Author Topic: Letter Bp Tissier to Dom Toms OSB (Read 2979 times)

untitled · « **on:** July 20, 2013, 09:52:05 AM »

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.mx/2013/07/trois-courants-dom-thomas-daquin.html

trento · « **Reply #1 on:** July 20, 2013, 09:57:54 AM »

I think the title of the thread should read as Letter of Dom Toms OSB about Bp Tissier.

untitled · « **Reply #2 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:03:39 AM »

Letter of Bp. Tissier to Dom Thomas, QUOTE:

« La politique de la FSSPX envers Rome, jusqu’au Chapitre général de 2006 y compris, fut d’attendre une conversion de Rome avant de chercher une structure canonique. Mais cette politique a été changée par Mgr Fellay en 2011-2012 à la suite de l’opposition totale révélée par nos discussions avec Rome. On ne pouvait espérer aucune conversion totale de Rome. Alors Mgr Fellay a tenté de tester Rome sur notre critique du Concile. Que Rome accepte au moins que nous critiquions le Concile. On pouvait espérer que Rome cèderait. Mais le 13 juin 2012, Rome, (par le cardinal Levada) a maintenu l’exigence de l’acceptation du concile comme étant « magistériel »(1). Et SER Mgr Fellay n’a rien signé, refusant d’accepter cela. Voilà tout. Mgr Fellay n’a rien signé et rien ne s’est passé et nous n’avons pas été « excommuniés » comme nous en menaçait le Cardinal Levada. Et Benoît XVI s’est retiré voyant qu’il avait fait « tout ce qu’il pouvait » pour nous ramener au concile, et que ça n’avait pas marché. Voilà la chose. »
« Alors, cher Père, ne partez pas en bataille contre Mgr Fellay parce que finalement, en définitive, sa stratégie a réussi : sans rien casser, sans rien briser, il maintient une relation avec les Romains qui pourra repartir avec le nouveau Pape, sur une base encore et toujours doctrinale ».

inspiritu20 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:16:00 AM »

Quote

« Alors, cher Père, ne partez pas en bataille contre Mgr Fellay parce que finalement, en définitive, sa stratégie a réussi : sans rien casser, sans rien briser, il maintient une relation avec les Romains qui pourra repartir avec le nouveau Pape, sur une base encore et toujours doctrinale ».

Translation:

"So, dear Father, don't go into battle against Mgr Fellay, because, ultimately, his strategy has succeeded.

Without breaking anything, without smashing anything, he maintains a relationship with Rome which could continue with the new Pope, still and always on a doctrinal basis".

untitled · « **Reply #4 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:16:15 AM »

GOOGLE TRANSLATION:

"The policy of the SSPX to Rome until the General Chapter of 2006 including, was waiting for a conversion to Rome before seeking a canonical structure. But this policy was changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 as a result of total opposition revealed in our discussions with Rome. You could not expect any full conversion of Rome. So Bishop Fellay Rome attempted to test our critical of the Council. Rome accepts that at least we criticized the Council. It was hoped that Rome would sell. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of acceptance of the council as "magisterial" (1). And Msgr Fellay did not sign anything, refusing to accept that. That's all. Bishop Fellay has not signed anything and nothing happened and we have not been "excommunicated" as we threatened Cardinal Levada. And Benedict withdrew seeing he had made "everything he could" to bring us back to the council, and it did not work. That's the thing. "
"So, dear Father, do not go into battle against Bishop Fellay because ultimately, ultimately, its strategy was successful: without break, without breaking, it maintains a relationship with the Romans, who will walk away with the new Pope, on even doctrinal basis and always. "

Frances · « **Reply #5 on:** July 20, 2013, 02:14:22 PM »

:thinking:
I wish my French were better. From what I understand of the Google translation, nothing has changed regarding the position of the Resistance. In 2011 and 2012, Bp. Fellay decided efforts to convert Rome FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING HER TO ACCEPT THE SOCIETY was not working. (Already, in the mid-1990s by participating in GREC, Bp. Fellay had swerved from the the purpose of the SSPX as set by Archbishop Lefebvre.) So Bp. F. began to equivocate and compromise, using ambiguous language in the attempt to get the SSPX recognized. When that also failed, he had to save face with the Society by explaining-away his actions. His other choice was to listen to the voice of reason, the letter of the three bishops, but that would entail humbling himself and admitting he'd been wrong.

Thus far, the S.G. has taken no personal responsibility for his actions and words. He has left it to his priests to explain away and has given excuses, placing blame elsewhere. "I was deceived..." Yes. The victim of a fraud, once realizing he has been led astray, is still responsible for his actions while under the deception. If those involve sin, especially sins against the Faith that have harmed others, he is morally obligated to repent, confess, do penance and repair the damage in so far as he is able.

