it is questionable whether such a thing is possible or prudent. If you wanted such a thing then the person could for example be made apostolic delegate and thus made explicitly under the pope. Regardless it is not the structure that is on the table and all the blog posts on the world won't change that.

I await the exact details of the 'hybrid PP/Military ordinariate' before I judge whether it is perfect or a compromise too far.

As for your idea of a particular church, anyone with knowledge of eastern church history can see how ludicrous an idea that would be.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

@ Alan Aversa I posted this on fish eaters a while ago, so I hope you don't mind if I just copy and paste my earlier post?

'Fr Garrigou Lagrange states in 'Christ the Saviour' "St Robert Bellarmines objection...The pope who becomes a secret heretic is still an actual member of the Church, for he is still the head of the Church, as Cajetan, Cano, Suarez and others teach.

Reply. This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretely a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive the vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of Jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it. This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of is members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, althoigh some who externally see to be members of the Church, may be private heretics..." p319

JWDT said...

Just a few thoughts come to my simple mind....

+Malaray speaks very crisply and pointedly..he is being very honest in this interview I believe.

He has several points that are True...
1) Modernist Episcopate is a concerning problem, not only to the FSSPX but other Indult Communities and the Catholic Faithful who attend both. What guarantees will there be?
2) I don't believe this man is a Sede...I do believe he is having trouble reconciling how the Pope can be so liberal in his thought and some actions and conservative on others. This concern/problem has plagued trad circles for a long time. This thought does not deny Benedict is Pope, it is a concerning question that many do not have the mental gymnastic abilities to do.
JWDT

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP, my point earlier and now is that 'structure' is only half or even less of the problem. Campos had the ideal one and still caved, what is more important is supernatural strength, so even if we get a 'Hybrid PP/Military ordinariate' thats not perfect, if it has supernatural strength the SSPX will be better off than Campos!

Joseph said...

Challenger said:
"How is Second Vatican not a far-reaching break from traditional teaching, as he indicates? How can somebody like him be cast as a protestant or schismatic who does nothing but tenaciously hold to what the Church classically has stood for during the course of more than 1,500 years, and what it proclaimed as recently as 1953?"

Those of you who make this argument certainly are aware that the Eastern Orthodox make very similar statements about the Catholic Church. And, in my opinion, they have a better argument than you do - although both arguments are erroneous.

Challenger said...

Joseph,

Nothing that the Catholic Church proclaimed, that I am aware of, from 1054 to 1950 clashed with what it proclaimed prior to 1054, however much the Eastern Orthodox object.

That's not the case with the Second Vatican pronouncements. Please provide the specifics to back up your position. How can 1953 be so wrong all of a sudden?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

a) +Fellay himself mentions military ordinariates, did you read the interview? b) what has confused me is your reference to 'sui iuris particular churchs' this by the way is what eastern catholic churchs are 'A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to
the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.' Canon 27, of the code of canons of the eastern churchs.

beng said...

The modernist Rome, the conciliar Rome, the current Rome etc.

Are they the true Church or not? If not then where is the true Church? Where is it?

It can't be gone or God would be a liar.

Lynda said...

This Bishop appears not to recognise the Magisterium of the Church and it's infallibility in respect of Dogma. Anything in VIi that contradicts Dogma is not itself Dogma. One can be obedient to the Papal authority without ceding on apparent errors in VIi documents.

Tradiate said...

Can it be possible that after a huge rosary crusade, the answer to so many prayers would be the breakup of the Society and the crippling of the fight for the restoration of Tradition?

If we have the True Faith; faith in the power of prayer, the power of God's grace and Our Lady's intercession, we cannot lose hope.

Before any "regularization" occurs, the Pope has to declare that the SSPX is truly Catholic. (step 1)

Surely none of the bishops can have a problem with a declaration of this kind. 2 reasons:
1) None of the bishops disagreed with the Pope's announcement of the lifting of the "excommunications".
2) They all agree that the SSPX is Catholic.
So we're probably safe up to that point.

