#15: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vs Himself):

In 2012, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was quite relieved a merely practical accord with modernist Rome had been narrowly averted, even citing the intervention of the Blessed Virgin to save the SSPX from disaster:

"Let us trust in the Blessed Virgin who got us out of a tight corner, it is true.  This year, she got us out of this tight corner, she did not want any of this talk of an agreement; in other words, that we would go to Rome to submit ourselves to the Conciliar authorities...Dear Faithful, how could you want us to submit ourselves to such a Hierarchy?  It would have been impossible to collaborate, it would have been a bogus collaboration, a lie.  We would never have collaborated and we would have been constantly persecuted, threatened by the bishops and by Rome.  How could one survive in such conditions?  With the obligation of signing a misleading text, ah no!"
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/

But by 2016, Bishop Tissier had quite a change of heart:

"But now there is obviously [on] the part of Pope Francis, a provision to recognize us without these conditions. We say 'Go!' Because things are moving and they still need progress."
http://laportelatine.org/publications/entret/2016/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325/entretien_mgr_tissier_25_ans_mgr_lefebvre_160325.php

English translation here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-tissier-changed-his-position-2016-interview

#17: Contradiction (Still More Acceptance of Doctrinal Pluralism from Bishop Fellay):

As we saw earlier, this was Bishop Fellay's public (but not private) position regarding a doctrinally pluralistic agreement with unconverted Rome in 2003:

"But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine.  So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

But after Rome refused Bishop Fellay's signature of the April 15, 2012 "Doctrinal Declaration," Bishop Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, and stated his willingness to set doctrinal considerations aside:

"I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform...so as to effect a union."
-Letter of Bishop Fellay to Pope Benedict XVI (6/17/12)

[Original complete Letter available here: http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/649]

#19: Contradiction (Tradcuмenism):

Archbishop Lefebvre considered collaboration with the rallied/approved once-traditional groups like the FSSP or IBP impossible:

"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.

Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.
Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecuмenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?
http://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations

But today's Society no longer sees any problem in this regard (after all, a "regularized" SSPX needs to learn how to play well with the other children in the "ecuмenical zoo").
Consequently "tradcuмenical" collaboration, or gestures implying same, has become commonplace in Europe and America:
For example:

-In 2013 the SSPX Polish District website mentioned indult priestly ordinations in the same breath as SSPX ordinations:  The mask had momemtarily slipped, and in the wake of intense and immediate scandal, the Polish District moved quickly to scrub the website, and eliminated reference to the indult communities:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/all-one-happy-family-on-sspx-polish-website/

-But by 2015, there was no more need for masks, and the SSPX was openly collaborating in joint SSPX-diocesan-Ecclesia Dei ventures, such as the so-called "Catholic Identity Conference, where pics show SSPX and indult priests standing side by side:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2032-catholic-identity-conference-makes-history

-Or, in 2018: https://catholicidentityconference.org/index.php/speakers

Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending such an event, or posing for pics with those whom he says "are doing the devil's work?"

#21: Contradiction (Still MORE on Doctrinal Pluralism):

Posts #13 and #17 showed Bishop Fellay in both 2012 and 2016 expressing a willingness to put aside doctrinal differences, and hash out a merely practical accord (a pluralism which threatens the faith by suggesting indifferentism).

But here was the position of Bishop Fellay way back in 1995 (only one year after becoming Superior General):

“We should expect Rome to try to bring us into a universalist amalgam, where we would end up being offered a place “among others”, a little bit like they are already declaring the Orthodox to be “sister churches”. We can think that the temptation to re-enter “officialdom” could be very great, in proportion to the offers which ecuмenist Rome could offer us; refusing therefore to enter into this confusion, we would be made to look like wicked villains." (Cor Unum, March/1995)
https://gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F

However, by no later than 2012 the bishop had already abandoned his former position, and capitulated to the very "temptation" he prophesied in 1995.

Meanwhile, the Resistance, retaining Bishop Fellay's 1995 position, has indeed been made to look like "wicked villains."

#23: Contradiction (The sales pitch: "A new situation in Rome?"):

In October/2011, the major superiors of the SSPX (excluding Bishop Williamson) assembled in Albano, Italy to consider a Roman proposal for the "regularization of the SSPX."  At that meeting, Bishop de Galarreta distributed a remarkable paper which was titled "Reflections on a Roman Proposal," in which he stated, in a section titled "Entry Into Contradiction:"

"To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra. There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.  It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/

This warning represented a clear recognition that accepting such a proposal would be tantamount to abandoning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre since the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations.

What was Bishop Fellay's response?

A few months later, in the March/2012 Cor Unum, Bishop Fellay wrote to his priests explaining that there was a new situation in the Church with the hierarchy favoring Tradition and therefore:

"If this is true, and I am convinced of it, this requires that we take up a new position with respect to the official Church...This is the context in which it is advisable to ask the question about some form of recognition of the Society by the official Church."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/cor-unum-march-2012-bishop-fellay-to-sspx-members/

#25: Contradiction (Jedi Mind Trick: "Conciliar Church" or "Official Church"):

In recent years, the SSPX has sought to replace the use of the term "conciliar church" with a new term: the "official church."

Why?

