SSPX bishop rips Pope Benedict

"Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said that he was disappointed with the leadership of Pope Benedict. 'It has been year now, and he has done nothing!' he told The Remnant."

* chuckle * A whole year, and the pope has not cleaned up the entire Church!!

Saddened, but not surprised.

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

His Excellency
The Right Reverend

Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

His Lordship Bishop Tissier de Mallerais offers us some useful reflections on the divine constitution of the Church, on the current crisis of the papacy and sedevacantism...

Fideliter: Your Excellency, didn't the prospect of being consecrated bishop without the consent, and even contrary to the explicit will, of the pope frighten you?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: My feelings don't matter: whether I felt fear and anxiety, or doubt and hesitation, or, on the contrary, joy and enthusiasm, is only secondary. The most I would say is that I felt reassured about the fate of Catholic Tradition, which would be safeguarded by "Operation Survival."

Fideliter: Certainly, we understand that you might prefer to keep your feelings to yourself, but tell us, what were your thoughts?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Firstly, I was assured that, by such a consecration, even carried out against the will of the pope, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself nor my confreres were creating a schism, since the Archbishop did not intend to assign us any jurisdiction, or a particular flock. "The mere fact of consecrating a bishop [against the will of the pope] is not in itself a schismatic act," declared Cardinal Castillo Lara (President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts; quoted from an interview given to the newspaper La Repubblica, 10 July 1988.) a few days after the event; and Fr. Patrick Valdrini also explained, "It is not the consecration of a bishop [against the pope's will] that creates a schism...; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission." (Doyen of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris; interview appearing in Valeurs Actuelles, 4 July 1988.)

Fideliter: But didn't Archbishop Lefebvre confer upon you an apostolic mission?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre told us: "You are bishops for the Church, for the Society; you will give the sacrament of Confirmation and confer Holy Orders; you will preach the faith." That is all. He did not say, "I confer these powers to you"; he simply indicated to us what our role would be. The jurisdiction that he did not give us-which he could not give us-and which the pope refused to give us, has been supplied by the Church, who gives it to us because of the state of necessity of the faithful. It is a suppletory jurisdiction, of the same nature as that which is accorded to priests by Canon Law in other cases of necessity. An example would be the jurisdiction to administer the sacrament of confession validly in the case of common error or positive and probable doubt, of right or of fact, about the jurisdiction of a priest (canon 209). In such a case, the Church has the habit of supplying the jurisdiction that might be lacking to the minister: "Ecclesia supplet."

Fideliter: So, by receiving the episcopal consecration in such circumstances and by exercising its power, you were able to be sure that you were not usurping any jurisdiction.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, no ordinary jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works.

Fideliter: Your consecration, then, Your Excellency, did not create a schism.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, not in any way. But a touchier question was talked about as far back as 1983, when Archbishop Lefebvre, confronted with the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by John Paul II, began to seriously consider consecrating one or more bishops: would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the "formal apostolic succession"? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops?

Fideliter: And that is a more difficult question to resolve than the one about jurisdiction, you say?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Yes, because it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident...unless you were to suppose...

Fideliter: Your Excellency, certainly you are not a sedevacantist?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No, in fact. But it must be recognized that if we could affirm that, for reasons of heresy, schism, or some defect in the secret election, the pope was not really pope, if we could pronounce such a judgment, the answer to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear. The trouble, if I can so express it, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor myself were or are sedevacantists.

Fideliter: Yet Archbishop Lefebvre was very reserved about the situation of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: That is correct. He said more than once about these popes-about Paul VI from 1976, and about John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 - that he did not exclude the possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these men had not been popes. But for himself, he preferred to consider them as popes. This supposes that he did not feel that he possessed sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts nor the necessary power for making such a judgment. This is of critical importance to bear in mind.

For instance, the abrupt logic of a Fr. Guérard des Lauriers led to the former conclusion: "The pope promulgated a heresy [with religious liberty], hence he is a heretic, hence he is not formally pope." But the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre made him feel, to the contrary, that the premises of this reasoning were as shaky as the authority that formulated it, be it that of a theologian or even a bishop.

Fideliter: How then did Archbishop Lefebvre resolve the dilemma?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: The Archbishop left the theological question open. Our venerable confrere, the late Alois Kocher used to say: "Let's leave this question to the theologians of the 21^st century! " Our founder took the problem from a higher perspective and resolved it in the most down-to-earth manner possible. It is the mark of the supernatural intuition that he possessed, and of the action in him of the gift of wisdom, gift of the Holy Ghost.

