Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Orinoco on May 26, 2013, 08:19:24 AM
-
... preached at the Chartres-Paris Pilgrimage on Sunday 19th May 2013
(available as a .pdf on http://www.sspx.co.uk/)
Dear pilgrims,
Although we are in the rain and we are cold, inside of us the charity of the Holy Ghost is burning! Our thoughts are with St Joseph on the road to Egypt, who, having understood that he was the adoptive and legal father of the Son of God, suddenly in the night had to leave Bethlehem and go into exile.
Well, this is rather in the image of our own situation, my dear faithful. We are on the paths of exile and that may be for a long time. We must take courage, with the Holy Ghost, imitating the example and the vocation of St. Joseph. When the angel said to him in the night: “Joseph take Mary and the Child and flee into Egypt!” immediately and without question, he went and stayed there, in a foreign country where he did not even know the language, for one or two years − until God called him back from Egypt. “I called my Son out of Egypt!”
(Looking at) our position in the Church, dear faithful, we resemble a little the Holy Family; we are in exile and yet we are the Holy Family. You see, the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph was the seedling-Church! The Church did not yet exist but here was the Church in seed; there was first Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the head of the Church, his Mystical Body; then there was the first member of the Church, Mary, Most Holy, Immaculate Virgin, redeemed in advance through the blood of Jesus Christ; and there was Joseph, cleansed of original sin, probably before his birth (we do not know exactly).
So, the Holy Family represented the Church. Well we, dear faithful, in Tradition, the Society of St. Pius X and the friendly religious and priestly communities, we carry the Church into exile! Since the Church is officially occupied by the Modernists, we are sent into exile, carrying the Church within us, and this may last for a few more years, until the Lord sends his angel and tells us, “Now you can return to the land of Israel,” officially. But we are still carrying within us the Church!
I remember that Archbishop Lefebvre explained very well to us that we had within us, in Tradition, the four notes of the Catholic Church, the four marks of the Church, showing that, despite our abnormal situation of exile, we remain at the heart of the Catholic Church! We have indeed kept the unity of the Church, the catholicity of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
“Unity” because we have kept the faith! The unity of the Church is first of all in the Catholic faith, in that all Catholics profess the same faith! Well, we have the unity of the Church because we have the faith of all time, dear faithful, and there is no question of leaving it and compromising with the modernist heresy.
After “One”, Holy! We have kept the holiness of the Church and of that you are the proof, dear families where God chooses these beautiful religious and priestly vocations, lives devoted to God which are a model for the whole Church! We have kept the note of the holiness of the Church by the grace of God.
“One, Holy,” Catholic! We also have the catholicity of the Church, for the Tradition we represent has spread worldwide! Not only in France, not only in the United States, represented here by its district superior, not only in Germany, represented by many pilgrims, not only in these places ... but all over the world! You, dear pilgrims, you are the proof that Tradition, so alive in us, is Catholic!
And finally we represent Apostolicity of the Church! The Church is Apostolic, we are also apostolic. That means we have the apostolic succession through our bishops. We, bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, have received the episcopate from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre in a legitimate way, even if it was abnormal. And therefore, as long as we remain in the Church, we carry the Church in exile.
So, dear faithful, we may often ask what is our vocation? Could it not be to seek from Rome those blessings which rightfully should be ours − to seek approval and recognition? Of course, this is a question we could ask ourselves, but it is not the essential question!
The real question we must ask ourselves is: “How should we witness to the Catholic faith today, in the present situation of the Church which is suffering a terrible crisis?” What witness should we bear, today? And the answer is the testimony of all the witnesses of the Faith and the Martyrs! All these saints of the Church, these confessors of the Faith, all the martyrs of the Church are an example for us!
So here is the answer to that question, dear faithful! This is the best way to bear witness before the whole Church: to be on a pinnacle and publicly condemned to exile. Well, this is to our advantage because our testimony is all the more striking for being considered a stumbling block by the Modernists – just as Our Lord was by Herod at the time. Is it not an advantage for the Church to see where Tradition is? This is the stumbling block for the Modernists, for what is called the Conciliar Church, that is to say, the SECT that occupies the Catholic Church. This is an advantage for us, to be regarded as excluded and in exile, dear faithful; to be looked upon as the “stone rejected by the builders” which will become, and already is, the cornerstone, the stone that supports the building.
