Monday, 18 June 2012

Bishop Tissier on that nasty new religion in Rome

You didn't believe my last post, did you? Here's how difficult Bishop Fellay's job is at the moment. I wouldn't blog about this matter but since Tissier's views are all over the net, let's go for it.

In a sermon last Friday at the priestly ordinations in Winona, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said the following:

As deacons, my dear beloved sons, you are ministers of the Church of God who always ready to fight battles against the enemies in an unceasing struggle. These are the words of the Roman Pontifical describing the Church – the Church always ready to fight battles against the enemies in an unceasing struggle.

These enemies are the modernists and their new religion – a new religion without sin, without contrition, without penance, without forgiveness, without sacrifice, without atonement, without true charity because here below there is no true charity without sacrifice. So against this false religion, the emblem of which is the New Mass, dear deacons to be, you will have to denounce the heretical perversity of this new religion – naturalistic religion. A naturalistic religion!


Meanwhile, our old friend Anagnostis comments on my blog post of yesterday:

How alike, in some strange way, are Hans Kung and Tissier de Mallerais - equally soixante huitards, eternally confronted on the same barricade, equally drunk on their own rhetoric.

Just for the record, let me correct the good bishop on a few points with reference to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, probably the most recent summary of that nasty new religion in Rome:


******************

Tissier said it is "without sin" -

The Compendium says ...

75. What was the first human sin?

When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

76. What is original sin?

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

263. What are the effects of Baptism?

Baptism takes away original sin, all personal sins and all punishment due to sin.

**************


Tissier said it is "without penance, without contrition"

The Compendium says ...

303. What are the acts of the penitent?

They are: a careful examination of conscience; contrition (or repentance), which is perfect when it is motivated by love of God and imperfect if it rests on other motives and which includes the determination not to sin again; confession, which consists in the telling of one’s sins to the priest; and satisfaction or the carrying out of certain acts of penance which the confessor imposes upon the penitent to repair the damage caused by sin.


**********************

Tissier said it is "without forgiveness"

The Compendium says ...

310. What are the effects of this sacrament?

The effects of the sacrament of Penance are: reconciliation with God and therefore the forgiveness of sins; reconciliation with the Church; recovery, if it has been lost, of the state of grace; remission of the eternal punishment merited by mortal sins, and remission, at least in part, of the temporal punishment which is the consequence of sin; peace, serenity of conscience and spiritual consolation; and an increase of spiritual strength for the struggle of Christian living.

*******************

Tissier said it is "without sacrifice"

The Compendium says ...

443. What is the meaning of the words of our Lord, “Adore the Lord your God and worship Him alone” (Matthew 4:10)?

These words mean to adore God as the Lord of everything that exists; to render to him the individual and community worship which is his due; to pray to him with sentiments of praise, of thanks, and of supplication; to offer him sacrifices, above all the spiritual sacrifice of one’s own life, united with the perfect sacrifice of Christ; and to keep the promises and vows made to him.


**********************

Tissier said it is "without atonement"

The Compendium says ...

114. How did Jesus conduct himself in regard to the Law of Israel?

Jesus did not abolish the Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai but he fulfilled it by giving it its definitive interpretation. He himself was the divine Legislator who fully carried out this Law. Furthermore, as the faithful Servant, he offered by means of his expiatory death the only sacrifice capable of making atonement for all the “transgressions committed by men under the first Covenant” (Hebrews 9:15).

280.
[...] The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same; only the manner of offering is different: in a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist.


*******************

Tissier said it is "without true charity"

The Compendium says ...

388. What is charity?

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Jesus makes charity the new commandment, the fullness of the law. “It is the bond of perfection” (Colossians 3:14) and the foundation of the other virtues to which it gives life, inspiration, and order. Without charity “I am nothing” and “I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

*******************


The Church is in a dreadful condition in many places. I'm not denying for a minute that there are many Catholics who are weak, confused or simply heretical on these various points.

But Tissier's view of Rome? Make no mistake about it: he is talking pitch-perfect nonsense, with lashings of falsehood and a few rhetorical cherries on the top.

14 comments:

_ said...

Unfortunately, a significant number of people in the Society - which isn't exactly teeming with intellectuals - are under the impression that +TdM is some sort of philosophical-theological genius. When he misrepresents Rome's teachings and Ratzinger's beliefs (try looking up his idiotic reading of Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity) they're inclined to assume he knows what he's talking about.