Fideliter: Do you mean that Archbishop Lefebvre received a divine illumination to carry out these consecrations?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Not at all; but he had an exceptional understanding of the crisis of the papacy. Do not forget that this man who had been Apostolic Delegate in Africa for ten years, friend and confidant of Pope Pius XII, faithful disciple of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI, who had a perfect knowledge of the eternal Catholic Rome, was able to penetrate deeper than anyone the mystery of iniquity that had been unfolding at Rome since Vatican II: the mystery of the occupation of the See of Peter by a foreign, antichrist ideology, with its practical negation of the royalty, and hence the divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do not forget, after all, that this is what the doctrine of religious liberty constitutes; that the Assisi reunion of 1986 was, as Bishop de Castro Mayer stated so magnificently in 1988, "the recognition of the divinity of paganism"; that ecumenism is nothing else than the quest for a universality greater than the Catholic Church. All these acts constitute as many execrable blasphemies, which Archbishop Lefebvre, because of his lively faith and his constant union with our Lord Jesus Christ, perceived as being addressed directly against our Lord.

So, confronted by this mystery, he did not wish to resolve it, but rather to make the practical decision rendered necessary by the needs of the body of the faithful, and justified by the existence of this mystery, a mystery of iniquity.

Fideliter: But what about the promises made to Peter that, the Church being founded upon the faith of Peter, the gates of hell would not prevail against her?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre believed with his whole heart in this truth of faith. But to what extent might this promise be nonetheless compatible with a serious deficiency of the pope in his preaching of the faith, a deficiency that would be obvious? Archbishop Lefebvre replied, "The facts speak for themselves!"

Fideliter: On the eve of the consecrations, didn't Archbishop Lefebvre speak to the four future bishops about this extremely grave problem and the wise solution he had adopted?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: With an extraordinary wisdom, so profound and yet so practical, so as to astonish our limited minds, for in fact, he did not! On the eve of the consecrations, he simply gave us bits of practical advice on the way to preach, the use of the mitre keeping patience with the master of ceremonies, and so on. You see, it was really down to earth.

But if you want a brief expose of the wisdom of judgment about which we were speaking, it is to a writing of March 1984 that you must have recourse. Everything is set forth there with remarkable gravity, depth and force. I quote:
The current state of the papacy renders insignificant the difficulties over jurisdiction, disobedience and apostolicity, because these notions suppose the reign of a pope Catholic in his faith and government. Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not, after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Carton Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.

Fideliter: What a terrible, a crushing, judgment. How could anyone dare to say such a thing? Who can say such a thing?

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre alone could rightly make such a pronouncement. He was also the only one with the moral authority to make the decision to consecrate bishops. There was no one else. That is why it was not by my own insights that I agreed to receive the episcopal consecration, understand well. "Only Archbishop Lefebvre could decide to consecrate, he alone received the grace to make the decision. As for us, we have the grace to follow him." It is by these very simple, beautiful words of one of my confreres in the Society that I must conclude: they express my profound conviction, my unshakeable certainty, that I am in the right path.

And when Rome comes to herself, we four bishops, together with Bishop Rangel, or our successors, will depose our episcopacy between the hands of Peter, so that he may deign, Deo volente, confirm it or do with it what he will. Such was our disposition on June 30, 1988, such remains our resolve, our confidence, and our attitude. Meanwhile, let us carry on the fight for the Faith! W

INTERVIEW FROM ABOVE LINK

My interview with His Lordship, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, of the Society of St. Pius X, for the print version of the Remnant

This is the complete text of my interview that I submitted for the April 30, 2006 edition of the Remnant. It runs about 10 pages long. Special thanks to the Society priests and brothers both in America and in Europe that helped make this interview possible through their kind cooperation as well as to Michael Matt who authorized this online publication to coincide with the release of the print issue.

When you are done reading this lengthy text, you may find links to articles commenting on it here.

As we go to press the April Angelus has the entire and unedited text of the February Bishop Fellay Denver Conference which I first broke in summary here, here, and here with corrections and approval from His Lordship.

