Does anyone know the attitude of +Bishop Tissier on these recent interviews of +Bishop Fellay or the upcoming deal?
Last year in a confirmation sermon he was adamant that a deal with Rome was impossible but +Bishop Fellay was singing the same tune at the same time also. Does anyone know any recent sermon or writing that could show us some of the insight of the one Bishop who was with +Archbishop Lefevbre longer than almost anyone else, who knew the thinking of the Archbishop better than anyone else?

Things are clearer. During our pilgrimage to Rome in 2000, we experienced the charm offensive on the part of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who was pushing John Paul II recognized the Fraternity unilatélament. Benedict XVI then gave us our two 'pre': recognition of the freedom of the traditional Mass and withdrawal (more or less happy, for us and for him) in 1988. In 2010-2011 excommunications, we had doctrinal discussions scheduled: and disagree! Our Superior General Bishop Fellay felt good to continue the negotiations and this has caused enough concern among us, until it became clear in May and June 2012, Benedict always asked as a condition, as the had said earlier bluntly, the acceptance of the Council and the legitimacy of reforms. It was failure. But now there is obviously the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!' Because things are moving forward and that it must still advancing.

Archbishop Lefebvre has never posed as a condition of recognition by our new Rome, Rome abandons errors and conciliar reforms. Even if he said something like that to Andre Cagnon in 1990, he never would have done, because it had never been its policy, strategy with modernist Rome. He was strong in faith, he did not give in on its doctrinal position, but he knew to be flexible, patient, careful, in practice. To achieve his ends prudence told him to push the opponent, harass, to the back, to persuade, but not block it by requirements still found unacceptable. He did not refuse the dialogue and was willing to take advantage of any door opened by the speaker. It is in this sense that pointed at him a certain opportunism, we spoke of 'pragmatism', and it's true: it's a small annex under the cardinal virtue of prudence, sagacity, wisdom practice, it is close to the solertia, spoken of Aristotle, St. Thomas (2-2, q. 48, a. unicus) and 'Gaffiot', which is the ability to find the means to achieve its ends.

Archbishop Lefebvre asked with that sagacity "we are at least tolerated" "It would be a major advance," he said. And "we are accepted as we are," that is to say with our practice that stems from our doctrinal positions. Well, today we see from Rome a provision to support our existence and our theoretical positions and practices. I say 'support' to avoid 'tolerate' because it tolerates bad!

Doctrinally, already, we no longer forces us to admit 'the whole Council' or religious freedom; some errors we denounce is about to be considered by our interlocutors as food for free discussion or debate continued. This is progress. We discuss, but we must admit that we do not change and that it is unlikely that we change. And in practice, we ask these Romans: "Recognize our right right to reconfirm the faithful conditional" and again: "Acknowledge the validity of our marriage! "You see, these are serious irritants. It will be necessary that we recognize these things. Otherwise how would our gratitude livable?

This may take time, but there is a God!

Mediatrix and omnipotent!

His Lordship Bishop Fellay has become a ''dog'', which the Greeks saw as a shameless animal, by his selling of the Society down the river. If one lies with dogs one rises with fleas, with the scent of the dogs, with the stench of Modernism. One cannot keep clean in a filthy room for long.