I agree with Tele. While Bishop Tissier may not have been as outspoken throughout all of this as he should have been, I don't have any problem with what he said.

Tele and SSS-

I just re-read my last couple posts, and realized my tone/tenor are getting a bit heated.

My apologies.

Sean Johnson.... dont apoligise for being a fighter...

You can be a fighter without having a heated tone. That's all he was apologising for.

You fight your corner...

IMHO:

I think that Bishop Tissier is changing - more slowly than Bishop de Galarreta, but changing nonetheless. It is human nature to change one's doctrine when one persists in the company of those who hold a different doctrine.


"Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are." Tell me who you hang out with, and I'll predict the quality of your future thoughts, words, and deeds with 99.999% accuracy. The other .001% is an exception for only one reason - the infinite mercy of God.


1. Bishop Tissier started by adopting the policy of "wait and see." "Wait three months and then we'll see!" he told Father Chazal.


2. Now, I he has entered the second stage of his corruption. If he has not yet changed his doctrine with regard to an agreement with modernist Rome, he has, at the very least, changed his language. He is now speaking ambiguously, at best. I think he probably wanted people to understand that we can't make an agreement with the people in the Conciliar Church until those people abjure their errors and enter the Catholic Church.  Most people will understand him as saying that an agreement with the Conciliar Church would be good if certain conditions were met, because that is the clear meaning of what he said. But whatever his thoughts, his words were agreementist (accordista). They contradict the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.


3. Stage three of Bishop Tissier's corruption, which may or may not have started yet, is the change in the ideas. If he hasn't entered it yet, then it surely can't be far behind, because words express ideas. "If you don't act the way you think, then soon you will start to think the way you act." If you don't speak the way you think, then you will start to think the way you speak. It is human nature. It is an inescapable law.


Whether Bishop Tissier is in stage 2 or stage 3 doesn't matter for us faithful. We can't read his thoughts; we can only hear his words. If his thoughts don't match his words (which only God knows), then it is his words, not his thoughts, that will have an influence on the sheep. And so, whether he is in stage 2 or stage 3 of the disease of Menzingenitis, it's all the same to us - his words are dangerous and must be denounced. They must be refuted, and the doctrine they express must be hated with a visceral hatred that is paired with a whole-hearted love for the Truth.

"Never will I agree to say: ‘in the Council, if we interpret it well, yes, perhaps nevertheless, we could make it correspond with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense.’ Never shall I agree to say that! That would be a lie; it is not allowed to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church!" (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

(Taken from the letter of the 37 French priests)

"We'll never follow along with Bishop Felay's Liberalism."

"We will never let ourselves be influenced by our Indult parish!"

The attitude in these three quotes is not from God. If we have the Faith for one second of our lives, it is due purely to His mercy, and not to our nothingness. If we lose the Faith, then it is due purely to our nothingness, and not to God's "unfairness."


Resistance, beware! The bigger they brag, the harder they fall.


I think that's another inescapable law.

Quote from: John Grace

Bishop Tissier was very clear in his admonishing of Fr Chazal and in stating it was a mistake to consecrate Bishop Williamson.

Mr. Grace: I am not the most au courant guy in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but this comment comes as quite an astonishing bit of news to me. Would you be good enough to tell me when and under what circuмstances Bishop Tissier said or wrote or otherwise indicated that Bishop Williamson's consecration was a mistake? (NB: his counsel to Father Chazal, on the other hand, is something I am well aware of.)

Thanks in advance.

Ask Bishop Tissier.

Claudel, it was in war aims . Sorry for the mistakes, I'm French, but I'll try to explain.

The blog Avec l'Immaculée agrees with Sean Johnson(Seraphim). I know it is painful for the faithful to realize that they can't trust Bp Tissier anymore. But Bp Tissier's words can't be interpreted in an other way. He clearly says  that he will look carefully at Rome's proposals and that he will say "no" if they are bad and prevent the sspx from criticizing. So that means that he is ready to make a deal without waiting for the conversion of Rome, if he thinks that Rome proposes something that allows critics. Here, he takes the defense of the first condition of the general Chapter. He thinks, like Bp de Galarreta in Villepreux, that this condition is good enough to protect the society. It is wrong. Others Ecclesia Dei communities were given this condition and because their chief is the pope, they never dare criticize. It would be the same for us. Moreover, we are noticing that these Ecclesia Dei communities, little by little are more and more modernist. cf. IBP : Fr Laguerie recently told that it was the sspx which had to convert and not Rome... he told : "il s’agissait de procéder avant à la conversion (morale) de la Fraternité et non point d’exiger la conversion (dogmatique) de Rome. »

Here is the whole quote of Fr Chazal :

His Lordship accepted to see me on the 16th of August in Econe. For 15 minutes or so, I reeled under a powerful episcopal broadside, all my joints shaking under the cold anger of His Lordship Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. My attitude, he said, was completely out of place, taking upon myself a task that does not belong to me and making a show of total disobedience…

I tried to recover by saying that I had grave doctrinal difficulties with bishop Fellay, showing, as usual, my little collection of quotes called “I excuse the Council”. His Lordship answered “I know, I know; I have 10 times more of these quotes favorable to Vatican II that you don’t know of!”