Step 2- The General Chapter for the SSPX will be held during the first 2 weeks of July, beginning with a retreat, then discussions about a possible regularization. During this time, fortified with graces of the retreat, hopefully the superiors can come to a unified agreement of what God's Holy Will is for them in this case, (and, here again, I believe that they all wish to do God's Will)

May I remind everyone that the rosary crusade was for the restoration of the Church and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It may be heartening to go back to Bp Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #78 April 2011 which launched this Rosary Crusade.

http://sspx.org/superior_generals_news/supgen_78.htm

Here is an excerpt:

"And so with all our hearts let us ask our Heavenly Mother to intervene so that this terrible trial may be cut short, that the Modernist cape muffling the Church—at least since Vatican II—may be torn in two, and that the Authorities may perform their salvific duties for souls, that the Church may regain her spiritual splendor and beauty, that souls throughout the world may hear the Good News that converts, receive the Sacraments that save, and find the one sheepfold. Ah! How we would love to be able to use less dramatic language, but it would be a lie and culpable negligence on our part to soothe you by letting you hope that things will improve by themselves.

We are counting on your generosity to collect once more a bouquet of at least twelve million rosaries for the intention that the Church may be delivered from the evils that oppress her or threaten her in the near future, that Russia may be consecrated and that the Triumph of the Immaculata may come soon."


By all means, do all you can. Write Bp. Fellay a letter, if you feel that you have an important insight to contribute, but don't forget the bottom line is that this is first and foremost a spiritual battle and it won't be solved without prayer...and on the up side of that we have millions of rosaries on our side! (Our Lady, "Terror of Demons")

We follow Christ the King Who has said, "In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world." (Jn 16:33)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tradiate said...

oops
"...Surely none of the bishops ..."

Should have read
"... Surely none of the four SSPX bishops ..."

P.K.T.P. said...

J.M.J.

Sui juris merely means that the structure has full legal capacity to act. Even missions can be 'missions sui juris'. It applies to the Eastern churches and it applies to dioceses. It was you who introduced this term into the debate some ways back. I have normally used the term 'particular church'. That is the canonical term referring to dioceses and structures which are equivalent in law to them. In most recent legal acts, the Holy See refers to the Eastern churches as 'individual churches'. I don't know why and it doesn't matter.

Yes, Fellay himself has mentioned military ordinariates, both recently and four years ago in "The Angelus". He is trying to make the structure comprehendible to ordinary people by referring to something they've heard of. Military ordinariates are very common in the Church. There must be at least forty of them. In contrast, the ritual particular church has one and only one precedent in the Campos A.A. But, really, the m.o. structure is not pertinent to the possibilties. It offers no special advantages but was designed for the special situation of servicemen, who have a place on a base but also a character off-base.

Thank God John Paul II erected the Campos. By doing so, he created a precedent for the present situation. The fact that it was then confined to a tiny gilded cage is irrelevant. It can be international and that can be inferred by the reference to 'episcopal conferences [note plural number] concerned' in Section 2 of Canon 372.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

A) no I didn't and no roughly speaking it means governed by their own laws, you can either translate the Latin literally as proof or see http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/2057012?width=615 Clearly the SSPX cannot be a church in this sense b) no, +Fellay specifically mentions that it will be a sort of combination between a PP and them, re-read the interview

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Allan said...

Getting back to Bp. TdM I can only say his spiritual pride is stunning. What absolutely horrible arrogance.

Magdalena said...

Joseph denies that Bishop Tissier: "does nothing but tenaciously hold to what the Church classically has stood for during the course of more than 1,500 years, and what it proclaimed as recently as 1953."

Please provide an example of when/how Bishop Tissier has departed from the perennial teaching of the church? (That would, of course, be excepting the novelties of Vatican II.)

Canisius said...

This bishop should be excommunicated inmediately by the Holy Father and reduced to the seglar state.

It was a mistake from the Holy Father to lift the excommuniation of this wolf. His proud is the language of Satan. His lips are similar to those of Luther.

This is one of the wolfs. It would be a pity if there are two more.

Regards

Gratias said...

I am one of many that have never been to an SSPX chapel, and never will unless they accept the olive branch offered by Benedict XVI. There will not be a better opportunity fo a long time.

Most Catholics should jump at the chance to kiss Peter's ring.

JMR said...

Thank you Bishop Tissier for stating the Truth simply and clearly. How anyone can be accused of spiritual pride and arrogance for stating the truth is beyond me. Thank God I, unlike so many , have access to an SSPX mass. It has been the the salvation of my family.

Ted Maysfield said...

I used to look forward to the comments section until you allowed P.K.T.P. to dominate them by serving as the unofficial chief columnist in the comments section. His arguments are tedious and circuitous, but even if they were brilliant, should one person set the tone for an entire comments page? Two or three posts from P.K.T.P. (or anyone else) should suffice, except in extraordinary circumstances, otherwise this fellow’s views grow monotonous. Michael B. D., rodrigo, and John H. write insightful and refreshing comments absent pedantic grand-standing. I wish we would see more in that vein.

