Conciliar Reconciliation: Bishop Tissier - "We say Go!"


Deleted member 149

Within a recent interview of Bishop Tissier (March 21, 2016), a question was asked:


Now, twenty-five years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, where is the future of the Society?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais - 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 to unilaterally recognize the Brotherhood. 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) of the 1988 excommunications In 2010-2011 , 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 was 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 and they still need progress.

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 André Cagnon in 1990, he would have never 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, a practical wisdom, 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!



In a lecture to his seminarians in September 1988:

"I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations."

Magazine interview fideliter No. 66, 1988:

"I can not say much about the future as mine is behind me. But if I live a bit further and assuming that within a certain time Roma make a call, you want to meet again, resuming dialogue, then it would be me who would impose conditions. I will accept no more be in the situation we encountered during the talks. This is over. Raise the issue at the doctrinal level, "you agree with all the great encyclicals of the popes who preceded them ? Are they agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas Leo XIII, Pius X Pascendi, Quas Primas Pius XI, Pius XII Humani Generis? Are they in full communion with these popes and their statements? Do you still accept the anti - modernist oath? Are they in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? ". If you do not accept the doctrine of their predecessors, it is useless to speak. While they have not agreed to reform the Council considering the doctrine of these popes who preceded them , no dialogue is possible. It's useless."

Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89:

"Do not be surprised if we do not understand with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We crashed at a point of the Catholic faith "

Conference Flavigny, 1 December 1988; Fideliter No. 68:

"When we ask the question to know when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome re-crowned Our Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but the Catholic Church in which we stand ".

Conference at the end of the priestly removal ofSeptember month of 1990 in Ecône:

"But they betray us. They shake hands with those who demolished the church, those with modernist and liberal ideas and therefore condemned by the Church. So far, they do the devil 's work, they working with us for the kingdom of our Lord and the salvation of souls.

"Oh, whenever we remember the good Mass, we can shake hands to Rome, no problem" Look how it works! They are at an impasse because both can not shake hands with modernists and want to preserve tradition. How they want them to have confidence to people like these that justify the denial of Quanta Cura, of Pascendi, decisions of the Biblical Commission, etc ...

Fideliter No. 79, January 1991:

"The Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All Council misconceptions continue to be developed and reaffirming ever more clearly. They hide less and less. It is inconceivable in every way that we can accept collaborate with such a hierarchy. "

"The problems with Roma are not at all to our liking. Having to argue it was not by choice. We have done so for reasons of principle, to keep the Catholic faith. [Some] agreed with us and worked together. But suddenly they have abandoned the true battle for allying with those who are destroying the Church, on the pretext that they are granted privileges

It is unacceptable. De facto have abandoned the fight of faith, and can no longer cope with Rome. "

Fideliter No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991:

Q: But there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
A: That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions Roma aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome.

In his book "Spiritual Journey":

"Every priest who wants to remain Catholic has the strict duty to separate from the church to reconcile."

Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

Yes sadness is right. I had a glimmer of hope for him. Yet when one stays in a compromised environment, one takes on the compromise themselves. Another proof that an "internal" resistance is untenable. Just the same as BF want to be an "internal" resistance within the conciliar structure; same failure, and a 50 years old failure at that.

Deleted member 149

Damage control!

The neo-sspx superiors put up Bishop Tissier's interview on their media arm; but not true to form. They removed Bishop Tissier's words of expression "Nous disons ‘Pouce !" which means - "We say 'Go!" in english; to something different. They wrote instead: "We say "Prudence!"". The french word for prudence is "prudence"; it is the same spelling as english. Bishop Tissier did NOT say "Nous disons 'Prudence'. He said: "Nous disons ‘Pouce !" - "We say 'Go!"

Why the change? Why hide their agenda?

Unwitting Lambs to the slaughter...