Interview with His Lordship, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Colton, California, 21 April 2006
Stephen L.M. Heiner
On behalf of the Remnant

I have met Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais on only one previous occasion – at the 1997 ordination of Fr. Frank Kurtz. Knowing him to be knowledgeable about canon law, I put to him some questions regarding the idea of the “intrinsically evil” nature of the New Mass. He kindly gave me some of his time and explained to me in short order his thoughts on the matter. His courtesy and gentleness struck a chord, especially as I had just watched him celebrate Mass in one of the most precise and holy ways I had ever seen.

I expressed my desire to interview His Lordship to Michael Matt, who allowed me to hunt him down – as I’m not European and my French and German are rusty, at best, I finally tracked him down in Econe (it’s 2am in California when it is midmorning in Switzerland, so I was tired and speaking bad French) and got permission to see him in Colton while he was here for Confirmations. The interview was recorded in person and took approximately 45 minutes.

The text below has been vetted by His Lordship for textual and factual accuracy. As of publication the text of this entire interview has been approved of by him. I use and prefer the use of “Your Lordship” to the more contemporary “Your Excellency” and that explains its appearance throughout the text.

S.H.: My lord, there is a text that Zenit released on 7 April that includes some statements from the French episcopate upon the end of their plenary assembly:

“Truth implies being clear on our points of dissension. These points include acceptance of the Magisterium more than questions of liturgy, in particular, that of the Second Vatican Council and of Popes of the last decades. Communion may be accompanied by questions, requests for precision or further reflection. It cannot tolerate a systematic rejection of the council, criticism of its teaching, or denigration of the liturgical reform decreed by the council.”

Furthermore, AngelQueen.org recently released an “exclusive interview” with Bishop Rifan from the diocese of Campos. Within the text of the interview His Lordship states (through a subordinate) that essentially so-called “practical, effective” communion within the Roman Rite is demonstrated by concelebration in the Novus Ordo, citing canon 751.

How do you respond to these comments regarding “communion” as a Roman Rite bishop who recognizes the valid election of Benedict XVI?

H.L. Firstly, I am not familiar with this text. I do not know it. It is not interesting to me, I do not follow such news. That is not the problem here. The problem is not “communion.” That is the stupid idea of these bishops since Vatican II – there is not a problem of communion, there is a problem of the profession of faith. “Communion” is nothing, it is an invention of the Second Vatican Council. The essential thing is that these people (the bishops) do not have the Catholic Faith. “Communion” does not mean anything to me – it is a slogan of the new Church. The definition of the new Church is “communion” but it was never the definition of the Catholic Church. I can only give you the definition of the Church as it has been understood traditionally.

S.H. And what is that, my lord?

H.L. The Church is a visible society, of those who are baptized, profess the Catholic faith, and submit to the Roman Pontiff. These three elements are essential and necessary – so that is all that matters to me – “communion” means nothing to me.

If I had something important to tell you it is that these people have lost the Faith – especially faith in the mystery and dogma of the Redemption. Because, you know, the Second Vatican Council did not say a single thing about Redemption. The liturgical reform, yes, it falsified completely the mystery of redemption.

S.H. Well, this Council, of course, was something that the Holy Father worked closely on as a theologian. You were acquainted with him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988 and I know that you dealt with him closely regarding the “negotiations” at the time. You’ve had the chance to observe him over a year (it has just been a few days since the anniversary of his election) – has there been a change in his words, actions, or tone since he has become the Holy Father?

H.L. I knew him as a negotiator, who wanted to reconcile us, to reintroduce us into the Conciliar Church. He was thus to me, a man of intelligence, interested in the project of “re-integration.” We avoided his initiatives. But now, I think he is the Pope, now, yes, he is the Pope and he has special graces, but he doesn’t use those graces because he does not do anything for the Church. It has been a year now, and he has done nothing!

S.H. It has been said that he feels a certain guilt about 1988, because externally he appeared to be “fighting for” the Society. Do you feel this is true?

H.L. He was honestly persuaded that we were outside the Church and that he had the duty to re-introduce us to the Church. This is of course, ridiculous, because we are not outside the Church. We never have been. This was a great desire for him (reconciliation). This was some months before my consecration to Bishop. But now he is the Pope! He should do something for the Church! But he does nothing!

S.H. So you have seen nothing concrete that he has done, my lord?

H.L. No, nothing.