Is it not Tradition, the Catholic faith of all time that we represent? So here's why we do not weep if we do not receive from Rome that news which was perhaps expected… or whatever. Let us remain quietly in exile as the good Lord wills. And let us bear this witness to the Catholic faith that the martyrs have given.
I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr, seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild – whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I'm not Catholic.”
It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we are celebrating today − the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you're not Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
There is also the example of St. Joseph, who remained in that exile in which was found the Church, the whole Church, until it was time to return to the Holy Land. “I called my son out of Egypt.”
In the meantime, dear faithful, let us pray to the Blessed Virgin, the Spouse of the Holy Ghost who was filled with the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost from the very first moment of her conception. She had the gift of Counsel when she received the message from the Archangel Gabriel telling her that she was to become the Mother of God! She said “Yes, fiat!” immediately! The gift of Counsel! And she had the gift of Fortitude at the foot of the Cross when she remained for three hours standing before her Son, God made man, who was agonizing on the Cross, before her eyes! She remained firm as the Mother of the High Priest, the mother of the Victim, the divine victim for our sins. Well, let us ask the Blessed Virgin to fill us with these seven gifts of the Holy Ghost through her intercession, especially the gift of Counsel which will dictate our conduct, and the gift of divine Fortitude, so that we may know when to say “No!” For fortitude consists more in resisting evil than in attacking the enemy. Let us remain very firm, united in the Catholic faith, dear faithful, under the patronage of St. Joseph to whom we shall renew in a moment the consecration of the Society of St. Pius X. Amen!
-
Bishop Tissier said:
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism.
Comment:
1) This is an accordista sermon from start to finish;
2) This snippet reveals that he will go along with the right deal.
3) It just needs to be closely examined to make sure it is a good deal with safeguards.
4) We will accept "the gifts coming from Rome" if we can continue to preach the Catholic Faith.
Very disappointing.
-
“For fortitude consists more in resisting evil than in attacking the enemy”. ? Fortaleza (Devocionario de la Fraternidad San Pío X: 255. 2004): “…Atacar con valor y audacia los ataques puestos al bien…” I don’t know (used to be a Botanist), but it seems to me from reading Monseñor Tissier’s Biography of Monseñor Lefebvre, that this last one did indeed “atacar”.
-
The problem isn't just with the clutch after all... Sad but predictable: One has to try to justify his compromise.
IMO, Bp. Tissier is the biggest deception in this whole sell-out crisis. Fr. Peter Scott come right at second.
-
Bishop Tissier said:
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism.
Comment:
1) This is an accordista sermon from start to finish;
2) This snippet reveals that he will go along with the right deal.
3) It just needs to be closely examined to make sure it is a good deal with safeguards.
4) We will accept "the gifts coming from Rome" if we can continue to preach the Catholic Faith.
Very disappointing.
You like to read too much into things.
Above he states clearly that the SSPX is in communion with the Church and that the conciliar sect is not the Church. Nothing wrong there, and no necessity for any deal of any kind.
I don't see anything wrong with what Bishop Tissier said here.
That isn't approval of his actions.
-
Bishop Tissier said:
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism.
Comment:
1) This is an accordista sermon from start to finish;
2) This snippet reveals that he will go along with the right deal.
3) It just needs to be closely examined to make sure it is a good deal with safeguards.
4) We will accept "the gifts coming from Rome" if we can continue to preach the Catholic Faith.
Very disappointing.
You like to read too much into things.
Above he states clearly that the SSPX is in communion with the Church and that the conciliar sect is not the Church. Nothing wrong there, and no necessity for any deal of any kind.
I don't see anything wrong with what Bishop Tissier said here.
That isn't approval of his actions.
Tele-
Your comment does not address Bishop Tissier's words provided in the quote.
He says pretty clearly the gifts (ie., regularization) simply need to be scrutinized, not rejected.
The implication being good gifts would be accepted.
How is that any different than Bishop fellay saying he would accept a no strings attached deal?
-
The hearers cannot agree on what the Bishop means. THIS IS MODERNISM.
-
From "Shamus" at IA:
"All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost."
