Three attitudes have been emerging in Tradition for some time.

The first, faithful to the directive of Abp. Lefebvre, continues to say: “No practical accord without the conversion of Rome.” It is the voice of good sense and of faith. This attitude is abused today because of what it says and it says that because St. Paul told us: “For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10.

The second searches for a so-called « necessary reconciliation » with the Conciliar Church. It is an approach contrary to good sense, contrary to the directives of Abp. Lefebvre as well as the resolution of the 2006 General Chapter which repeated: “No practical agreement without the conversion of Rome.”

This second attitude rests not on doctrine, but on diplomacy and on the abuse of authority. Diplomacy vis-à-vis Rome, abuse of authority vis-à-vis the good priests, threatened and hunted, vis-à-vis the faithful as well, denied the sacraments.

A third attitude sits between the first two. This attitude thinks rather like the first. It does not believe in this “necessary reconciliation,” but it waits and keeps silent. This attitude conveys, with numerous priests and faithful, an anxiety about what my happen to them. God alone knows the turmoil in the midst of families and communities and among priests. Faithful and priests know very well that if they begin to speak against the politics of Menzingen, the consequences will be brutal, like has already been seen in Mexico and elsewhere: faithful being denied holy communion, absolution, priests being transferred, expelled or reduced to a forced silence . . .
However, this third attitude tends to disappear, the people finding their place either with the first or the second. That because this behavior is unstable by definition, even though, for the faithful at least, it can last a long time. In Japan, the Catholic families kept silent about their faith for nearly two centuries. Some faithful will perhaps keep silent for a good while if they see themselves being denied the sacraments, the schools, etc.

But with the priests and above all the bishops, this attitude tends to disappear rather quickly through the choice of the first or second attitude. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was of the first attitude when he, with his confreres, wrote the Letter from the Three Bishops dated April 7, 2012 to the General Council. His approach was private, but his thoughts were known. Consequently, he gave an interview to Rivarol and did not hide his thoughts during conversations with several priests. Despite this, his position remains discreet.

But, little by little, Bishop Tissier has put himself into the third attitude, that of silence, an unstable attitude and full of danger at the moment. Not only does Bishop Tissier keep a more and more prolonged silence, but he counsels other to keep quiet. As Fr. Chazal heroically answered him, “When the shepherds are quiet, the dogs bark."

The wolf is in the sheepfold. We must cry out. But Bishop Tissier remains silent. Why ? Because he thinks that Bishop Fellay’s strategy worked and, in the end, it was not so bad after all. But let’s let him speak. It was in a private letter dated March 11, 2013. He is free to correct his thinking, but here is what he wrote to the author of these lines:

“The SSPX policy towards Rome up to and including the 2006 General Chapter, was to wait for the conversion of Rome before looking for a canonical structure. But this policy was been changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 following the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We can no longer hope for the total conversion of Rome. At that time, Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our criticism of the Council. So Rome more or less accepted our criticizing the Council. We could hope that Rome would give in. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (through Cardinal Levada) maintained the demand for acceptance of the Council as being “magisterial.”  Bishop Fellay signed nothing, refusing to accept that. That’s all! Bishop Fellay signed nothing and nothing happened and we have not been “excommunicated” as we were threatened by Cardinal Levada. And Benedict XVI has retired seeing that he had done “everything he could” to bring us back to the Council, and it did not work. There it is!

Then, dear Father, fight with Bishop Fellay, because in the end, his strategy worked: breaking nothing, ruining nothing, he maintained a relationship with the Romans which could be started up again with the new Pope, on a another and always doctrinal basis.”


“Policy- always doctrinal”

As we can see, Bishop Tissier is drawing closer and closer to Bishop Fellay. We can think that he did this in an attempt to save the Society, to maintain unity and to keep it on track without breaking it. It is a commendable desire, but the result is disastrous. It is too much to concede to Bishop Fellay to say that “finally and definitively, his strategy succeeded.” If the accord was not signed last June 13 it was because of a last minute maneuver by the Pope and Bishop Fellay who did not want to bring about a split in the Society and newly consecrated traditional bishops by Bishop Tissier. It was not the result Bishop Fellay’s reprehensible policy.

Bishop Fellay changed the decisions of the 2006 General Chapter and pushed an accord with Rome in more than ambiguous language. He affirms outrageous remarks that we would never have heard from the mouth of Abp. Lefebvre, outrageous remarks that only the members of Ecclesia Dei would be capable of saying . . . and all this even before an accord is signed. What will he do then if he comes to sign one in the future?