S.H. In the recent consistory he increased the voting power of Europe at the expense of the other parts of the Church. It is said that he wants Europe to again take the reins of leadership for the Church. But Europe is infected with the rise of Islam. We are very insulated in America as far as observing militant Islam because they are a very tiny minority here. In the wake of the recent riots and a February excerpt in Dici regarding the rise of Islam in Europe, what can you say the state of the Church is in Europe? Is it prepared to take the reins, so to speak?

H.L. This is not a question regarding Benedict XVI, this is a question of the governments in Europe allowing Islam to grow unchecked. The French government, for example, practically invites these Muslims to France. The government wants to control their religion, so they make regulations and laws in order to control it. The bishops do not see this danger – well, they are contradictory. On one side they see the danger and they do not want to give them (the Muslims) the churches (to be used as mosques). And on the other hand, they say that Christians and Muslims must reconcile – that there is no difference between the religion of Christians and Muslims, and that Islam is a very “tolerant” religion. So, they are completely contradictory with themselves.

S.H. You would say that this is the attitude of the bishops in Germany, France, Switzerland, there is no difference?

H.L. Yes, absolutely no difference. They are completely contradictory. They see the danger – because they will be obliged (under French law regarding public buildings) to give empty churches to the Muslims. But then they say that Islam is very good, and tolerant.

S.H. Well, then Benedict’s “European project” has many obstacles. You said that you saw him as a negotiator. Bishop Fellay recently said that he is very closely tied up with the Council. What are the main ideas that this Holy Father holds that are at odds with Tradition?

H.L. Collegiality, for instance. He wants to rule the Church with the bishops, with the cardinals. He becomes unable to rule the Church. This is evident because he has been the Pope for one year and he has done nothing!

His Lordship had mentioned this twice before, but I could see that he was more frustrated. He continued…

Collegiality paralyzes him. Voila – yes, collegiality paralyzes the Pope.

S.H. And he is willing to be paralyzed?

H.L. Yes, he believes it (in collegiality)!

S.H. Regarding ecumenism, it is said that he was not happy about Assisi…

H.L. Ecumenism is another thing, yes, it was said that he despised Assisi, but we are not sure, and now he has gone into the synagogue many times, with the Jews, so… It is not clear…because he has an inclination towards the Jewish religion.

S.H. Did he not reduce the independence of the Franciscans at the Basilica (of Assisi)?

H.L. Yes, but this is not a major matter.

S.H. When I was on the phone with Bishop Fellay to clarify a quote from his conference in Denver, I had transcribed (I did not tape the event) that “He (Benedict) believes that the secular state is the preferred mode of existence within the Catholic view of social organization.” Bishop Fellay corrected me to say “it is the only mode of existence.” Are these not always the “big three” topics, that is to say, collegiality, ecumenism, religious liberty? Is he not completely committed to these ideas?

H.L. Yes, he is committed to these three errors. Regarding religious liberty he is almost exactly like John Paul II. They are convinced that no government can be Catholic, that no government can acknowledge Jesus Christ as true God. This is, of course, contrary to Catholic teaching, specifically the teaching of Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas.

S.H. Yes, and the Syllabus…

H.L. Yes, but the Syllabus was in the 1860s and Quas Primas was in 1925, so it is not so old – so outdated, as they would like to say.

S.H. My lord, apart from possible guilt about 1988, it is said that Benedict feels guilt about Fatima. You and the bishops have obviously gone to Fatima to make an act of reparation…what can you say regarding the continued silence about Fatima dating all the way back to Pius XII?

H.L. I cannot say anything here. Fatima is a private revelation. Excuse me, but I don’t speak of it.

S.H. Well, I have some more personal questions for you. I recently read your work on the Archbishop. You knew him so well. Were there any surprises for you in writing and researching this work?

H.L. My great surprise was the great affection and respect that all these progressive fathers had for him – even if they did not agree with him – it was amazing. They respected him so much for his Christian, his Catholic personality. All of them testified to this when I met them – this – they loved him, even though they did not understand him. Because, truly, they could not reconcile the gentleness, the charity, the frankness, and yet, on the other hand, his strength in the Faith. They could not reconcile this.

S.H. If they saw His Grace’s Christian personality, how did they not see his Christian conclusions?

H.L. Because they were liberal, hence they could not understand that a man could be so kind and yet so strong at the same time.

S.H. The Archbishop, of course, gave you your episcopate. And you are coming up on your 18^th anniversary of consecration. What have been your thoughts about the episcopate – that is to say, what did you not expect in June of 1988?