This would be all very reassuring had + Tissier been more explicit in explaining who and on what conditions these "beautiful gifts" would be examined!
By collegial consensus of the selected members of the General Chapter on the weakly 3+3 conditions established in July 2012, or by episcopal authority on the principals so beautifully exemplified by St Hermenegild?
Added: I see Seraphim you beat me to it!
-
You don't get this messing about with Bishop Williamson as you do with Bishop Tissier. Bishop Tissier has been built up to something he never was, a fighter. I did say before, I won't give up on Bishop Tissier but then again laity are not members so not necessary to get annoyed with SSPX politics.
Bishop Tissier was very clear in his admonishing of Fr Chazal and in stating it was a mistake to consecrate Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Tissier should know better. That is the thing, he is no fool but is not a fighter.
We should pray for him.
-
John Grace, sorry, but I don’t understand very well your post, English not being my first language and rather ignorant in the subject. However, it would seem to me that there are might be some contradictions (?)
1. I am also laity and do get annoyed with SSPX politics. Or should I not? And if so, why not (or why yes)? It does seem to me that this is a matter of my Faith.
2. Bishop Tissier was, as you explain, “very clear in his admonishing of Fr Chazal and in stating it was a mistake to consecrate Bishop Williamson”. Not a fighter?
3. His biography of Monseñor Lefebvre, a master-piece, IMIgnorantOpinion. Not a fighter?
4. The end of one of his published homilies in the internet (had it in my computer which went caput) where he repeats a statement from the Pope (Emeritus) that he doesn’t believe in God (or similar). Not a fighter?
Hope he crosses Rubicon, naturally. He would be so much happier!
-
John Grace, sorry, but I don’t understand very well your post, English not being my first language and rather ignorant in the subject. However, it would seem to me that there are might be some contradictions (?)
1. I am also laity and do get annoyed with SSPX politics. Or should I not? And if so, why not (or why yes)? It does seem to me that this is a matter of my Faith.
2. Bishop Tissier was, as you explain, “very clear in his admonishing of Fr Chazal and in stating it was a mistake to consecrate Bishop Williamson”. Not a fighter?
3. His biography of Monseñor Lefebvre, a master-piece, IMIgnorantOpinion. Not a fighter?
4. The end of one of his published homilies in the internet (had it in my computer which went caput) where he repeats a statement from the Pope (Emeritus) that he doesn’t believe in God (or similar). Not a fighter?
Hope he crosses Rubicon, naturally. He would be so much happier!
As I was a bold boy, I accept my slap on the wrist and admonishment. You can get annoyed but it is not going to do you any good. I have no massive interest in going back over nuanced conversation.
-
It would be interesting to get his (Bishop Tissier) opinion on the 'Crisis in the SSPX' conference. Personally, I believe he probably frowns upon it. The cheeky lot not to have blind obedience to a liberal, whom the Archbishop was leaned on to be added for consecration.
-
We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism.
There's nothing wrong here.
His statement about the conciliar sect is diametrically opposed to what the current SSPX leadership is saying.
He's also saying there is no need to be accepted.
-
We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism.
There's nothing wrong here.
His statement about the conciliar sect is diametrically opposed to what the current SSPX leadership is saying.
He's also saying there is no need to be accepted.
Except that this is not the problematic sentence, but the one 2 sentences before it (and which puts the one you are quoting in proper context).
-
I don't see where he said he'd accept a deal with modernist Rome.
If Rome does something that is genuinely good, as opposed to offering a Trojan Horse, then it's hard for someone who isn't sede to reject it.
-
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.
-
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.
Then either you don't understand what you read, or you are not part of the resistance.
Tissier says what Menzingen says:
Under the right conditions, the gifts could be accepted.
I want no part of that, until such time as Rome returns to Catholicism.
If you don't have a problem accepting a merely practical accord (or if you just can't accept the fact that Tissier let us all down), that is your business.
-
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...
-
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.
-
Sean Johnson.... dont apoligise for being a fighter...
Depends on who you're fighting, wouldn't you say?
-
You fight your corner...
-
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.
-
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.
