Bishop Tissier de Mallerais [2012]: Pope Benedict XVI makes acceptance of V-II indispensable

[Stone]

Before Bp. Tissier de Mallerais capitulated to Bp. Fellay ....

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

Rorate Caeli | June 2012


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 around 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 the closing 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. 

[Stone]

With the Pope's own signature: Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium must be accepted in full

Rorate Caeli | September 27, 2012


A transcript of a conference given by the French bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, in the priory of Saint L.M.G. de Montfort (Maine-et-Loire, France), on September 16, 2012, was made public by French forum Un évêque s'est levé. The main excerpts, according to the available transcript, dealing with the Rome-SSPX negotiations are the following:

"[T]he agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: [color=#71101s]'I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church  [Tissier says:] (let us move beyond this expression), it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.'[/color]

"It is, as a matter of principle, a stopping point, because we could not accept it anyway; we would not sign it anyway. One can enter into details, because the Council is so vast one can find good things in it, but this is not the essence of the Council."


"Evidently, we could not sign it. Because we are required to sign it, the agreements do not move forward. I would say that [if] on this point there is no agreement, there will be no agreement.

"This is all I can tell you, I do not think Rome will let us go. The Modernist Rome [sic] will come close to us [once again], it is inevitable. They are determined, they are persistent, they want to lead us to the Council, therefore pray. Personally, I would never sign things like that, that is clear."

In Gianluigi Nuzzi's book filled with Vatican leaks published earlier this year, Sua Santità, a specific chapter was devoted to the 2009 "Williamson crisis", and, in it, mention was made of the note of the Secretariate of State made public by L'Osservatore Romano on February 4, 2009 (we provided a translation of the Italian original text as soon as it was published). Nuzzi included this in his book:

"...[T]he entire phrase 'the Holy Father does not intend to leave aside an indispensable condition' [in the Secretariat of State's draft] was cancelled by Benedict XVI and replaced with, [in his own handwriting,] 'For a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the full acknowledgment of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and of the same Benedict XVI is an indispensable condition'." (Gianluigi Nuzzi, Sua Santità, Chiarelettere, 2012, page 208)

It is unclear if this same content was merely mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI with a reference to the 2009 note in the June 30, 2012, letter mentioned by Tissier de Mallerais, or if the 2012 letter has more precise demands on the matter.

[French forum content also reported by Andrea Tornielli for La Stampa - in Italian]