H.L. My great surprise is that the crisis in the Church has been so long. We had prayed that the good Lord would send us a truly Catholic Pope, a holy Catholic Pope, just a few years after my consecration, and here we are, 19 years, and it is the same. It is a great disappointment. The crisis lags, and we have to continue to fight. That is the great difficulty – not for me, but for the faithful especially. The faithful have to be heartened, they must be encouraged not to be fatigued, to be tired. We must continue to fight.

S.H. So in your role as Bishop you must travel all around the world to see the faithful. What do you notice is common about us, as traditional faithful?

H.L. I think it is the great esteem for large Catholic families – that is common. The grace of Christian marriage and the desire to have many children – they understand that the future of the Church and the future of their homeland revolve around a fruitful marriage. And that is the grace of Archbishop Lefebvre – that, and the Holy Mass. That is what he preached.

S.H. My lord, the General Chapter of the Society is this summer…

H.L. Ah, yes.

S.H. There is some confusion among the faithful as to whether someone who has been the General Superior may be elected again. For example, Fr. Schmidberger has been Superior General – can he be so again?

H.L. Yes, there is no limitation.

S.H. Yes, Fr. Schmidberger was Superior General after you were consecrated, so you, as a bishop, had to report to a priest. I think the feeling among the faithful was, that once Bishop Fellay was elected, that a bishop would continue on in that position, as opposed to a simple priest. Is this true? Well, let me be more specific without asking you for a prediction. Is it likely that the condition of having a bishop be the Superior General will continue?

H.L. No, it is not normal. Actually, the most normal thing would be for a simple priest to be Superior General.

S.H. Why do you say that, my lord?

H.L. Because it is in our constitutions, and because the existence of bishops within our Society is something extraordinary – not foreseen. It is not normal – so I think it would be very normal for a simple priest to be Superior General, and I would be ready to obey, to submit, to him.

S.H. So it is an extraordinary situation for the Society to have bishops, but you can accommodate to the idea of reporting to a priest, even as a bishop – well, obviously you did so with Fr. Schmidberger. Let me clarify, the constitutions do not prevent a previous Superior General from being re-elected?

H.L. No.

S.H. So Bishop Fellay could be re-elected.

H.L. Yes.

S.H. My lord, you are not heard from as much here, which is a large part of why I wanted to interview you – as English speakers we hear much from Bishop Williamson, and we hear a fair amount from Bishop Fellay, but Alfonse de Galarreta does not speak English. There are always troublemakers, especially from websites who quote so-called anonymous “inside sources” who often know really nothing, who seek to splinter the Society by talking about a so-called “schism within the Society” if and when Bishop Fellay were to make a “deal” with Rome. My question is, when Bishop Fellay speaks, or makes a statement – can we say that he does so “on behalf of the bishops” of the Society?

H.L. No. I would say he speaks as the Superior General of the Society. Simply that.

S.H. So as bishops, your primary role is…

H.L. To give Confirmations, and do Ordinations, simply. That is the role that Archbishop Lefebvre gave us. So we have no “leading role” in the Society, per se, we simply submit to the Superior General.

S.H. So, if there were to be a restoration within the Church the bishops within the Society would not be necessary?

H.L. If there were Catholic bishops in Catholic seats, no, we would not be necessary.

S.H. My lord, The Angelus recently reprinted a study by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P. which postulated that the new rite of consecration for Bishops was valid – this being a question since this Holy Father is the first to be Pope while being consecrated in the New Rite. There is, circulating on the Internet, statements that the Archbishop doubted the validity of the new rites of Episcopal consecration…

H.L. No, no, no. He never discussed the matter, never. No, no.

S.H. So there has never been a question in the Society about the validity of any of the new sacraments?

H.L. Archbishop Lefebvre never discussed the validity of Episcopal consecrations.

S.H. No, not about the episcopacy?

H.L. I do not know his mind on this subject. The new rite regarding Episcopacy, he did not know it. He did not study these matters – or read it. Because simply, he continued with the Old Rite.

S.H. I think I have one more question, where is the Society growing the fastest in the world?

H.L. The essential thing is that we re-establish Catholic families, Catholic schools, these are the great means of the growth of the Catholic Church. Indeed, many of our priests come from our schools. We insist to our faithful that they send their children to Catholic schools.