-
You don't get this messing about with Bishop Williamson as you do with Bishop Tissier. Bishop Tissier has been built up to something he never was, a fighter. I did say before, I won't give up on Bishop Tissier but then again laity are not members so not necessary to get annoyed with SSPX politics.
Bishop Tissier was very clear in his admonishing of Fr Chazal and in stating it was a mistake to consecrate Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Tissier should know better. That is the thing, he is no fool but is not a fighter.
We should pray for him.
Our prayers and penances are at the root of any good consequence to this
current crisis. We should be praying and doing penance for the graces these
good clerics need to do the right thing. You get the leaders you deserve.
I don't see where he said he'd accept a deal with modernist Rome.
If Rome does something that is genuinely good, as opposed to offering a Trojan Horse, then it's hard for someone who isn't sede to reject it.
It seems +TdM's language is somehow measured and restrained - probably
because he has been put "on notice" by the Menzingen-denizens. Be that
as it may, like you say, Tele, he has not said that he is in favor of making
a 'deal' with modernist Rome.
"If Rome does something that is genuinely good" must necessarily include
the prospect that the CONVERSION of Rome is part of this "doing something
good."
Now, how "something good" could possibly include Rome NOT converting
first and agreeing to all the traditional doctrine of Holy Mother Church and
rejecting the unclean spirit of Vat.II (which means TRASHING the bad
council and BURYING it 15 feet deep in the dump - like Fr. Hewko says) is
another matter. Because if Rome does NOT do these things then Rome
cannot possibly do anything genuinely good.
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.
Then either you don't understand what you read, or you are not part of the resistance.
Tissier says what Menzingen says:
Under the right conditions, the gifts could be accepted.
I want no part of that, until such time as Rome returns to Catholicism.
If you don't have a problem accepting a merely practical accord (or if you just can't accept the fact that Tissier let us all down), that is your business.
Here, SeanJohnson, you seem to be overlooking what is meant by "the
right conditions." You seem stuck, and understandably so, in the idea that
someone in a position of power might misconstrue "the right conditions" as
the wrong thing, and we could see a "practical agreement" with a bunch of
snakes A.K.A. Modernists.
Also what are "the gifts?" There is no definition for that here.
So without knowing what the right conditions are or what the gifts are,
you come out like gangbusters swinging at a chimera.
"I will have no part of that until such time as Rome returns to Catholicism."
--- No problem!! Good for you!! That is what The Resistance is all about. ---
+TdM let us down inasmuch as he's not 'exploding' like Fr. Chazal says he
is capable of doing. But it seems that he is still a simmering volcano, and
has not gone dormant.
You're worried that he's on the verge of 'accepting a practical accord,' but
we can't find those words in what he said, can we?
It seems to me that you would feel better S-J if you could see him
say that he's not on the verge of that, but recall again, that he has been
put on notice, and if he were to speak out against an accord clearly like
it would take to make S-J happy then his expulsion would be the natural
consequence, and apparently he's not willing to do that, at least for now.
He might be worried about his own health. Maybe he's afraid he does not
have long to live, and that expulsion would careen him into a state of
inactivity or something like that. He could, for example, have a heart
condition, and if so, such cases usually entail an unwillingness to
acknowledge the fact of its existence to loved ones and family members,
and the SSPX is +TdM's family. Being expelled could break his heart, and
then he would die of a broken heart. Is that what you wish for him, S-J?
Pope St. Pius X died of a broken heart. It is entirely reasonable to think
that +TdM is afraid of the same fate for himself.
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.
While I cannot fault you for having such concerns, SeanGovan, I would
caution you to please restrain yourself because you do not know what
is the reality from the position of the Bishop in question. He is not a
flippant man, and he does take this whole thing very seriously. He has
not capitulated. He is under tremendous pressure to conform, but he is
not throwing in the towel. To you it may seem that he is commiserating
with the enemy, but you have forgotten apparently that the Society is
his life, and the members thereof are his family. When your
wife and children become alcoholics and drug addicts are you obliged
therefore to abandon them so that you would not succuмb likewise to
addiction?
1. Bishop Tissier started by adopting the policy of "wait and see." "Wait three months and then we'll see!" he told Father Chazal.
Yes............ and............ so............?
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.