If I were to go to Confession and confess to the following,

Me: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I am a married woman, but I met a man with whom I began to talk, and to go out for lunch. I wished I had married him instead of my husband, but I still love my husband, or, at least I'm still willing to live with him for the sake of my children. But you see, my lover deceived me. He said we could be together and I could still keep my husband. At last, he refused me because I won't divorce. Just about then, my husband somehow found out through two of our adult children. So I told him everything is okay because my lover doesn't want me anymore. I tried to tell my husband that I'd been deceived, but he has moved out with two of our 12. He's trying to get custody of the 10 who are still minors. It's not fair because I was tricked. I want to go back to how it was before, but my husband and two kids are persecuting me."
Priest: "So you are an adulterer, a liar, and an unfit mother. These are serious sins. Are you sorry for them?"
Me: "Yes, I was tricked. I didn't INTEND for things to go as they have. Now, my husband is sinning against me, my kids, too! They need to come back home. They've willfully abandoned the family. I was deceived. I promise to have no dealings with my lover until he puts things right." [paragraph #11, June 27 declaration]

What priest would absolve me? Not even Bp. Fellay! Let's pray for God to raise up a Nathan for Bp. Fellay as He did for King David after he sinned with Bathsheba.

InDominoSperavi · « **Reply #6 on:** July 20, 2013, 04:30:23 PM »

Dear friends, we have to be careful with Google translate, because sometimes it gives a false sense. My English is bad, but I 'll try to correct the wrong meaning of certain sentences :

"The policy of the SSPX towards Rome until the General Chapter of 2006 included, was to wait for a conversion of Rome before seeking a canonical structure. But this policy was changed by Bishop Fellay in 2011-2012 after the total opposition revealed by our discussions with Rome. We could not expect any full conversion of Rome. So Bishop Fellay tried to test Rome on our critic of the Council. [he tried] That Rome accepts at least that we criticized the Council. It was hoped that Rome would accept. But on June 13, 2012, Rome (by Cardinal Levada) maintained the requirement of acceptance of the council as "magisterial" (1). And Bp Fellay did not sign anything, refusing to accept that. That's all. Bishop Fellay has not signed anything and nothing happened and we have not been "excommunicated" as Cardinal Levada threatened us. And Benedict XVI withdrew, seeing he had made "everything he could" to bring us back to the council, and that it did not work. That's the thing. "
"So, dear Father, do not go into battle against Bishop Fellay because finally, ultimately, its strategy was successful: without break, without breaking, it maintains a relationship with the Romans, [a relationship] which will be able to begin again with the new Pope, on a basis which [will be] still and always doctrinal. "

Dom Thomas said that because Bp Tissier says that Bp Fellay's strategy was successful, it means that Bp Tissier is not against a practical deal with Rome anymore.
He also said that the end of the quote shows that they are ready to begin again with the new pope and so the will to make an agreement with Rome is confirmed.
So he said to be careful with the 27th June declaration because this declaration is not clear : for instance, it does not say that the new mass is not legitimately promulgated, and the article 11 means that the will of a practical deal is not dead.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2013, 10:19:17 PM »

.

Frances, not a bad parallel - but I would recommend four more details:

Quote from: Frances

:thinking:
I wish my French were better. From what I understand of the Google translation, nothing has changed regarding the position of the Resistance. In 2011 and 2012, Bp. Fellay decided efforts to convert Rome FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING HER TO ACCEPT THE SOCIETY was not working. (Already, in the mid-1990s by participating in GREC, Bp. Fellay had swerved from the the purpose of the SSPX as set by Archbishop Lefebvre.) So Bp. F. began to equivocate and compromise, using ambiguous language in the attempt to get the SSPX recognized. When that also failed, he had to save face with the Society by explaining-away his actions. His other choice was to listen to the voice of reason, the letter of the three bishops, but that would entail humbling himself and admitting he'd been wrong.

Thus far, the S.G. has taken no personal responsibility for his actions and words. He has left it to his priests to explain away and has given excuses, placing blame elsewhere. "I was deceived..." Yes. The victim of a fraud, once realizing he has been led astray, is still responsible for his actions while under the deception. If those involve sin, especially sins against the Faith that have harmed others, he is morally obligated to repent, confess, do penance and repair the damage in so far as he is able.

If I were to go to Confession and confess to the following,

Me: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I am a married woman, but I met a man with whom I began to talk, and to go out for lunch. I wished I had married him instead of my husband, but I still love my husband, or, at least I'm still willing to live with him for the sake of my children. But you see, my lover deceived me. He said we could be together and I could still keep my husband. At last, he refused me because I won't divorce.

Could say, "At last, he refused me because I couldn't quite
convince my family that a double mind would be okay, you
know, that they could have two daddies in our family."

Obviously, the following sentence wouldn't fit, then:

Quote

~~Just about then, my husband somehow found out through two of our adult children.~~ So I told him everything is okay because my lover doesn't want me anymore. I tried to tell my husband that I'd been deceived, but he has moved out with two of our 12.

And in a fit of rage, I told my eldest two to "get out!" - because
they were disobedient! They didn't respect my grace of state!
They would not believe in my prudence!