S.H. Well, that’s all my questions, my lord. Now, when I type this I want to make sure all my quotes are accurate, so I will get you a transcript before you go to Veneta…

H.L. No, no, these questions, you have not addressed the essential things – I appreciate your questions but you did not touch anything essential in your questions…

S.H. What more, my lord?

H.L. Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.

S.H. When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?

H.L. No, but he has never retracted his errors.

S.H. But my lord, if he has not retracted them, does he not still retain them? What are you speaking of, can you be more specific, I must admit I am no theologian and I have not read any of his works. Was this when he was a Cardinal?

H.L. It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.

S.H. My lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.

H.L. Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption.

S.H. In what sense, my lord?

H.L. He says that Christ did not satisfy for our sins – did not – atone – He, Jesus Christ, on the Cross, did not make satisfaction for our sins. This book denies Christ’s atonement of sins.

S.H. Ah, I’m not sure I understand…

H.L. He denies the necessity of satisfaction.

S.H. This sounds like Luther.

H.L. No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.

S.H. My lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning – are you saying he is a heretic?

H.L. No. But he has never retracted these statements.

S.H. Well, then, what would you say, my lord, would you say it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?

H.L. No, it is clear. I can quote him. He rejects “an extremely rudimentary presentation of the theology of satisfaction (seen as) a mechanism of an injured and reestablished right. It would be the manner with which the justice of God, infinitely offended, would have been reconciled anew by an infinite satisfaction…some texts of devotion seem to suggest that the Christian faith in the Cross understands God as a God whose inexorable justice required a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son. And we flee with horror from a justice, the dark anger of which removes any credibility from the message of love” (translated from the German version, pages 232-233).

S.H. What other heresies, my lord?

H.L. Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…

S.H. This cannot be true…

H.L. It is very true. He re-reads, re-interprets all the dogmas of the Church. This is it. This is what he calls the “hermeneutic” in his discourse of 22 December 2005…

S.H. This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…

H.L. Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.

S.H. These are very strong words, my lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…

H.L. No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…

S.H. But these are strong words…

H.L. Ecclesia supplet. The Church supplies. It is even in the code of canon law: “in case of doubt, the Church supplies the executive power.” He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.

S.H. My lord…has there been such a dark time in Church history?

H.L. That is difficult to say. I would not say such a thing. It is sufficient to say that he has professed heresies.

S.H. My lord, I must emphasize that the paper I am writing for has wide circulation in the English speaking world…are these the words you wish to use?

H.L. Yes. Yes. I have read Joseph Ratzinger, and have read his books. I can assure you that it is true.

S.H. Well, then I’d like to know what was the Archbishop’s opinion of him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger?

H.L. He did not read him. He never read him. He saw him as a man of negotiation. An intelligent, honest man. With dangerous initiatives regarding us.

S.H. This line of discussion which you have introduced, my lord, leads us back to the 1988 Protocol. One of the points there is that the Society would interpret the Council “in the light of Tradition.” Is that still the case today?

H.L. Absolutely not. Not any more.

S.H. So then what would be said, that the Council needs to be revisited, revised entirely?

H.L. No, we would read the Council in the light of the “new philosophy.” Yes, that is the real “light” (chuckles). That is the only “light” by which you can read it.

S.H. So you would say the Society reads the Council in the light of the “new philosophy.”

H.L. Exactly.

S.H. And hence rejects it?

H.L. That is the only way it can be read. You cannot read Vatican II as a Catholic work. It is based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

S.H. Idealism?

H.L. Exactly, German idealism.

S.H. So if you say that the proper way to interpret the Council is in the light of the “new philosophy,” how must the Church deal with this Council?

H.L. I will say, one day the Church should erase this Council. She will not speak of it anymore. She must forget it. The Church will be wise if she forgets this council.

S.H. Let me read it back to you from my notes. The Church must erase this Council, not speak of it, forget it.

H.L. Forget it, yes. As a blank – tabula rasa. Ah, you must excuse me, Stephen, I must go hear confessions before Mass. Please excuse me.

S.H. My lord, it has been a great pleasure, and both interesting and surprising.

H.L. Likewise. It has been a pleasure.

So there it is. These are some of the strongest words I have ever seen from a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X. No further commentary beyond the fact that His Lordship was very calm and clear as he spoke, and I thought it was interesting that he stopped me from ending the interview because he felt I had not asked some important questions. I’m grateful for the opportunity that Michael Matt gave me in pursuing this.

