Bp. Tissier de Mallerais [2002]: The Dogmas of the New Conciliar Religion
The Dogmas of the New [Conciliar] Religion
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - Ordination Sermon
Ecône, Switzerland, June 29, 2002

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Your Grace, the Superior General, My dear Lords, Dear Rector, My dear colleagues in the priesthood, Dear ordinands, Our dear faithful,

In a few moments during this ordination ceremony of deacons and priests, the bishop will pronounce these words: To the deacons he will say, "You are from now on the cooperators of the Body and Blood of the Lord," and to each priest after ordination he will say, "Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead."

These words of our very simple Catholic faith, which seem almost commonplace, which express the object of the priesthood which is the consecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord to renew in a non-bloody manner His Divine Passion, these words are now suppressed in the new pontifical of ordination for deacons and priests. This disappearance is very significant. It means that the New Religion no longer wishes to express the transmission of the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and of the power of renewing the Passion of Calvary. Therefore, my most dear ordinands, I am obviously quite certain that during your six years of seminary training you have deeply penetrated the Catholic doctrine, ignored now by the majority of priests in the New Religion. Because this change of the rite of ordination expresses precisely a New Religion. In this suppression of the power to offer and to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ is expressed precisely the New Religion, in which are found the large majority of Catholics, albeit unwillingly, but they are in this new religion which consists not only of a new religion, but of a new doctrine. Thus, if you would, dear faithful, in a few words I shall describe first of all the new doctrine of this New Religion, and then its new worship.

First of all, the new dogmas: Firstly, sin, which practically no longer exists since it no longer offends God. We are told that sin does not offend God, but harms only the sinner; sin, in fact, cannot harm the divine nature, which is incorruptible. Sin means nothing to God; sin only harms the sinner, causing him to lose the divine life–they concede that–and it equally offends human solidarity. In these conditions sin no longer has the characteristic of offense, of destroying God's honor, His glory, His praise. It no longer has the characteristic of disobeying the law of God. Consequently, they deny that God has a right to demand of His creatures not only praise, but also submission to His divine law, as St. Ignatius says in his exercises: "Man is created to praise, reverence and serve God to save his own soul." Well, praising, reverencing and serving God no longer exist in the New Religion. Since sin no longer destroys the external glory of God, sin only harms man. You can now see how this new religion destroys the notion of sin itself, how it destroys God's glory, how it destroys the notion of sin as the supreme injustice, since it considers only human injustices: but the notion of injustice toward God, of sin against the Justice of God, they do not want anymore.

Next, we are told that by sin human dignity is not lost, man keeps his dignity after sin. Man remains dignified, friendly, and sympathetic. No matter what man does in the religious order, whether he honors a false god, or by a false worship, the true God matters not, he keeps his dignity. He is thus worthy of regard and respect, and we must respect his religion. We must consequently collaborate with other religions, since human dignity is not damaged by sin. This is a second very serious error, which thus justifies ecumenism and religious liberty. Man is dignified, since he remains sympathetic. Well! God continues to love the sinner, keeping him in his love and favor. Nothing has changed between God and the sinner. God is presented to us as an unmoved, easy-going Lord who accepts all his children's fancies. His charity is thus ridiculed. God continues to love the sinner without distinction or precision.

Next we are told, consequently, that God does not punish sin with a temporal or eternal punishment. Since sin does not offend God, God does not punish. God remains goodness itself. How could God inflict punishments on the sinner? No, it is man who punishes himself by subjection to the consequences of his faults. And hell, if ever one goes there, is merely exclusion–auto-exclusion–of divine love. Therefore hell is no longer a punishment inflicted by God. God no longer has the right to punish. Consequently man is absolved of the duty of reparation towards God. What we call in our catechism satisfaction for sin, the need of the sinner to expiate his sins to repair the honor of God, no longer exists. Man must only repair his spiritual health. However, repairing God's glory, cooperating to relieve the fallen creature from sin, to raise it again, they want none of it. 

