Mail (rivarol.com)Computer Translation from the FrenchBy Rémi SÉNÉCHAL:
ON THE LETTER FROM FATHER PINAUDThe reading of Father Pinaud's open letter to Father de Jorna published in RIVAROL n°3563 of 26 April 2023 calls for a major correction, which also partly discredits the article.
Father Pinaud writes that "Father B., former monk of the abbey of Flavigny [...] collaborated for ten years in the apostolate of the SSPX, before being dismissed". This is simply not true. Father B. was not removed, he freely resigned from this post, and "not at all for reasons of ordination" confirms the Abbot of Jorna, current District Superior.
Above all, Father B. could not be dismissed for not having accepted "to be re-ordained a priest under conditions" since, as soon as he left the monastery and his approach to Econe, the SSPX studied his formation and ordination and concluded that it was valid before letting him exercise any apostolate. Father B. still collaborates with the SSPX today.
Father Pinaud quotes his source, which is a private correspondence from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to a faithful dated June 20, 2022: "Father B., former monk of the monastery of Saint-Joseph de Flavigny, does not collaborate in the works of the Society of St. Pius X, because he does not accept the proposal we made to him to be re-ordained a priest under condition, to remove any doubt, and any hesitation on the part of the faithful.
In the same letter, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais affirms "as for priestly ordination in the rite of Paul VI, I consider it valid" and that he does not question either the intention of the Bishop who ordained the monks of Flavigny, Bishop Coloni, nor its episcopal character.
These words lack coherence. The SSPX would not have entrusted this important apostolate for a decade to a priest whose ordination was doubtful. Then, if Paul VI's ordination rite is valid, the bishop is indeed a bishop and his intention — after study — is declared compliant, why propose to Father B. a conditional re-ordination?
To argue that in 1998, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais wrote the opposite is an abuse (cf. the letter of August 12, 1998). In 2022, as in 1998, Monsignor recognizes the doubtful character — as to the intention — of the new ordination rite and follows Archbishop Lefebvre's advice. In the letter of August 12, 1998, he mentions only three doubtful cases relating to the subject, where doubt has been removed: the consecration of Bishop Lustiger, that of Bishop Coloni, and the priestly ordinations made by him.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, ill-informed, wrote a first letter (the one mentioned above), but then, better informed, corrected the first letter by writing a second. In the latter, addressed to Father B., Bishop Tissier apologizes in affectionate words and expresses his regret for having written these lines because in fact he no longer remembered what had happened.
Moreover, we can regret the lack of communication (internal and external) on the part of the authorities of the Society about the validity of the ordination and consecration of Bishop Huonder, this creates a certain uneasiness among many priests and faithful. On the other hand, the studies were done both within the SSPX and in Avrillé and ordination and consecration were considered valid.
Every man is entitled to his reputation, a priest of Our Lord Jesus Christ all the more.
From Father Nicolas PINAUD (informed of the letter of Mr. Rémi SÉNÉCHAL so that he can answer in the same issue where he is implicated by this reader): REPLY TO MR. RÉMI SÉNÉCHAL
Far be it from me to damage anyone's reputation, would he be a doubtful priest!
If I quoted this letter from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of June 20, 2022, it is not so much for the particular case it deals, but rather for the general statements it expresses.
The confirmation of Father de Jorna does not matter to me, since Father B. himself confided to me the reasons that led him to leave the retirement home of the Fr., then that of Caussade. Mr. Rémi Sénéchal, writes: "Father B. still collaborates today with the SSPX." Perhaps and through the Capuchins of Morgon, which probably no longer allows him to celebrate marriages in the places of worship of the SSPX. I still remember the pressure exerted on Father B. by the previous District Superior, Father Bouchacourt, to "regularize" (!) his situation. At that time Father B. offered me his help in my own ministry as a priest excluded from the SSPX. This proposal had also been an opportunity for the priests of the USML (Union Sacerdotale Marcel Lefebvre) to undertake to refuse any collaboration with ordained or sacred ecclesiastics in the Reformed rite unless they were ordained or consecrated conditionally.
But let us return to these interesting statements in the letter of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. What are they?
— "To remove all doubt." Isn't this affirming the possibility that there may be doubts?
— "and any hesitation on the part of the faithful." Is this not a recognition of a certain legitimacy to the doubts expressed by the faithful? This pastoral attitude of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais should be emphasized. It contrasts sharply with the all-too-common clericalist invitation: "You are not educated enough to understand, trust the superiors"!