And when Rome comes to herself, we four bishops, together with Bishop Rangel, or our successors, will depose our episcopacy between the hands of Peter, so that he may deign, Deo volente, confirm it or do with it what he will. Such was our disposition on June 30, 1988, such remains our resolve, our confidence, and our attitude. Meanwhile, let us carry on the fight for the Faith!

A most interesting interview in post #3, chock-full of good information regarding the SSPX and the whole "Traditionalist" movement straight from the source. Thank you for posting it!

I think his questions such as those regarding ecumenism with non-Christian religions should be addressed. In practice, it seems the Vatican has implicitly encouraged religious indifferentism through its participation in the Assisi conferences and promotion of interreligious dialogue.

There still are major issues of reconciling the seeming contradictions of the preconciliar and postconciliar magisterium on issues related to ecumenism and the Church's relationship with other religions.

In North America and Europe religious indifferentism between Catholicism and Protestantism is rampant, and the recent "concelebration" between an Anglican cleric and Catholic priests in Ireland is a prime example.

I think the mentality aimed at the SSPX, submit or else, is shortsighted and foolish. Genuine discussion and dialogue is necessary, instead of calcified partisanship.

It is akin to the same mentality that has keep the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church separated for 952 years.

Another prissy frenchman?

He is the Pope. Ecclesia Supplet. But we must know he has professed heresies.

Is he calling the pope a heretic?

Thanks for posting those links. I'll have to read them later.

Yawn. I guess Judas thought Peter was a heretic, too.

I would say yes, as a private theologian. Papal infallibility doesn't extend to the pope's teachings as a private theologian. St. Francis De Sales taught this, among others.

A pope could not teach heresy from the Chair of Peter because by doing so he would be ipso facto deposed. The pope is Peter as long as he maintains the faith of Peter.

Pope Paul IV's decree Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio says:

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, 15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we now enact as follows:-

In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.

Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:

(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.

(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.

These sanctions, moreover, shall be incurred by all members of these categories, of whatever status, grace, order, condition and pre-eminence they may be, even if they be endowed with the Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal, Primatial or some other greater Ecclesiastical dignity, or with the honour of the Cardinalate and of the Universal Apostolic See by the office of Legate, whether temporary or permanent, or if they be endowed with even worldly authority or excellence, as Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor.

All this We will and decree.

3. Nonetheless, We also consider it proper that those who do not abandon evil deeds through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom by fear of punishment; and We are aware that Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors (who ought to teach others and offer them a good example in order to preserve them in the Catholic Faith), by failing in their duty sin more gravely than others; since they not only damn themselves, but also drag with them into perdition and into the pit of death countless other people entrusted to their care or rule, or otherwise subject to them, by their like counsel and agreement.

Hence, by this Our Constitution which is to remain valid in perpetuity, in abomination of so great a crime (than which none in the Church of God can be greater or more pernicious) by the fulness of our Apostolic Power, We enact, determine, decree and define (since the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties are to remain in efficacious force and strike all those whom they are intended to strike) that:-

(i) each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors - who:

(a)hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;

(b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit either or both of these, or shall be detected or shall confess to have, or shall be convicted of having [so] deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these;

(since in this they are rendered more inexcusable than the rest) in addition to the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of:- their Orders and Cathedrals, even Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, the honour of the Cardinalate and the office of any embassy whatsoever, not to mention both active and passive voting rights, all authority, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever, or by Apostolic Dispensations to title, charge and administration or otherwise howsoever, and in which or to which they may have any right whatsoever, likewise any whatsoever fruits, returns or annual revenues from like fruits, returns and revenues reserved for and assigned to them, as well as Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and Imperial Power;

(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;

(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.

4. [By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] further enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that those who shall have claimed to have the right of patronage or of nominating suitable persons to Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or to Monasteries or other Ecclesiastical benefices which may be vacant by privation of this kind (in order that those which shall have been vacant for a long time may not be exposed to the unfit, but, having been rescued from enslavement to heretics, may be granted to suitable persons who would faithfully direct their people in the paths of justice), shall be bound to present other persons suitable to Churches, Monasteries and benefices of this kind, to Us, or to the Roman Pontiff at that time existing, within the time determined by law, or by their concordats, or by compacts entered into with the said See; and that, if they shall not have done so when the said period shall have elapsed, the full and free disposition of the aforesaid Churches, Monasteries and benefices shall by the fulness of the law itself devolve upon Us or upon the aforesaid Roman Pontiff.