Quote

Now my husband's trying to get custody of the 10 who are still minors. It's not fair because I was tricked. I want to go back to how it was before, but my husband and two kids are persecuting me."

Priest: "So you are an adultress, a liar, and an unfit mother. These are serious sins. Are you sorry for them?"

Me: "Yes, I was tricked. I didn't INTEND for things to go as they have. Now, my husband is sinning against me, my kids, too! They need to come back home. They've willfully abandoned the family. I was deceived. I promise to have no dealings with my lover until he puts things right,.."

"..or, at least until he agrees to allow me the freedom to criticize
his PREVIOUS WIFE, whom he has not divorced." [Cf. paragraph
#11, June 27 declaration]

Quote

What priest would absolve me? Not even Bp. Fellay! Let's pray for God to raise up a Nathan for Bp. Fellay as He did for King David after he sinned with Bathsheba.

Okay, you pray for a Nathan and I'll pray for a David. HAHAHAHAHA

Incredulous · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:09:20 PM »

If I were to go to Confession and confess to the following,

Me: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I am a married woman, but I met a man with whom I began to talk, and to go out for lunch. I wished I had married him instead of my husband, but I still love my husband, or, at least I'm still willing to live with him for the sake of my children. But you see, my lover deceived me. He said we could be together and I could still keep my husband. At last, he refused me because I won't divorce. Just about then, my husband somehow found out through two of our adult children. So I told him everything is okay because my lover doesn't want me anymore. I tried to tell my husband that I'd been deceived, but he has moved out with two of our 12. He's trying to get custody of the 10 who are still minors. It's not fair because I was tricked. I want to go back to how it was before, but my husband and two kids are persecuting me."

[/quote]

http://blogs.babycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jenelle-evans-mugshot.jpg

Anyway, it was not my fault.

Frances · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:25:49 PM »

:applause:
Neil- Good revision until the end.
:devil2:
I take no delight in Bishop Fellay losing his soul. God takes no delight in it, either.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:27:37 PM »

.

Tags, man, tags.

Quote from: Incredulous

Quote from: Frances
If I were to go to Confession and confess to the following,

Me: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I am a married woman, but I met a man with whom I began to talk, and to go out for lunch. I wished I had married him instead of my husband, but I still love my husband, or, at least I'm still willing to live with him for the sake of my children. But you see, my lover deceived me. He said we could be together and I could still keep my husband. At last, he refused me because I won't divorce. Just about then, my husband somehow found out through two of our adult children. So I told him everything is okay because my lover doesn't want me anymore. I tried to tell my husband that I'd been deceived, but he has moved out with two of our 12. He's trying to get custody of the 10 who are still minors. It's not fair because I was tricked. I want to go back to how it was before, but my husband and two kids are persecuting me."

Anyway, it was not my fault.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2013, 11:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:applause:
Neil- Good revision until the end.
:devil2:
I take no delight in Bishop Fellay losing his soul. God takes no delight in it, either.

N.B. The nice part about a slingshot is, the rock is
PROBABLY only a minor head injury. So he would be
out of commission long enough to tie him up, basically.
Well, it's the thought that counts, eh?

Oh, I know -- how about the Newage David and Goliath??

Let's all ask Fr. Pfeiffer what he thinks of that idea!!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2013, 08:40:45 AM »

Quote from: trento

I think the title of the thread should read as Letter of Dom Toms OSB about Bp Tissier.

Make that "Dom Tomas de Aquino OSB - on Letter from Bp Tissier"

The CI platform allows hyphen (-) but not tilde (~) in thread titles.

I think the guy posting this thread used characters that the
CI platform disallows and that's why they don't show up
in the title. It's not the members' fault that this happens.
There is NO WAY to preview what the appearance of your
thread title will be after you submit it, and once you click
the "Create Thread" button (this is an abuse of the word,
Create, by the way! Only God creates. Man MAKES) you
get what you get, and there is no way to change it. Nor
is there any list of disallowed characters anywhere on this
forum.

Therefore, it seems to me that "untitled" had submitted
something like the following:

Letter~ Bp Tissier to Dom Tomás OSB

..and, the tilde (~) and the accented a (á) are both
characters disallowed by the CI platform without any
warning or any way of previewing the fact, so they just
were dumped, and that's all she wrote.

Elsa Zardini · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2013, 02:31:15 PM »

All right Neil. We are starting to talk. BTW, I am not concerned if I am banned from cathInfo...not the only Resistant site, but very useful site to know where each one stands...

Elsa Zardini · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2013, 02:42:41 PM »

InDominoSperavi, you said it "Dom Thomas said that because Bp Tissier says that Bp Fellay's strategy was successful, it means that Bp Tissier is not against a practical deal with Rome anymore.
He also said that the end of the quote shows that they are ready to begin again with the new pope and so the will to make an agreement with Rome is confirmed.
So he said to be careful with the 27th June declaration because this declaration is not clear : for instance, it does not say that the new mass is not legitimately promulgated, and the article 11 means that the will of a practical deal is not dead".