Brian said...

Clearly Bishops Tissier and Fellay are not on the same page.

How will another split in the SSPX prove beneficial to anything? This "agreement" is shaping up to become a disaster with one side of the SSPX angrily accusing the other of "selling out" and the other side accusing those who oppose the agreement of being sedevacantist, schismatic, and Protestant?

No doubt, ugly lawsuits will follow and those opposed to the SSPX will throw a party.

Please stop! Who needs another 1988? What benefit will come of all of this?

As a non-SSPX layman, I pray that our Holy Father will simply declare that the SSPX is fully Catholic with valid and licit sacraments and will leave the matter there.

Anything more than that at this time will prove to be counter-productive.

Please, Holy Father give this thing some time.

B.C.J.R. said...

Lotsa treading water in this comment box. My gosh. Can't some of you folks just wait for the weekend and an official statement? This speculation has been going on for ages. It's probably better to simply pray and wait for this document to be released to us so we can see it. Bishop Fellay and His Holiness are sensible men, and an agreeable solution will be found if Fellay wants to work to bring the Society over. If he doesn't get that, it won't happen. Let's wait for the weekend, the rehash in this comment box is downright embarassing.

Jose said...

I have assisted at Mass in an sspx chapel for years. The sspx priests pray for Pope Benedict and the local bishop in the Canon of the Mass, prays for Pope Benedict at Benediction and these are clear signs to me that they are not schismatics. Unless there is clear evidence that sspx bishops or priests refused to include Pope Benedict XVI in the Canon of the Tridentine Mass, they ought not be labelled 'schismatic' or 'sedevacantist', though they are critical of the Pope's actions.

SimpleSimon said...

Is publishing what the Bishop said really conducive in helping the situation between Rome and the SPPX? If not, then why publish it? We just really need to pray for the will of God now.

St. Anthony of Padua, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us said...

On this blog we get P.K.T.P. and we get this:

"It was a mistake from the Holy Father to lift the excommuniation of this wolf. His proud is the language of Satan. His lips are similar to those of Luther."

This reader comes to Rorate for P.K.T.P. and other reasoned perspectives.

Prof. Basto said...

There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church.

And who gets to say what is authentic preaching of the faith and what is not? Where PETER is, there is the Church.

It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist episcopate.

I too would prefer if the SSPX, instead of being offered Personal Prelature status, were erected as a Personal Diocese, Ordinariate or Apostolic Administration, with the power to erect priories without permission from the local ordinaries.

But I disagee with the "quite unnecessarily" portion of the statement.

Submission to the See of Peter is a good in and of itself. Obedience is a key aspect of ecclesiastical life.

So, the regularization, even if it comes with setbacks, is not "quite unnecessary". It is necessary, and good, and proper.

One cannot be "indifferent" to it, as if it was something that didn't matter, that didn't add anything to the legitimacy of the Society.

The restoration of the sacred bonds of obedience is important. Canonical regularity is important.

Christ willed the Church as a visible and organized society. That's why she has laws. The SSPX needs to find its place in that legal framework, and operate within it, in effective submission to the Head Visible of the Church.

And I know that the leftists and the liberals, and the rebel nuns, are way worse and way more scandalous than the canonical irregularity of the SSPX.

But still, the SSPX, as a traditional society, should not be content with just being "less scandalous" then others. The SSPX should aim for Christian perfection in its life of faith, and that includes canonical communion with the Roman Pontiff, since that Pontiff is by divine disposition the Supreme Pastor of the Church.

John L said...

There is a point that should be made in favour of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais' position. A regularisation that would make the presence of the SSPX in a diocese dependent upon the agreement of the bishop would be in flat contradiction with the SSPX's constant (and plausible) claim that their current lack of canonical status is justified by the existence of a state of necessity, due to a grave crisis in the Church. If this state of necessity requires the SSPX to operate independently of the bishops today, how it can have ceased to exist tomorrow or in the near future?

The Seraphims supplicant said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Seraphims supplicant said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uncle Claibourne said...

I agree with the many comments made, that the proposed structure (or at least what we currently know about it) doesn't sound ideal. This is troubling.