You know, on the other hand, that the beautiful Catholic doctrine of satisfaction is all for the greater glory of God, since the sinful man can recover and give back glory and praise to God and rebuild his fallen nature, by satisfaction, by the punishment he undergoes voluntarily. However this new doctrine, which wants neither sin, nor expiation and satisfaction, goes much further since it will distort the meaning of suffering and the Redemptive Passion of our Savior. Thus it will distort the dogma of the Redemption.

It is this central dogma which the modernists have attacked. They will say to us: the sufferings of our Lord on the Cross were intended only to reveal God's persevering love, but not to satisfy the divine justice in the place of sinful men. Our Lord on the Cross did not offer to his Father any satisfaction, rather He only revealed to man the love of God His Father. Thus they go altogether contrary to the dogma of the Precious Blood, this law which God put down in the Old Testament, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. They refuse the Blood shed by Our Lord with all its expiatory value for the forgiveness of sins, considering it but a free gift by which the Father sent without any reason His Son to die, simply to reveal the love of the Father. This is the most abominable cruelty! The Father sent His Son to a most abominable death, simply to show His Love. They have distorted, emptied the dogma of the Redemption, and they blaspheme even the holy Passion of our Savior.

To the contrary, our catechism teaches that by His Passion our Lord offered to His Father a superabundant satisfaction for our innumerable sins, partly because of the dignity of the divine Person suffering on the Cross, and also because of the extreme charity and obedience by which our Lord suffered, and finally because of the extreme pain suffered on the Cross. He was then able to offer to His Father for us, in our place, a superabundant satisfaction... It is beautiful to contemplate the Cross: to see our Salvation, our Redemption, our relief, and not only the love of the Father, but firstly the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In every fashion, we are told in this new religion: what good is the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? At most it was to reveal the love of the Father, but it was not for our salvation, since all are saved anyway. It is certain that, as stated in the Vatican Council II's Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, by His Incarnation the Son of God united Himself in a special way with every man. All men have become Christ-like (Christianized) by the Incarnation, therefore all are saved. That is what Pope John Paul II alludes to in one of his books, that hell is probably empty; all are saved. Thus you see the annihilation of the dogma of the Redemption, its complete falsification. Sin being suppressed, even God's justice being suppressed, they suppress the Redemption, the atonement of the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

These are the dogmas of the New Religion.

Let us move on, if you would, to the new worship which corresponds to the new dogmas. Well! First of all, in the new worship we are told that the principal act of the Redemption of our Lord, the first Mass that He celebrated on the Cross after the Mass of the Last Supper, thus the principal act of the Redemption, does not consist in the Cross of our Savior, but rather in the glorious Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. It is by His Resurrection and Ascension that our Savior would save us. In effect God crowns the work of the Redemption and plainly manifests His love, the love of the Father for us, in resurrecting His Son, since God is not the God of the dead but of the living. That is all. This is what Pope John Paul II declares. Thus the Cross of Christ is a rather secondary event in the Redemption, the essential work being the Resurrection and Ascension of our Savior.

Then we are told that the principal act of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ as priest does not consist in the bloody offering of His sacrifice on the Cross, but essentially in His heavenly priesthood by which, crossing the tent of the heavenly sanctuary, He presents Himself to His Father with His Blood. Thus they will deny that the principal act of the priesthood is to offer the sacrifice of our Lord on His Cross. In speaking, they will put the accent on the heavenly priesthood. This is not new. Since 1958, this teaching was professed by Fr. Joseph Lecuyer, the successor of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre to the head of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. These heresies date before the Council. They were propagated by the Council and after the Council.