If there was a strategy of Bishop Fellay’s that succeeded, it was that of having muzzled all internal reaction in the SSPX. Even Bishop Tissier, so talented and yet so firm in exposing errors and seeing the heresies of the current popes, became silent when faced with the 180º shift in the Society against the decision of the 2006 General Chapter. He also kept quiet about Bishop Fellay’s absurd declarations.

But, as some say, did not the June 27 Declaration put a end to this affair? What are you waiting for—recognize that the Society has changed nothing of  its doctrine and orientation?

It is true that Bishop Tissier’s presence next to Bishop Fellay may make it look at first sight as if the doctrinal basis which Bishop Fellay lacks will be compensated for and that the legitimate promulgation of the New Mass, the acceptance of the New Code, the validity all the sacraments according to the new ritual (included confirmation etc.), will no longer be on the agenda. However, there is a real concern of quite the opposite, that the declaration of June 27 is vague on the new Mass: nowhere does it state that it was not legitimately promulgated. As for the other points of the declaration, they require a very careful study because of Bishop Fellay's contradictory statements.

We will wait to believe in the return of the Society to the orientation of Archbishop Lefebvre, to believe that the door of an agreement without the conversion of Rome is closed. However, if Bishop Fellay’s strategy was good, according to Bishop Tissier, the same strategy may be started up again. No, the door is not closed. Bishop Tissier, by approving Bishop Fellay’s strategy (that is to say “that Rome more or less accepts our criticizing the Council”),  affirms that he is no longer against a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. The June 27 Declaration says so explicitly in Article 11, where it claims to be able to criticize the errors. Menzigen’s conduct vis-à-vis priests, the faithful, and friendly communities confirms the pertinacity of the General Council of the Society in this new orientation.

Some say that Menzingen realizes that it was wrong. That is not true. To the contrary, Bishop Fellay has explicitly said that he does not admit to having committed any error except for being mistaken about the intentions of the Pope (see: Annex no. 4 to the Circular Letter to Society Priests of October 31, 2012 published by truetrad .) (1)

If Bishop Fellay regretted his attitude, all those who have been recently punished and expelled from the SSPX because of this crisis should be welcomed back and reintegrated into the Society.

But that’s not all. The Superior General speaks a new language which states that religious liberty is “very, very limited” in the texts of Vatican II. There is a declaration on the Council that its doctrines are, as he says, not quite what we thought (see: Bishop Fellay’s interview by CNS of May 11, 2012). And there is the General Council’s response of April 14, 2012, to the three bishops—we must keep all this in mind.  

We are waiting for unambiguous behavior by Menzingen, because in matters of the faith, there are no half measures. In matters of the faith, there are only two camps: that of Our Lord and that of His enemies. If Henry V did not want a crown because he must compromise with the revolution, all the more so we do not want to compromise with the enemies of the universal Reign of Our Lord.

We are told that in human affairs, we must compromise or we will never see the end of this crisis. To this we reply, with Bishop Freppel, that God does not ask victory from us, but combat. Put up with human failures, yes. We all have. But accept doctrinal compromises, we cannot.  Non possumus.

May Our Lady help us. She possesses the highest degree of horror of sin and error. It is for this horror that we ask, this horror which is characteristic of the Immaculate. In the end, her Heart with triumph and us with her; this is our firm hope. We wait for it, not through our merits, because we know that we do not deserve it, but through her motherly kindness. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus said, “Ask, ask, and He will give it to you, not because you deserve it, but because He is good.” It is from the goodness of God and she who He has given to us for a mother that we dare to hope for the final victory already promised. “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Fr. Th. d'Aquin

1.)From truetrad.com :
   4)  At the conference he gave to priests at Ecône on September 4, 2012, Bp. Fellay admitted that he had made a mistake.
In fact, the Superior General admitted that he had “been mistaken or been deceived” on a very precise and limited point. He was trying to understand the exact position of the Pope who, though knowing perfectly well our profound disagreement on Vatican II, evidently wanted to recognize us. The answer surmised by Bp. Fellay was the following: The Pope was agreeing to reduce the extent of the obligation of adhering to the Council in theological discussions concerning legitimate disputed points. It was only after receiving Card. Levada’s letter on June 13th that it became clear that the idea of the Council’s being optional and not obligatory in conscience, was false. It is only on this point that Bp. Fellay said that he had been mistaken.

Here is my very quick translation:

Quote

Three attitudes have been emerging in Tradition for some time.