Thou dost protest too much! His words do not "contradict the position of ABL"
at all. You are choosing to interpret them that way, is all. You are actually
putting words in his mouth, and if he reads your post, it will cause him grief.
You and I should be doing penance for +TdM, instead of GIVING HIM MORE
PENANCE to do. He already lives a life of extreme penance. He probably
takes on YOUR penance FOR YOU, when YOU AND I should be instead taking
on HIS penances!
What a world!
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.
You and your stages -- do you think you're a rocket scientist or something?
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.
You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to hate something, you can
do a whole lot better than the words of +TdM. Why don't you go and hate
the letter of Fr. Laisney to +W of 1-2011 that was probably written by the
Zionist prefigure of the anti-Christ, Maxi Krah? Why don't you go and hate
the AFD that +TdM DID NOT SIGN?
"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)
These words of +TdM are quite commendable. Do you have some kind
of criticism of them? What do you NOT like about what he says here?
"We'll never follow along with Bishop Fellay'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.
But +TdM isn't bragging.
What are you talking about??? :confused1:
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself:
You and I should be doing penance for +TdM, instead
of GIVING HIM MORE PENANCE to do. He already lives
a life of extreme penance. He probably takes on YOUR
penance FOR YOU, when YOU AND I should be instead
taking on HIS penances!
-
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.
-
"All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism."
The only true "gift" that Rome could send us is the gift of its doctrinal return to Tradition. Anything short of this would amount to mere re-packaged Roman polys and trickeries to further divide up the traditional movement and extinguish its flames for good.
In light of this, I am uneasy with use of the word "gift" in the way His Excellency employs it in the passage above to evidently include "poisoned gifts" or "gifts" that need to somehow be examined or screened before acceptance.
When we speak of "gifts" in the proper, genuine sense of the word, we rightly think of something good that is sent from one person to another with the hope and the intent that it would benefit the receiver in some way. The highest example that comes to mind are the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
False gestures deployed to gradually shut down the traditional movement (or render it irrelevant) such as Summorum Pontificuм and the bogus "lifting" of the non-existent excommunications (worth less than an expired Burger King coupon) are certainly no "gifts" and should not even be termed as such--even if this were done just to make a rhetorical point.
The use of positive psychological "reframing" of serious threats to our faith and salvation through the use of terms that naturally bring to mind good thoughts and sentiments is akin to playing with matches at a gas station.
-
Claudel, it was in war aims (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2012/09/war-aims.html) . Sorry for the mistakes, I'm French, but I'll try to explain.
The blog Avec l'Immaculée agrees with Sean Johnson (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/05/analyse-du-sermon-de-mgr-tissier-de.html)(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 (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2012/11/similitude-entre-la-pensee-de-labbe.html)... 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.
-
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.
That is quite an insightful observation, Sean. I am also reminded of a quote from one of Bishop Williamson's conferences:
"Those who don't do as they think will eventually think as they do."
As far as this business of our "demanding" that Rome "allow" us to critique Vatican II (or to "correct its false interpretations"--pardon me--as we are now being conditioned to formulate it) and to profess our faith, since when have we needed Rome's permission to do so? It is our DUTY to do so as faithful Catholics!
The slide is indeed as frightening as it is subtle. As Fr. Pfeiffer puts it, we need to, in effect, take a defensive posture relative to modernist/masonic Rome and have nothing to do with it as far as agreements go until Rome returns back to Tradition. Our job, in the meantime, is to uncompromisingly preserve and hold on to the faith in its integrity, spread it to as many as possible, and continue to pray and do penance. It is Our Lady who will then save the day when her hour comes--not us.
The wild romanticism now being pushed within the neo-SSPX in order to fool the undiscerning into favoring a practical agreement is that "ROME NEEDS US" and that somehow we are the spiritual "Delta Force" (SAS for you Brits!) that, once regularized, will spread like wildfire and restore the entire Church back to Tradition.
Some have even gone so far as to audaciously cite the divinely assisted work of the early Jesuits when they re-took Europe from the grips of Protestantism as "precedent" to what the "new," "regularized" neo-SSPX "under the pope" would be able to accomplish!
Of course, these great Jesuits, ever distinguished by their 4th vow of special obedience to the pope, worked under a pope who actually HAD the faith and who had every intention of using these brave and holy men as frontline papal shocktroops--yielding a devastating blow to the enemies of the Church, as history is not shy to recount.