“But, my Lord, how can we be so quiet about this and the lamentable outcome of the General Chapter?”

 “The General Chapter, he answered, was a disaster; I signed my name there, because it was a collegial action, but certainly not to say that I agreed with the contents. Therefore trust what the generals do, take your assignment in France and be quiet for at least three months.”

“My Lord, the ship is taking water; it is torn open under the waterline. I do admire what you and others have done to try to save her, but you know full well that error is now spreading through the official channels of the SSPX. How can you offset the whole weight of the institution, the teachers put into position in the seminaries, the watered down sermons and publications… Our faithful stay less and less away from indult masses, mix up marriage ceremonies, practice NFP more and more without the grave reasons mandated by Pius XII, making NFP an open door to more wicked forms of contraception. Their minds are getting infected by DICI. It is natural for them to trust the two assistants who go even further than bishop Fellay and preach the scary good news that Rome has changed…”

 

I went on for quite some time, accepting corrections on some points like the fact that we cannot hold the Pope fully responsible for the nomination of bad bishops in the whole world. Otherwise I told him that he can disavow me as much as he likes but that this whole silence of this summer is“contre-nature”, antinatural: “I cannot and will not accept it, even if I get abused and thrown out. I cannot accept this incoming massacre of souls which is prepared more by the erosion of minds than by the actual signing of an agreement with Rome. If only your Lorships made a public stand against Menzingen I would gladly fall in line and follow the captain. I agree that it is not my job to speak out, but if the shepherds are asleep, the dogs are the next line of resistance, as the wolves have entered the barn.

Talking about errors in general often flies above the heads of the faithful. I do not see the tide of the battle turning in the right direction and I gave 12 years of benefit of the doubt to my superiors, writing letters and being very obedient. With six more years, bishop Fellay has ample time to put neutral or liberal superiors into position and the turning around of the ship will be impossible.

You are not, my Lord, the only one to be pushed in the corner; Fr. Peter Scott hardly said anything in March; and after being circuмvented by Fr. Rostand, is now to be sent to Zimbabwe. Fr. Hewko made no attack against Menzingen at Fr. Reuter’s first Mass and got heavily punished. Many other priests are in the same case. This does not augur well for the future. If this is the way they treat priests, while no deal is signed; how will it be on the day of the deal, when everybody will be made to fall into line?

 

What I am doing does look like a rebellion, but I am not asking everyone to do the same. If I am wrong, the ship will not sink and I will die happy; but if I am right to warn the passengers, there will be more left of us if the tragedy actually happens. The problem comes from the commanding bridge of the ship; and your resistance below deck is impressive, but it is only delaying the final outcome. Some priests at least must do the job of exposing the source of errors”.

 

By then, His Lordship was cooled; I had discussed about many of these facts with him when he came to the Philippines last year. I understand that it is his love of the Society, his desire to keep a united army that motivates it, but that Society is no more united on doctrine and the liberals attack him more and more and refuse to publish his book on the errors of Benedict XVI. In fact he is beginning to be silenced and more is to come.

I felt very sad for him because, all along, there was such truthfulness in him, even as he was rebuking me. I don’t mind to be rebuked by such an honest man, and I believe that bishop Tissier will always preach against the Rome of today and tell us to keep out of its range.

To tell you the truth, he still does not, to this day, agree with what I am doing. He wrote to Fr. Pivert (my spiritual director) to coerce me, repeating the same argument, in writing this time, namely that the errors of bishop Fellay are 10 times as many as they appear in public and that the General Chapter is a disaster, but that there is no reason to launch such an untimely attack against the SSPX management.

 

(Now, my Dear Reader, forgive me for being so long on bishop Tissier’s thinking. It is because it reflects the thinking of so many of the priests I was able to meet in France, which is the Mecca of dissent with Menzingen, but also completely paralyzed. French are like that: unless a leader emerges, takes charge and tells you to charge, nobody charges.

For me this whole situation with +TdM is painful but very easy to explain: For him the SSPX is more important than the Catholic Faith.  Bishop Tissier is GONE.

InDominoSperavi said:

(Now, my Dear Reader, forgive me for being so long on bishop Tissier’s thinking. It is because it reflects the thinking of so many of the priests I was able to meet in France, which is the Mecca of dissent with Menzingen, but also completely paralyzed. French are like that: unless a leader emerges, takes charge and tells you to charge, nobody charges.)

Hear hear, Bishop Williamson!!! Conferences, retreats and confirmations are nice but it's not enough, may the day of TAKING CHARGE and LEADING the Resistance be not too far off.