Because for a hierarchy insistent on the hermeneutic of continuity, they cannot possibly "regularize" an SSPX which insists on the rupture which is suggested by distinguishing between the "conciliar church" and the "Catholic Church!"

After all, here is how Archbishop Lefebvre responded to the future Pope Benedict XVI's assertion that he was creating a new church:

"Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: "Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church."
-Econe Press Conference, 6/15/88: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds

How better to eradicate this distinction than to start replacing the use of the term "conciliar church" with "official church?"

Doing so has the exact opposite implication!

Fr. Gabriel Billecocq (SSPX) explains:

"Recently, in traditionalist Catholic circles, efforts have been made to impose the term official church instead of conciliar church. Of course, official is a good expression of the idea that we recognize that these bishops, though unworthy, occupy power, and this power, as such, we can only respect. But replacing conciliar with official is a serious ambiguity. For the traditionalist catholic, who does not recognize himself as a conciliarist and for good reason, must he now say that he does not recognize himself as an official catholic either? So the traditionalist catholic would no longer belong to the official church? Wouldn't he be fully Catholic then? But then which church would he belong to? To find out, one has to wonder what the official word is opposed to. Answer: unofficial, or hidden, clandestine, or patriotic. But then the traditional catholic does not recognize himself in any of them. Should we say that he belongs to the official church at the risk of being confused with the modernists? No. All that remains then is that he does not belong to the Church. And that's the reason why he's getting so desperate for recognition."
http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
[English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]

And again in the same article:

"In fact, this is a serious and very pernicious ambiguity. Replacing the term conciliar church by official church to apply it to modernists erases the distinction and opposition between traditional and conciliar. By erasing this distinction, one clearly diminishes the struggle of the faith at the risk of denying it and comes to make the traditionalist regret that he does not belong to any truly serious church, giving him the impression that he is not normal and therefore needs to seek normalization. This expression thus conceals the true illness of which the Church is afflicted, puts in a state of inferiority or complexity the true Catholic who has kept the faith and sacraments intact, and so one maintains a typically liberal confusion. In reality, the use of such a confused expression is already liberalism itself and is no longer truly Catholic..."
http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
[English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]

Let us not fall for this "Jedi mind trick," and keep our bearings, as Fr. Billecocq suggests:

"To fight an enemy, and a fortiori when that enemy has infiltrated inside the citadel, clear and unambiguous language is needed to designate him. Traditional Catholics do not fight the Catholic Church, that is obvious. But can we make him believe that he's fighting the official church? If it is official, one risks creating some remorse of conscience to fight against it, because it is official and the Catholic Church is official! No, he's fighting the disease. And this disease, he gave it a name: the conciliar church."
http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf
[English translation: https://tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]

#27: Change (Contrasting Bishops: Lazo vs Huondor):

In 1995, the SSPX received a bit of a surprise when Bishop Salvador Lazo (a retired bishop from the Philippines) contacted Fr. Paul Morgan about joining the combat for Tradition, thereby becoming the first (and only) post-conciliar bishop to do so.
http://www.fsspx.com/Communicantes/Aug2000/In-Memoriam-Bishop-Salvador-Lazo.htm

But Bishop Lazo did not come in as a conciliarist!  He had been studying Tradition for some time, and after protracted prayer and reflection, made his decision, fully on board with Archbishop Lefebvre's fight against modernism.

In 1998, he sent a famous public "Declaration" to Pope John Paul II, in which he said, among other things:

"I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecuмenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae...After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the New Rite of Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries...Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of St. Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the "universal salvation", it contradicts Sacred Scripture...I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Ss. Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884.  Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope St. Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907.  I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils."

#29: Change (The Jєωs):

In the immediate wake of Bishop Williamson's 2009 "h0Ɩ0cαųst interview," Bishop Fellay, in a declaration made to the Famille Chrétienne (a French Catholic weekly) on January 31, 2009, went into damage control mode, declaring:

"The Jєωs are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-Jєωs-are.html

The Jєωs are our elder brothers? So, do they need to convert?

Did Archbishop Lefebvre agree with the contention that the Jєωs are our "elder brothers" in the faith?

Well, on 4/13/86, Pope John Paul II, during his visit to the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє, stated:

"The Jєωιѕн religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers."

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/docuмents/ju_mag_01111997_p-42x_en.html

Archbishop Lefebvre's response just a few months later was withering:

"I don't understand! And when he went to the ѕуηαgσgυє, he didn't say, "You Jєωs must convert to the Catholic Church," as did St. Paul and St. Peter and all the Apostles when they were in the ѕуηαgσgυє. When they went to the ѕуηαgσgυє, they said to the Jєωs—to their brother Jєωs—they said: "You must become Christian now. The Old Testament is the preparation for the New, the preparation for Christ's Kingdom. You must now become Christians." But they were put out of the ѕуηαgσgυє and they were killed. Some Apostles were killed by the Jєωs because they spoke the truth. But now the pope says, "Oh, your religion is very good, you are our older brothers." Incredible! Incredible! The pope is not a missionary when he says that. He is not a missionary, no longer a true Apostle. That is very, very sad, very sad, for the Catholic Church."
https://sspx.org/en/lefebvres-1986-atlanta-interview

If the Pope is not a true Apostle when he says that, is Bishop Fellay be a true Apostle when he says it?