But what troubles me more: when I listen to or read the comments of Bishops Tissier and Williamson, I hear men who are filled with pride; who appear to have become instransigent; who are so satisfied with their own, personal, FALLIBLE assessment of the crisis, that they refuse to even consider other means of accomplishing the goals we all share.

These men speak over and over about what THEY THINK needs to be done, with a magisterial arrogance they are not not entitled to.

Bishop Fellay, on the other hand, speaks constantly of finding what is good for the Church, and is willing to consider other approaches, and weigh the pros and cons of each.

As someone else mentioned in these comments, much that has lain hidden is now coming to light. I stress, of course, that these are just my own personal observations. But I now know that Their Excellencies Tissier and Williamson are men I could never follow.

I see self-satisfaction and hubris; no wisdom, humility, or prudence.

Steve said...

At what point would Bishop TdM re-join the Church? It seems upon a stunning conversion of a future Pope to 100% Tradition. But is this realistic? Was any Pope perfect? Isn't this a soft version of the Sedevacantists waiting for a God to directly provide a "true Pope" through miraculous means?

The Postmodernist said...

Don't get me wrong, I personally met His Eminence De Mallarais, a very kind gentle, and understanding bishop (especially to new priests, who commit few mistakes on rubrics) - and I would prefer his quiet and lucid approach than that of Bishop Williamson's; but I just want to know whether Pope Benedict XVI of modernist Rome, is different, distinct, and against (anti-) the true pope of Eternal Rome? It is very confusing indeed, but I would rather trust Archbishop Lefebvre's decision, and Bishop Fellay's discernment - who wants NOTHING but to do God's will; and continuously beg all to fast, pray, and discern the true will of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the venerable intercession of Archbishop Lefebvre - no matter how difficult. A true SSPX will ultimately follow not disobedience, but obedience to the founder and his successor - to the true Successor of Peter.

Prof. Basto said...

If this state of necessity requires the SSPX to operate independently of the bishops today, how it can have ceased to exist tomorrow or in the near future?

The state of necessity, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist once all Catholics in the world were given the faculty of asking for the traditional Sacraments and of receiving them without needing an indult.

We are not in 1988 or in 1974. We live in a post Summorum Pontificum world.

Thus, if it ever existed, a state of necessity ceased to be in place after the seismic alteration of panorama that took place upon the advent of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, that entered into force on 14 September 2007.

That acheivement, coupled with the remission of the excommunications, and with the Doctrinal Preamble (if accepted), creates the conditions for a reunion.

A position taken by some in the SSPX (we consider that we are already in the Church, we need no regularization, but we are exempted from the requirements of Canon Law and we can operate in parallel to the Hierarchy) is untenable.

It in time leads to formal schism.

This danger has been perceived by the Superior General. He perceives a concrete atittude of resistance to every form of authority in certain quarters.

While I would prefer the SSPX to become a personal diocese or ordinariate and not a personal prelature, so as to be exempt from having to require permission from the local ordinary in order to start a new priory, etc, still, that necessity of permission is normal in the Church.

All religious orders, all societies of apostolic life, need that permission. The society claims to be a "society of common life without vows", and the current equivalent of that is a society of apostolic life. Societies of apostolic life and societies of common life without vows, even of pontifical right, always necessitated permission from the local ordinary to start a new work.

So why should the Society insist on a canonical status that it never had (Personal Ordinariate), and that only Military Ordinariates and Anglican Ordinariates have, as a precondition for regularization, if a Personal Prelature is more than the SSPX ever had while in the Church?

An Ordinariate would be great, but a Prelature suffices. All the current priories of the SSPX would be approved ipso facto, and, for the new ones, it would need the same permission as any other Institute.

pclaudel said...

"… when I listen to or read the comments of Bishops Tissier and Williamson, I hear men who are filled with pride …"

May I suggest that you listen harder? Perhaps, then, you will hear what I do; the voices of good, brave men and fearless and humble servants of God and His Truth.

Judy said...

One thing that is good about all of this. When the whole thing is decided clearly one way or the other between Rome and the SSPX, it will be much easier for SSPXer's to make an informed decision about where they belong.

There is a lack of clarity and a lack of truth which will be removed. And, that really needs to happen.

Souls will be lost, but I believe more will be saved than if things just continue on as they are. That is really what is at stake here

I'm having trouble understanding what many of the posters are saying. I read the posts several times, but I can make out no meaning.

Barbara said...