Then we are told that the Mass is not a non-bloody renewal of the Passion, that we can no longer say this. Rather, the Mass is a memorial of the great feats of Christ throughout His life, thus not only of His Passion, but also His Resurrection, His Ascension and, why not, His Incarnation, His Presentation in the Temple–in brief, all the great feats of Christ. The Mass would consist in making a memorial of them. Except that our catechism teaches us that it is the Consecration which makes the Mass, and theology explains to us what is signified by the separate Consecration of the bread and the wine, the Body and Blood of Christ. What is signified is produced mysteriously: the sacramental immolation is realized, that is, the separation of the Body and Blood by the power of the priest's words. Under the appearance of bread is directly the Body, while under the appearance of wine is directly the Precious Blood of Christ. Certainly they are not separated in reality, since by real concomitance they are both under each of the two species. Nevertheless, by the force of words, what is realized is truly a separation of the Body and Blood of Christ, a sacramental separation. Consequently, they nullify absolutely the role of the Consecration in the Mass. It is simply a memorial.

A few months ago we were told by Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Mass is valid without the words of Consecration." You have all read this, we have explained it. [See "Rome, the Society of Saint Pius X, Campos, Assisi,...etc." The Angelus, May 2002.–Ed.] It is a recent declaration by Cardinal Ratzinger and the International Theological Commission: the Mass is valid even without the words of consecration! So, what good is a priest? Indeed, the laity could celebrate the Mass; the priest serves for hardly anything since he does not even have to pronounce the words of Christ for the Mass to be valid.

Next we are told that in the course of the Mass Christ is made present, yes, but made present with all His salvific mysteries and not by the "magical" work of the Consecration, but by the reality of the liturgical action of the community which "objectivizes" the mysteries of Christ. Thus in this way, the mystery of Christ, in particular the Paschal mystery, becomes the mystery of worship. That is what they tell us, in particular His Eminence Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, principal agent of the liturgical reform: It does not consist in consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, but in evoking together, actively, as a community, liturgically the entire mystery of Christ, in particular His Paschal mystery, thus by highlighting the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.

Finally, the last heresy, my dear faithful–I am absolutely filled with grief by this flood of heresies which is hardly worthy of a sermon evidently–the common priesthood of the faithful operates throughout the course of the Eucharistic memorial. It is thus advisable to give more place to the active participation of the faithful so they can exercise their common priesthood, the priest need simply preside over the words of the memorial.

I conclude that, as much in its dogmas as in its worship, the new religion has emptied our Catholic religion of its substance. The Passion of our Lord is used only to reveal in a very intellectual and abstract way the love of God the Father for us. As for the love of Christ for His Father or for us, one knows nothing of it. And then, in addition, Catholic worship is only a memorial, a becoming aware in sum of the great work of the great feats of Christ by taking so much care that this work becomes present in the assembly in prayer, like a common auto-consciousness.

This New Religion is nothing else, my dear faithful, than a gnostic sect. I think that this is the word that characterizes it perfectly, since it is a religion without sin, without justice, without mercy, without penance, without conversion, without virtue, without sacrifice, without effort, but simply a self-consciousness. It is a purely "intellectualist" religion, it is a pure gnostic sect.

Then my dear future deacons and priests, be sure that I ordain you neither deacons nor priests to be deacons and priests of this gnostic religion. And I am persuaded that your intention also was to receive the Catholic priesthood today, from the hands of the Catholic Church, and not to receive the gnostic priesthood from the hands of I know not what gnostic system.

Reject with horror, my dear faithful, my dear ordinands, this natural religion, this intellectualist religion, which has nothing to do with the Catholic religion, and, on the contrary, be always more firmly persuaded of the reason for our combat and for our priesthood.

Dear ordinands, you are proud to receive your priesthood in the Catholic Church from the hands of a Catholic bishop, of all these bishops who have succeeded in transmitting the Catholic priesthood in its doctrinal purity, from which follows its genuine pastoral charity. Be glad today to receive, in the Catholic Church, the Catholic priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the priesthood of a St. Padre Pio, of all saintly priests, of the saintly Curé of Ars, of the Apostles, which the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose beautiful feast we celebrate today, lived and supported.

Let us make supplications to the very blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Priesthood, Mother of the High Priest, and Mother of priests, to keep us faithful to the Catholic priesthood, so that we communicate the Catholic religion. Amen.

[Emphasis mine.]
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)