Author Topic: Bishop Mallerais (Read 3880 times)

jman123 · « **on:** April 18, 2013, 08:07:01 AM »

What is Bishop Tissier's position towards the resistance?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2013, 08:09:54 AM »

He opposes it.

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2013, 08:18:01 AM »

He is not a fighter. Whilst he signed a letter sent to Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier was whipped into line. Fr Chazal was quite charitable towards Bishop Tissier.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2013, 08:21:03 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

He opposes it.

He is quite hostile to the resistance in my opinion. Despite knowing the score in relation to crisis in the Church, the Jєωs etc etc, he is not a fighter.

He will stick with Bishop Fellay

John Grace · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2013, 09:08:29 AM »

Bishop Tissier also stated that he regarded it as a mistake that Bishop Williamson was consecrated a Bishop. I thought it remarkable given that Fr Richard Williamson was chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre. Given the Zionist and Jєωιѕн control of the SSPX, I found it remarkable Bishop Tissier would say it was a mistake regarding Bishop Williamson. Bishop Tissier is no fool in relation to who the enemies of Catholics are.

The resistance couldn't depend on Bishop Tissier. He is against a doctrinal agreement but no threat to Bishop Fellay or Menzingen. He won't rock any boat.

SeanGovan · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2013, 09:17:45 AM »

Bishop Williamson says that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is like a stick-shift car whose clutch doesn't work. The engine is just purring away, but none of the power is reaching the wheels. In other words, Bishop Tissier is doctrinally solid, but he isn't acting on the good doctrine that he has!

SeanGovan · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2013, 09:23:42 AM »

At the conference in the Twin Cities, I asked Bishop Williamson if the anti-Resistance priests who are doctrinally solid, like Bishop Tissier, would end up thinking the way they act if they don't start acting the way they think. He thought they probably would.

It seems that neither Bishop Tissier nor Bishop de Galarreta would sign the letter of the three Bishops today if they had to do it over again - so it seems obvious that it's already happening. Those who didn't speak out in the beginning are beginning to lose sight of the reasons for speaking out.

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:01:10 AM »

How many are aware the three Bishops wrote to Bishop Fellay? I encountered people in Ireland, who were not aware. They didn't know because they didn't want to know.

I agree that if it were now neither Bishop Tissier nor Bishop de Galarreta would sign the letter of the three Bishops today.

I accept there are the 'secret people' who 'have not spoken yet' but at this stage one is either for an agreement with Rome or against it.

I am sorry to say it but I am ashamed of the Irish. There is opposition but for the first time in my life am ashamed of my people. We have been found wanting. I mean our people in general.

The resistance will be the few and not a majority. Whilst a noble people we are getting punished.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:08:37 AM »

One would be naive to believe Bishop Tissier or Bishop de Galarreta would support the resistance.

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:35:53 AM »

Quote

Those who didn't speak out in the beginning are beginning to lose sight of the reasons for speaking out.

It's a key point. The YouTube channel 'Oblationem' made a good point which acknowledged a key point. If only people had been vocal sooner.

wallflower · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:47:40 AM »

Quote from: Johannes

At the conference in the Twin Cities, I asked Bishop Williamson if the anti-Resistance priests who are doctrinally solid, like Bishop Tissier, would end up thinking the way they act if they don't start acting the way they think. He thought they probably would.

It seems that neither Bishop Tissier nor Bishop de Galarreta would sign the letter of the three Bishops today if they had to do it over again - so it seems obvious that it's already happening. Those who didn't speak out in the beginning are beginning to lose sight of the reasons for speaking out.

I think that many may know we reached the brink but since we didn't go over it, they remain silent and comfortable. They think that they will wait until we actually go over the brink, if we actually go over the brink, before acting. But in the meantime they leave themselves at risk for indoctrination as to why going over the brink is a good thing.

Plus I don't know how anyone can truly trust the current leadership since not going over the brink was clearly an act of God (in the shape of the outspoken members causing a ruckus that backed Rome off) and NOT because the leadership was unwilling to compromise. If those individual priests thought it was difficult to decide how to act this time, it will only get worse the next time and the next time and the next time. Some of them will come around as the changes start adding up to too much for them to ignore, but there's no way this ordeal will get any easier with time, either for the priests or the faithful.

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:49:46 AM »

Quote

I think that many may know we reached the brink but since we didn't go over it, they remain silent and comfortable. They think that they will wait until we actually go over the brink, if we actually go over the brink, before acting. But in the meantime they leave themselves at risk for indoctrination as to why going over the brink is a good thing.

A good analysis and fair comment. They trust Bishop Fellay and have no reason not too. They don't believe the internet rumour or the wackos.

VinnyF · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2013, 11:55:20 AM »

Quote from: Johannes

At the conference in the Twin Cities, I asked Bishop Williamson if the anti-Resistance priests who are doctrinally solid, like Bishop Tissier, would end up thinking the way they act if they don't start acting the way they think. He thought they probably would.

It seems that neither Bishop Tissier nor Bishop de Galarreta would sign the letter of the three Bishops today if they had to do it over again - so it seems obvious that it's already happening. Those who didn't speak out in the beginning are beginning to lose sight of the reasons for speaking out.

If you ever have the chance to ask +Tissier in a conference about the letter, I would encourage you to do it. When we asked him he inferred that the letter was a draft of a private communication meant only for Bishop Fellay's eyes that nobody actually signed, which was leaked without the approval of all of the "signees".

He did not disavow the sentiments expressed in the letter at all but was obviously not happy with its release.

1531 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2013, 12:04:58 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

One would be naive to believe Bishop Tissier or Bishop de Galarreta would support the resistance.

When we have such wishy-washy bishops as above, what hope does one have in leadership? What a sad, sad day it is to find that only ONE BISHOP has had the courage to be faithful to ABL.

Two of the bishops for self-interest reasons, and one out of inertia (and all three to maintain their comfortable paid-for existence - paid for, of course, by the faithful).

It is difficult not to feel angry at their behaviour, since they should be leading by good example the priests and the faithful. No wonder so many priests and faithful are keeping their heads down, when they see their bishops behaving in such a dismal way.

May God shower His Blessings on MW, and may He somehow guide the other bishops to be faithful once again, take up their crosiers again and continue the fight for true Tradition of ABL.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2013, 12:05:06 PM »

Has Fr Rostand asked you to intervene, VinnyF? You are getting many dislikes.