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:-]

as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:
(i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;
(ii) they shall be rendered infamous;
(iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;
(iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;
(v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;
(vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;
(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;
(viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
(ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;
(x) clerics shall be automatically deprived of each and every Church, even Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal, Primatial, and likewise of dignities, Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, and even, as has been already mentioned, of qualifications, howsoever obtained by them;
(xi) laymen, moreover, in the same way - even if they be qualified, as already described, or endowed with the aforesaid dignities or anysoever Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and temporal goods possessed by them;
(xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office.

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

To the greater confusion, moreover, of those thus promoted or elevated, if these shall have wished to prolong their government and authority, they shall be permitted to request the assistance of the secular arm against these same individuals thus promoted or elevated; nor shall those who withdraw on this account, in the aforementioned circumstances, from fidelity and obedience to those thus promoted and elevated, be subject, as are those who tear the tunic of the Lord, to the retribution of any censures or penalties.

8. [The provisions of this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity are to take effect] notwithstanding any Constitutions, Apostolic Ordinations, privileges, indults or Apostolic Letters, whether they be to these same Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates and Cardinals or to any others, and whatsoever may be their import and form, and with whatsoever sub-clauses or decrees they may have been granted, even "motu proprio" and by certain knowledge, from the fulness of the Apostolic power or even consistorially or otherwise howsoever; and even if they have been repeatedly approved and renewed,have been included in the corpus of the Law or strengthened by any capital conclaves whatsoever (even by oath) or by Apostolic confirmation or by anysoever other endorsements or if they were legislated by ourself. By this present document instead of by express mention, We specially and expressly derogate the provisions of all these by appropriate deletion and word-for-word substitution, so that these may otherwise remain in force.

9. In order, however, that this document may be brought to the notice of all whom it concerns, We wish it or a transcription of it (to which, when made by the hand of the undersigned Public Notary and fortified by the seal of any person established in ecclesiastical dignity, We decree that complete trust must be accorded) to be published and affixed in the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in this City and on the doors of the Apostolic Chancery and in the pavilion of the Campus Florae by some of our couriers; [we] will [further] that a quantity of copies affixed in this place should be distributed, and that publication and affixing of this kind should suffice and be held as right, solemn and legitimate, and that no other publication should be required or awaited.

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…

I am not saying Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, but if there are some muddy areas of his past teaching, he should clarify them for the faithful to avoid the appearance of scandal.

Although I can understand (and to a certain extent share) Bishop Tissier's frustration over no universal indult or the like, the tone of the interview comes across as somewhat overheated and perhaps rash.

In cases like this, I always wonder how much of it is supposed to be relevant independent of the particular circumstances, that is to say, how much of it is really just supposed to be sending a message to Rome to get off their duffs, or to stake out a negotiating position, etc.

The part about the Council seems to be more stridently rejectionist than the SSPX has usually indicated, and again one wonders why the bishop felt it necessary to go so far just now? This is all the more perplexing to me because in the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier said that he (Tissier) was in favor of taking the deal with Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988, which would mean with all of the agreement to interpret the council in the light of tradition, etc.

Although it is my usual practice to have no enemies to the right of me, I have to say that this interview leaves me wondering whether he really wants regularization or not, under this pontificate. And who does he think he will get for the next pope? It is looking more and more like those guys are preparing to be on the outs (however you want to characterize it from a juridical point of view) for quite a long time. Are they going to go for the record being set by the Russian Old Believers--out of full communion with the mother church for 300+ years (and still counting)?

A last radical thought, though: maybe we will want them out there in their Alpine redoubt if things keep going south in the church and Europe (or the south keeps coming north): A place to retreat to and (to mix the metaphors) from which to begin the next Reconquest.

Is he calling the pope a heretic?

Sure seemed that way. If not a heretic per se, something just as sacramentally/judicially bad that they felt the need to act as they have.

Anti-pope?

Pope Benedict XVI may want to reconsider lifting the excommunication on the SSPX that Pope John Paul II placed on them. They act more like Missouri Synod Lutherans than Catholics IMO.

They act more like Missouri Synod Lutherans than Catholics IMO.

As a life long "MoLu", I have to ask what you mean by that one? (Although it did make me laugh).