I wish I hadn't read this article -very unsettling.. now where did I put my rose-tinted specs..?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uncle Claibourne said...

I have listened to them "hard" for years, pclaudel. My kids were confirmed by Bishop Williamson. I have supported the Society both before and after the consecrations of 1988.

But Bishop Fellay's criticisms of his confreres appears to me to be spot on. They seem to have constructed an image in their minds of a perfect Church that has never existed. Now they want to remain aloof until the Church "converts." How this will happen, they never tell us. And they seem to completely ignore the possibility that their assessment of the prudent course of action in the current circumstances might be wrong.

In other words, they have become incorrigible.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John L said...

'The state of necessity, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist once all Catholics in the world were given the faculty of asking for the traditional Sacraments and of receiving them without needing an indult.'

This faculty is of course a legal fiction in many dioceses, and after four years it is clear that the man authorities do not intend to ensure that it is enforced.

The state of necessity is not solely or even principally a matter of access to the old mass; it is a matter of lack of access to the Catholic faith, as a result of the modernist domination of most of the Catholic church. This is the main problem, as Bp. Tissier de Mallerais points out.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uncle Claibourne said...

Of course, Mr. Perkins, you may be right. But I must say I struggle to come up with another description of men who can't shut up long enough to give the benefit of their support to their own Superior, who obviously agrees completely with them on principles, but not on practical actions to take in the concrete circumstances.

Johannes de Silentio said...

Well, it is hard to square the circle and construe this positively, although PKTP is right to point out that, in spite of Tissier's comments, he has yet to speak of a split.

In the mean time, this less than welcome development seems to have gone unnoticed: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2012/06/next-inquisitor.html

Barbara said...

It may not be pride that motivates Bishops Williamson amd Tissier to say what they say - but there is something not right in this one considering that the present discussions are underway. It may not be pride - but it's divisive - how can that be good for the Church? I agree with Uncle Clairbourne. A little more discretion at this juncture in time would be a good idea all round.

Here we go round the mulberry bush again and again and again.....AND AGAIN!

P.K.T.P. said...

JabbaPapa writes:

"The SSPX cannot be regularised without a recognition of the Authority of the Catholic Bishops in pastoral matters."

Yes, but recognition of their authority over whom? You haven't been paying attention. The Pope can establish an international (archdiocese) for them. Then the local bishops have zero pastoral authority over their supporters, just a they have zero, absolutely zero, pastoral authority over the subjects of the Campos A.A. The Campos, again, provides the model. Note that the Bishop of Campos has NO pastoral authority of any kind over the subjects of the Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney, which occupies the same territory. The two are like alternate dioceses occupying the same turf. Those who are registered in the A.A. are subjects of Bishop Rifan; those who are not are automatically subjects of the Bishop of Campos.

The Church says that God's people are divided into sections, called particular churches. Most of these are territorial in nature; however, it is possible for some to be personal or ritual in nature, and Prebyterorum Ordinis, of Vatican II (!) even recommends this. One now exists. It is called the Apostolic Administratino of St. John-Mary Vianney. It occupies the same territory as the Diocese of Campos, in Brazil, but the Bishop of Campos has ZERO pastoral authority over its members.

There is absolutely no need at all for the local bishops to have any pastoral or other authority over the supporters of the S.S.P.X. That's the point. The correct solution was applied in 2001 for the group of traditionalists in the Campos, those followers of the *other* consecrator of the Society four: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer (co-consecrator with Apb. Lefebvre). There was one bishop (Licinio Rangel), 26 priests and about 26,000 faithful. Now it is time for the SAME solution to be applied for the 550 priests of the S.S.P.X. The Campos priests were mostly confined to a small part of Brazil. The Society priests are spread around the world. No problem: just erect a ritual (personal) Archdiocese and make it international.

Round and round the mulberry bush we go: no matter how many times I prove the solution, people keep appearing out of nowhere and claiming that, somehow, the S.S.P.X must be subject to the local bishops. NO IT MUST NOT.
P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Karl Anders said...

I can't believe that the bishop actually said this:

"There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church."

This is a blatant parody of:

"Where Peter is, there is the Church." (Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia)

May one conclude that the bishop really believes that Peter is in the SSPX?

Karl Anders said...

A further point, if I may:

The bishop seems utterly out of touch with the Church as She is today.

There may be 450 or so good priests in the SSPX, but there are 100s of equally good priests outside, in parishes and religious orders all over the world; maybe not as well formed, but with the authentic faith, and eager to learn about the traditional ways. Things are so, so different now from 40 years ago. Bishop Fellay sees that.