Sorry Menzingen, but once brought into the conciliar fold, your fantasy of playing spiritual Special Ops guys will be as "impressive" to the eyes of Rome as to those of a parent watching his five-year-old running around within the "safe" confines of the family backyard in a homemade red cape, thinking that he really is Superman out to save the world.
-
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.
-
.
The message of penance (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24801&min=24#p0) is never popular.
-
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.)
Sean Johnson (formerly Seraphim) quoted what Bishop Williamson said about Bishop Tissier's letter, here in this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23036&min=18) :
Bishop [Tissier] also wrote a letter to bishop Williamson saying basically it was a mistake for Archbishop Lefebvre to have consecrated him (revealed by Bishop Williamson in his December Toronto conference).
Incredible.
I listened on Youtube to that Toronto conference from December 2012. Everybody who listened to that conference can confirm what Sean wrote. Maybe somebody has a link to that conference's video. It's a good conference, as usual.
Many traditional Catholics, including myself, where shocked about this bad behaviour of Bishop Tissier. Because it reveals a very profound personal problem, which unfortunately adds to and is related to his practical theological problem aka his requirement to follow the traitors of the Faith in Menzingen.
Since I've made my experience with backstabbers, I repeat what I wrote some time ago here on Cathinfo (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Society-of-St-Pius-X-and-the-Diocesan-Bishops) :
It really doesn't matter if we don't like the nose of the brave Englishman [Bishop Williamson] (just an example, I'm fine with his nose!), but to write such a weird thing like Bishop Tissier did about an orthodox and upright bishop and his episcopal brother-in-arms of 25 years? Incredible, indeed!
At the army we had a name for such "comrades" amongst us: backstabber. Very, very limited persons in my experience, in particular when you thought they were your comrades.
-
.
It seems to me that it is one of the most difficult things to do, to turn
your heart toward love of your enemy.
"To turn the other cheek" is not a natural action. It defies our fallen
human nature.
When someone plans, plots, endeavors to destroy you, and you then
do what Our Lord asked us to do, and proceed to do penance for the
conversion of that 'someone' - that is not an act in accord with human
nature. But it is exactly what the saints have all done.
When St. Maria Goretti lay dying in the hospital with a dozen or more
stab wounds inflicted by her assailant, Alessandro, she told the priest
who came to hear her confession and give her last rites, that she
forgave Alessandro. He was sent to prison and there, he had a vision
of his victim, who by her appearing to him implored him to repent and
to give up his life of vice.
In her cause for canonization her voluntary act of expiation by which
she offered her torment and agony as reparation and atonement for
the sin of the man who assaulted her was a key element in the
approval of her as a saint of Holy Mother Church.
He did abandon his evil ways, and was then released from prison, and
he was later seated next to St. Maria's mother at the saint's own
canonization in Rome. It was the first time in history when the man
who murdered a girl was privileged to attend the girl's canonization
seated next to the girl's own mother.
What St. Maria Goretti did was not natural. She was not following the
spirit of the world. Nor were any of the saints. This is what sets them
apart. Saint Joan of Arc was afraid of the fire that would be her own
demise, and that is a natural fear. But what is not natural is that she
accepted this terror as her own voluntary penance for the sins of her
assailants, including those who were occupants of offices of the
Church at the time.
A saint is not one who always seeks out such oppression (although
some have done so!), but the key is that when it comes to him, he
does not reject it - as would be expected by any natural man. The
fact that it comes is then recognized by the saint as being the will of
God, for if it were not the will of God, it would not come in the first
place. It takes wisdom and knowledge, gifts of the Holy Ghost, to
recognize the will of God when it arrives in your life.
-
While I pray and hope that Bishop Tissier will at some point very soon come out forcefully for the truth that I firmly believe he holds in his heart, I think that everyone is misinterpreting this passage of his talk.
Perhaps it is the literature major in me, but I cannot help but notice the passage has been presented out of context.
He leads into this statement with the story of St. Hermenegild being offered communion by an Arian bishop and refusing that consecrated host because the bishop was a heretic. The saint could never be "in communion" with a heretic. The "gift" from the "sacrilegious hands" of the bishop is analogous to what Rome has been offering the Society. Bishop Tissier is cautioning his audience of SSPX members to examine what has been offered and to not "receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism".