But above all, this letter clearly states a positive judgment on the validity of the Reformed rite: "As for priestly ordination according to the rite of Paul VI, I consider it valid."
This seems to show that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has changed his mind with regard to this letter he addressed to the Superior of the convent of Avrillé on August 12, 1998: "Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Cosmaraswany's pamphlet, The Anglican Drama.
"Having read it quickly, I conclude that I have doubts about the validity of the episcopal consecrations conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The "spiritum principalem" of the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense. "
Is Mr. Rémi Sénéchal honest when he says that there is no contradiction between the 1998 letter and that of 2022?
How can he still affirm that in both cases Bishop Tissier de Mallerais considers only the intention, when he wrote in 1998: "The 'spiritum principalem' of the FORM introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself"?
This lack of coherence can only encourage doubt.
A doubt that Mr. Rémi Sénéchal himself seems to highlight when he writes: "If the rite of ordination is valid, that the bishop is indeed bishop and that his intention is declared conforming...?"
That's a lot of "ifs"!
As regards this declaration of conformity of intent, which authority is competent forOr decree it with certainty? Bishop Tissier in 1998? Bishop Tissier of 2022? The Dominicans of Avrillé? The SSPX? why not the Capuchins of Morgon or the Benedictines of Bellaigue? Father Calderon, "the best professor of theology in our seminary in Argentina", according to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais? Why not the best professor of theology at the seminary of Ecône or elsewhere?!
Mr. Rémi Sénéchal writes: "the studies were done both within the SSPX and in Avrillé and ordination and consecration were considered valid."
This is a purely gratuitous assertion that would need to be demonstrated! Has Mr. Rémi Sénéchal read these studies? If so, probably too quickly. For these studies, if they attempt, indeed, to prove the validity of the Reformed sacraments, all conclude, out of prudence, that it is preferable to envisage the administration of sacraments under conditions.
As proof — it could be multiplied — the conclusion of the review of the long article on the question of episcopal consecrations according to the rite of Paul VI of Father Alvaro Calderón. This review published in the Salt of the Earth number 92 (Spring 2015) p. 178, under the pen of Fr. Pierre-Marie, superior of the convent of Avrillé, ends as follows: "But the positive and objective defects from which the new rite suffers justify a conditional reordination of the priests ordained by these 'new bishops' and a conditional consecration of the bishops sacred under the new rite".
Is that clear?
In the past, I have heard Father de Jorna say the following: "The purpose of the SSPX is to preserve the certainty of the validity of the sacraments." Whether these words are his own, I do not know, but they seemed to me a fairly accurate definition of the providential role of Archbishop Lefebvre's work... With this consecration of the Oils by Bishop Huonder, on Holy Thursday 2023, the SSPX provokes, with unprecedented lightness, doubt in the sacraments that its bishops and priests administer.
That French colleagues, on the pretext that this initiative is taking place on German soil, pretend to be indifferent to it, is simply a shame.
If regret, there must be, it does not primarily concern a "lack of communication (internal and external) on the part of the authorities of the Society about the validity of the ordination and consecration of Bishop Huonder... " as Mr. Rémi Sénéchal writes.
On the contrary, let us admire the magical communication developed by the SSPX on Bishop Huonder since last Holy Thursday... not for a moment does it address the scandalous activities that this clergyman carried out in the past and that he never retracted: ecuмenism and theological relations with the Jews, to name but a few. These scandalous facts were opportunely recalled by Father Rousseau in a conference of April 27, available on the Internet: "Bishop Huonder and the Holy Oils" ().
What is regrettable on the part of the SSPX authorities is the desire to forget the teaching of their Founder: "You know, my dear brothers, you know that there can be no priests without bishops. All these seminarians who are present here, if tomorrow the good Lord calls me back, and it will probably be without delay, well, these seminarians, from whom will they receive The sacrament of Holy Orders? Council bishops, whose sacraments are all doubtful because we do not know exactly what their intentions are? That's not possible. But which bishops have kept Tradition, who have kept the sacraments as the Church gave them for twenty centuries until the Second Vatican Council? Well, it's Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I can't help it, but that's the way it is."
Mr. Rémi Sénéchal did not defend the cause he wanted to serve, but I thank him for allowing me to clarify things, perhaps too briefly, but we can come back to that.
The doubt exists, it remains and is confirmed, again, by the fact that German priests of the SSPX refuse to use the oils consecrated by Bishop Huonder on April 6. Honor to them!
Topic: Fr Pinaud Refutes Challenge re Doubtful Bishop Huonder (Read 2153 times)