Bishop T d M thinks only of his own group, and not the good of all those priests and faithful who, under the wise guidance of the Pope, are rediscovering true Catholicism.

It is for the sake of the whole Church, not just of the SSPX, that a regularisation must happen now.

A split within the SSPX will be a blow to the whole cause of the restoration of the faith.

Bishop T de M has been out in the cold for too long, and his very heart seems to have grown cold. Please, your Excellency, accept this agreement, and get to know better the WHOLE Church.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesiae; Petrus Romae, Petrus Benedictus XVI.

Inquisitor said...

) one of the main issues with the sedevecantist thesis is that it is not actually anywhere near certain that a heretical pope would lose jursidiction, both Billot and Garrigou Lagrange maintained he would still have jursidiction and remain Pope

@JMJ Ora Pro Nobis

Absolutely right, JMR, the question of what happens to a heretic pope is not resolved doctrinal territory.

However, consider this. If a pope were to cease to be pope upon becoming a heretic, then the Church would easily be thrown into chaos, because no one would ever be able to know if the pope really was still the pope, because no one would know if the pope were really a secret heretic. Who would judge whether the pope were a heretic or not? Only the pope, can summon and confirm an ecumenical council, so an ecumenical council could not handle the question. (If the pope privately denied dogmas, would he still be pope, or would he only cease to be pope if he publicly denied dogmas, and what would constitute a public denial. How public would a denial have to be to lose the papacy?)

If anyone could accuse the pope of being a heretic, and thereby remove the pope from office, the Church would immediately be torn into pieces, because everyone would de facto become their own pope, judging doctrine, and then deciding that because the pope's judgment doesn't agree with their own personal opinion on every single issue, that he must be a heretic and therefore not the pope anymore. Under such circumstances, no one could with any reliability determine whether the pope's judgements were infallible or not, because no one would even know if the pope was in fact the pope anymore. Where would the madness end? How could the Church be governed?

The idea that a pope can lose his office through sin also smacks of Donatism, and seems counterintuitive with respect to the widely accepted principle of Ex opere operato which says that the acts of the ministers of the Church are valid regardless of the personal righteousness of the ministers.

Inquisitor said...

) one of the main issues with the sedevecantist thesis is that it is not actually anywhere near certain that a heretical pope would lose jursidiction, both Billot and Garrigou Lagrange maintained he would still have jursidiction and remain Pope

@JMJ Ora Pro Nobis

Absolutely right, JMR, the question of what happens to a heretic pope is not resolved doctrinal territory.

However, consider this. If a pope were to cease to be pope upon becoming a heretic, then the Church would easily be thrown into chaos, because no one would ever be able to know if the pope really was still the pope, because no one would know if the pope were really a secret heretic. Who would judge whether the pope were a heretic or not? Only the pope, can summon and confirm an ecumenical council, so an ecumenical council could not handle the question. (If the pope privately denied dogmas, would he still be pope, or would he only cease to be pope if he publicly denied dogmas, and what would constitute a public denial. How public would a denial have to be to lose the papacy?)

If anyone could accuse the pope of being a heretic, and thereby remove the pope from office, the Church would immediately be torn into pieces, because everyone would de facto become their own pope, judging doctrine, and then deciding that because the pope's judgment doesn't agree with their own personal opinion on every single issue, that he must be a heretic and therefore not the pope anymore. Under such circumstances, no one could with any reliability determine whether the pope's judgements were infallible or not, because no one would even know if the pope was in fact the pope anymore. Where would the madness end? How could the Church be governed?

The idea that a pope can lose his office through sin also smacks of Donatism, and seems counterintuitive with respect to the widely accepted principle of Ex opere operato which says that the acts of the ministers of the Church are valid regardless of the personal righteousness of the ministers.

Fr. A.M. said...

We need to pray for this bishop. With all due respects, he is out of touch with the reality of recent events. Of such men, sadly, in the history of the Church, we see the beginning of a schismatic mentality (at least), not to mention - surely - disobedience to his own superior(s) in SSPX. Let us pray for a positive outcome to all this. SSPX we need you. We need your good priests and faithful and your apostolates. And you need to be firmly and visibly united to Peter and regularized as any order/society/personal prelature. The solution to the problems in the Church concern SSPX and everybody else in the Church. United we will stand... and the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. Oremus.