So please read the excerpt in context.
I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr,
seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a
heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that
his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild –
whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter
approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was
thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What
a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop
entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian
and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I'm not
Catholic.”
It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to
Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would
you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the
Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands
the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is
God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But
we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we
are celebrating today − the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from
your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You,
my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you're not
Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we
are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the
circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our
public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that
would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint
Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Bishop Tissier needs our prayers. I, for one, am not ready to give up on him, yet.
-
What about the quote below?
All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circuмstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
This quote can't be justified by any context. All the other quotes are simply weak (in my opinion). But this one is not weak. It contains falsehoods.
1. The quoted passage implies, firstly, that the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church may not really be two separate and distinct churches, after all, because it refers only to "Rome," blurring the distinction between "Eternal Rome" and the "Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies." Eternal Rome is at the head of the Catholic Church, and Modernist Rome is at the head of the Conciliar Church. In a context where no ambiguous language is used, the term "Rome" can be used without ambiguity. But combined with the ambiguities that accompany it in this quote, it is ambiguous.
2. It implies, secondly and as a consequence, that "beautiful gifts" have been offered to us by Conciliar Rome. That is false. No beautiful gifts have ever come from Conciliar Rome. The only "gifts" that Conciliar Rome has offered have been rotten ones.
3. It implies, thirdly, that the offer of a canonical status within the Conciliar Church was a "beautiful gift." The quote implies this because the "beautiful gifts" referred to would have been ones that "condemn[ed] us to compromise with modernism." The only "poisoned gift" that would do that would be a canonical status in the Modernist Church.
4. It implies, fourthly, that an agreement with the Conciliar Church would be possible in certain circuмstances. If it is impossible in all circuмstances, then clearly there is no need for "examination." There is no need to "consider circuмstances." Conversely, if there is a need to examine and consider the circuмstances, that means that an agreement with Modernist Rome is not automatically excluded. In this, the author of the quote goes directly against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
5. It implies, fifthly, that "maintain[ing] our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is first and foremost a right to be "demanded," and only secondarily a duty to be performed. The subtle shift of emphasis from "duty" to "right" implies that man is more important than God.
6. It implies, sixthly, that we need permission to "maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith." Otherwise, why should we need to "demand to be able" to do so? No one can stop us! If "maintain[ing] our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is a duty, then we obviously have the "right" to perform it!
7. It implies, in the seventh place, that the reason we are should be allowed to "maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith" is that we are the ones who are demanding it. "We demand...! We cannot receive poisoned gifts...!"
6. Lastly - and this is perhaps the most serious problem of all - the words in this quote are ambiguous. The fact that he refers to a canonical status as a "beautiful gift" and a "poisoned gift" in the same breath only testifies to the change in his language, which used to be clear and is now just the opposite. (The poor bishop is clearly catching Menzingenitis!) Whoever speaks of doctrine in ambiguous language, let him be anathema.
Regardless of His Excellency's personal position, accordistas are sure to interpret his ambiguous language in an accordista way. Let us not make the mistake of interpreting it in a Catholic way. Most of the Council Fathers interpreted the texts in a Catholic way during the Council, and they nonetheless became Conciliar. By the grace of God, let us continue to call a spade a spade.
If Bishop Fellay had come out with this quote, we would have shot him down immediately.
Since someone mentioned "context," let's look at the context of silence that has characterized poor Bishop Tissier over the past few months.
Like everybody else on this forum, I hope that His Excellency turns around. But the solution is not to say that he doesn't need to turn around! Let us not read his ambiguous language with pink glasses!
-
Sean Johnson (formerly Seraphim) quoted what Bishop Williamson said about Bishop Tissier's letter, here in this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23036&min=18)
I thank you very much, Ethelred.
-
Claudel, it was in war aims (http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2012/09/war-aims.html) .
Thank you, IDS, for the extended reply to my query. Sad stuff, indeed.
Sorry for the mistakes, I'm French, but I'll try to explain.
I'm not French, but as my pseudonym should indicate, I'm a fan!