The first, faithful to the directive of Abp. Lefebvre, continues to say: “No practical accord without the conversion of Rome.” It is the voice of good sense and of faith. This attitude is abused today because of what it says and it says that because St. Paul told us: “For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10.

The second searches for a so-called « necessary reconciliation » with the Conciliar Church. It is an approach contrary to good sense, contrary to the directives of Abp. Lefebvre as well as the resolution of the 2006 General Chapter which repeated: “No practical agreement without the conversion of Rome.”

This second attitude rests not on doctrine, but on diplomacy and on the abuse of authority. Diplomacy vis-à-vis Rome, abuse of authority vis-à-vis the good priests, threatened and hunted, vis-à-vis the faithful as well, denied the sacraments.

A third attitude sits between the first two. This attitude thinks rather like the first. It does not believe in this “necessary reconciliation,” but it waits and keeps silent. This attitude conveys, with numerous priests and faithful, an anxiety about what my happen to them. God alone knows the turmoil in the midst of families and communities and among priests. Faithful and priests know very well that if they begin to speak against the politics of Menzingen, the consequences will be brutal, like has already been seen in Mexico and elsewhere: faithful being denied holy communion, absolution, priests being transferred, expelled or reduced to a forced silence . . .
However, this third attitude tends to disappear, the people finding their place either with the first or the second. That because this behavior is unstable by definition, even though, for the faithful at least, it can last a long time. In Japan, the Catholic families kept silent about their faith for nearly two centuries. Some faithful will perhaps keep silent for a good while if they see themselves being denied the sacraments, the schools, etc.

But with the priests and above all the bishops, this attitude tends to disappear rather quickly through the choice of the first or second attitude. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was of the first attitude when he, with his confreres, wrote the Letter from the Three Bishops dated April 7, 2012 to the General Council. His approach was private, but his thoughts were known. Consequently, he gave an interview to Rivarol and did not hide his thoughts during conversations with several priests. Despite this, his position remains discreet.

But, little by little, Bishop Tissier has put himself into the third attitude, that of silence, an unstable attitude and full of danger at the moment. Not only does Bishop Tissier keep a more and more prolonged silence, but he counsels other to keep quiet. As Fr. Chazal heroically answered him, “When the shepherds are quiet, the dogs bark."

The wolf is in the sheepfold. We must cry out. But Bishop Tissier remains silent. Why ? Because he thinks that Bishop Fellay’s strategy worked and, in the end, it was not so bad after all. But let’s let him speak. It was in a private letter dated March 11, 2013. He is free to correct his thinking, but here is what he wrote to the author of these lines:

“The SSPX policy towards Rome up to and including the 2006 General Chapter, was to wait for the conversion of Rome before looking for a canonical structure. But this policy was been changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 following the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We can no longer hope for the total conversion of Rome. At that time, Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our criticism of the Council. So Rome more or less accepted our criticizing the Council. We could hope that Rome would give in. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (through Cardinal Levada) maintained the demand for acceptance of the Council as being “magisterial.”  Bishop Fellay signed nothing, refusing to accept that. That’s all! Bishop Fellay signed nothing and nothing happened and we have not been “excommunicated” as we were threatened by Cardinal Levada. And Benedict XVI has retired seeing that he had done “everything he could” to bring us back to the Council, and it did not work. There it is!

Then, dear Father, fight with Bishop Fellay, because in the end, his strategy worked: breaking nothing, ruining nothing, he maintained a relationship with the Romans which could be started up again with the new Pope, on a another and always doctrinal basis.”


“Policy- always doctrinal”

As we can see, Bishop Tissier is drawing closer and closer to Bishop Fellay. We can think that he did this in an attempt to save the Society, to maintain unity and to keep it on track without breaking it. It is a commendable desire, but the result is disastrous. It is too much to concede to Bishop Fellay to say that “finally and definitively, his strategy succeeded.” If the accord was not signed last June 13 it was because of a last minute maneuver by the Pope and Bishop Fellay who did not want to bring about a split in the Society and newly consecrated traditional bishops by Bishop Tissier. It was not the result Bishop Fellay’s reprehensible policy.

Bishop Fellay changed the decisions of the 2006 General Chapter and pushed an accord with Rome in more than ambiguous language. He affirms outrageous remarks that we would never have heard from the mouth of Abp. Lefebvre, outrageous remarks that only the members of Ecclesia Dei would be capable of saying . . . and all this even before an accord is signed. What will he do then if he comes to sign one in the future?