P.K.T.P. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Picard said...

Uncle Claiburne e. a.:

I can not see or here any pride in the words of H.E.

Btw, I am not "on the side of the Three". You - or me - might/may disagree with H.E.

But - as PKTP rightly said - why always calling other persons names.
Why spaek of pride and ....

Make your argument, contradict an argument of H.E.

But do not call Bf. W. or Bf. TdM. pridefull, arrogant or else.

I can not see pride and arrogance here, but real concearn and I must admit that H.E. has some real good points.

Many things are just true and honest, and brave.

Rome holds still some modernistical points - it is not pride to say so, it´s just true.

Again, I am not a supporter of "the Three"!

Sixupman said...

May I quote an e-mail from a diocesan parish priest friend of mine who once spoke of the "Smoke of Satan within the Vatican" which went over the head of the congregation:

" .... I was a curate for 10 years with a PP who had spent nearly 20 years in Rome as vice-rector of ###### College ... . What he told us about what went on behind the scenes in the Vatican is unprintable. Some of the Congregations and Departments in the Vatican are awash with Freemasons and various subversives whose chief aim is to look after themselves at the Church's expense not to serve the Church, still less the Holy Father, no matter who he is. This is one of the reasons why they like elderly popes! They can more easily pull the wool over his (and his personal aides') eyes. If you have read "Iota Unum" on the 2nd Vatican Council, the skullduggery behind the scenes is both hilarious and scandalous. "All power corrupts ..... .". My PP was a "peritus" at the Council for the English Bishops. We had Hans Kung staying with us at the presbytery for 3 days one year during the Council. Between them both, the stories they regaled me with would fill a book! When Satan wants to destroy the Church, he seduces those at the top. The Vatican bureaucracy is far too large (like civil governments etc.). Pope Pius XII did much work for himself - he dispensed with some of the Vatican congregations and commissions - many of the latter set up after Vatican II - jobs for the boys." end.

I still believe +Fellay should do the best deal he can and that the remainder of SSPX bishops should stay with him.

The arguments are also too narrow, for Mother Church is to enter a period of great oppression and matters should be considered in that light. There is no argument that the Bishops' Conferences, Collegially, are anti-Pre-Vatican Catholicism, and, as +Fellay has opined, it will take a generation or two to resolve.

Robert Marshall said...

I'm trying to boil Tissier's position down. It seems to me he believes the following:

1. Rome is modernist.
2. A modernist is a heretic.
3. A heretic is a non-Catholic.
4. Authentic Catholics must have no union with heretical non-Catholics.
4. Therefore the SSPX must have no union with contemporary Rome.


And to make this point more clear he refers to two separate Churches, two separate religions, the Conciliar and the Catholic:

5. The Catholic Church is comprised of traditional Catholics such as the SSPX who have kept the unchanging Catholic religion.
6. The Conciliarist Church was created out of Vatican II and has a separate non-Catholic religion, the Conciliarist religion.
7. The Conciliar Church is non-Catholic and schismatic and must therefore convert and rejoin the Catholic Church.
8. The SSPX is already Catholic and already part of the Catholic Church therefore it need not do any converting or rejoining of any sort.


This all makes perfect logical sense, but it gets confusing, because he also believes:

9. The Conciliarist Bishop of Rome is the pope of the Catholic Church.

It all makes sense until point 9: two separate Churches, one Catholic, one non-Catholic. But points 9 throws it out of whack.

He seems to think Benedict XVI is a member of, indeed head of, two separate Churches, two separate and contradictory religions.

I don't understand it.

Inquisitor said...

To submit ourselves now unconditionally to the higher authority imbibed with Modernism would be to expose ourselves to have to disobey.

What? That statement sounds like a catch-22. It effectively says that the SSPX has to be disobedient to the pope now, so that it isn't disobedient to the pope in the future. The SSPX is ALREADY exposed to the situation of disobeying the pope (rightly or wrongly) which is why we find ourselves in the current situation.

So why is the bishop worried about future disobedience to the pope when the SSPX already is disobedient to the pope in the present?

Is potential disobedience in the future somehow worse than disobedience in the present? It sounds like the bishop is afraid of ending up in a situation that he is already in. If the bishop is afraid of potentially having to be disobedient to the pope in the future, why is he not afraid of being disobedient in the present?

What is the difference between being disobedient to the pope in an irregular canonical condition, and being disobedient to him in a regular canonical condition?