If there was a strategy of Bishop Fellay’s that succeeded, it was that of having muzzled all internal reaction in the SSPX. Even Bishop Tissier, so talented and yet so firm in exposing errors and seeing the heresies of the current popes, became silent when faced with the 180º shift in the Society against the decision of the 2006 General Chapter. He also kept quiet about Bishop Fellay’s absurd declarations.

But, as some say, did not the June 27 Declaration put a end to this affair? What are you waiting for—recognize that the Society has changed nothing of  its doctrine and orientation?

It is true that Bishop Tissier’s presence next to Bishop Fellay may make it look at first sight as if the doctrinal basis which Bishop Fellay lacks will be compensated for and that the legitimate promulgation of the New Mass, the acceptance of the New Code, the validity all the sacraments according to the new ritual (included confirmation etc.), will no longer be on the agenda. However, there is a real concern of quite the opposite, that the declaration of June 27 is vague on the new Mass: nowhere does it state that it was not legitimately promulgated. As for the other points of the declaration, they require a very careful study because of Bishop Fellay's contradictory statements.

We will wait to believe in the return of the Society to the orientation of Archbishop Lefebvre, to believe that the door of an agreement without the conversion of Rome is closed. However, if Bishop Fellay’s strategy was good, according to Bishop Tissier, the same strategy may be started up again. No, the door is not closed. Bishop Tissier, by approving Bishop Fellay’s strategy (that is to say “that Rome more or less accepts our criticizing the Council”),  affirms that he is no longer against a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. The June 27 Declaration says so explicitly in Article 11, where it claims to be able to criticize the errors. Menzigen’s conduct vis-à-vis priests, the faithful, and friendly communities confirms the pertinacity of the General Council of the Society in this new orientation.

Some say that Menzingen realizes that it was wrong. That is not true. To the contrary, Bishop Fellay has explicitly said that he does not admit to having committed any error except for being mistaken about the intentions of the Pope (see: Annex no. 4 to the Circular Letter to Society Priests of October 31, 2012 published by truetrad .) (1)

If Bishop Fellay regretted his attitude, all those who have been recently punished and expelled from the SSPX because of this crisis should be welcomed back and reintegrated into the Society.

But that’s not all. The Superior General speaks a new language which states that religious liberty is “very, very limited” in the texts of Vatican II. There is a declaration on the Council that its doctrines are, as he says, not quite what we thought (see: Bishop Fellay’s interview by CNS of May 11, 2012). And there is the General Council’s response of April 14, 2012, to the three bishops—we must keep all this in mind.  

We are waiting for unambiguous behavior by Menzingen, because in matters of the faith, there are no half measures. In matters of the faith, there are only two camps: that of Our Lord and that of His enemies. If Henry V did not want a crown because he must compromise with the revolution, all the more so we do not want to compromise with the enemies of the universal Reign of Our Lord.

We are told that in human affairs, we must compromise or we will never see the end of this crisis. To this we reply, with Bishop Freppel, that God does not ask victory from us, but combat. Put up with human failures, yes. We all have. But accept doctrinal compromises, we cannot.  Non possumus.

May Our Lady help us. She possesses the highest degree of horror of sin and error. It is for this horror that we ask, this horror which is characteristic of the Immaculate. In the end, her Heart with triumph and us with her; this is our firm hope. We wait for it, not through our merits, because we know that we do not deserve it, but through her motherly kindness. As St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus said, “Ask, ask, and He will give it to you, not because you deserve it, but because He is good.” It is from the goodness of God and she who He has given to us for a mother that we dare to hope for the final victory already promised. “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Fr. Th. d'Aquin

1.)From truetrad.com :
   4)  At the conference he gave to priests at Ecône on September 4, 2012, Bp. Fellay admitted that he had made a mistake.
In fact, the Superior General admitted that he had “been mistaken or been deceived” on a very precise and limited point. He was trying to understand the exact position of the Pope who, though knowing perfectly well our profound disagreement on Vatican II, evidently wanted to recognize us. The answer surmised by Bp. Fellay was the following: The Pope was agreeing to reduce the extent of the obligation of adhering to the Council in theological discussions concerning legitimate disputed points. It was only after receiving Card. Levada’s letter on June 13th that it became clear that the idea of the Council’s being optional and not obligatory in conscience, was false. It is only on this point that Bp. Fellay said that he had been mistaken.

:confused1:
Regardless of which interpretation is correct, WHY is the SSPX departing from the directions of ABL by talking with Rome when she remains obviously unconverted?  I can think of only one reason, a change in the hearts and minds of the leadership of the SSPX.