I suppose we should just be grateful that he doesn't share +W's poetic pretensions...

Evagrius Ponticus said...

+Tisser may now be with some confidence condemned as a heretic, given that he appears to affirm that the Church of Rome hath erred not only in her living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

GOR said...

As I noted elsewhere about other statements of the bishop, there is a distinct lack of Charity in his words! He appears to have no allowance for goodwill, either within himself or in the rest of the Church. There is a pride and arrogance there that is positively Luciferian.

Regardless of the content of what he says, his attitude is hardly Christ-like.

HughOSB said...

Salve, Ches!

Your posts on the SSPX drama as it unfolds are the ones I most value, for as usual you speak with the authority stemming from having experienced the Society first-hand, and also from razor-sharp logic fortified by the truth of the Faith as it actually is.

Williamson and Tissier seem to be lost to schism and heresy. Gallareta seems very quiet, or am I missing something? But certainly there is a place in the full communion of the Church for Fellay and those in the Society who can follow where the Holy Spirit (surely) is leading him.

Pax.

Ches said...

You're very kind, Fr Hugh. I hope you're right about the SSPX. I'm afraid my outlook might be a little on the bleak side!

Pax.

Gillineau said...

I've thought this for a long time, that the SSPX were just another facet of the tyranny of relativism; they like it this way, not that way, and that's the truth (for them). Indeed, I'd go so far as to suggest that the Society's continuous and vocal challenge to papal and magesterial authority is a cause of 'liberal discord': 'If the trads can vehemently deny/ damn certain essential aspects of the Faith, why can't we?'

Fr John Hunwicke said...

Your point about Bishop Tissier's comments are absolutely bang on ... in terms of textual accuracy. No way can Benedict XVI's papacy - or the Catechism - be tarred with the heresies he enumerates. (Although several studies of the OF collects which [wholesale] replace those of the EF demonstrate that Sin seems to have done a bit of a runner and Pelagius is edging closer and closer to canonisation.)

I wonder, however, whether, looked at sociologically, there is just a little something in what Bishop Tissier says. Out there in real world, a dodgy religion which is not based on the Catechism or the writings of Benedict XVI does seem to have a certain influence.

But surely the answer is to back the Ratzinger Revolution and not to snipe at him with constant implausible claims that he is really a crypto-relativist.

I think the Church needs Tissier ... a Tissier who is prepared to fight for Tradition in the places where the real battle is really going on, rather than lurking in a heavily fortified hilltop castle and Preaching only to the Pure. This is exactly what Bishop Fellay seems to be grasping.

Vivat Papa!!! History will not look well on those who failed to stand by this so great a Pope when the battle was truly joined.

Ches said...

Thanks for your comments, Rev Mr Hunwicke (and congratulations on your ordination and a wonderful talk at the LMS Con)! As I said in the post, there may be many Catholics who are weak, confused or heretical on these issues. Indeed, as you suggest, we know there are. But Bishop Tissier has made a special study of the pope and directs the strongest accusations against him. I'm afraid I could not resist bringing him to some account (not that he'll ever realise).

As for the Church, I suspect Tissier needs it more than it needs him, but I agree that he and others have a role to play in our dark days. Miracles can happen. Who would have thought there would be an Ordinariate? And, as you say, there is a battle to fight ...

HughOSB said...

The Church needs a Tissier, a Tissier who is prepared to fight for Tradition in the places where the real battle is going on?

But there lies the rub. Tissier is moving yet further away from the Church, and it is in the Church that the real battle is going on. Furthermore, what sort of Tradition can exist outside of the Church?

Protestants leave the Church in fighting their battles; Catholics stay above all clinging to the Rock of Peter on which the Church is founded. Tissier seems ever more a Protestant to me.

So you are right Ches: Tissier needs the Church, and more than it will ever need him.

Jackie Parkes said...

Loved this post.

St John Smythe said...

This blog post is slightly tongue-in-cheek and provocative (I know the Franciscan priest who writes it and he is very orthodox) but do you think he has a bit of a point?

http://acertainhope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/society-of-pope-paul-vi.html

Picard said...

Thank´s Father Hunwicke for you more balanced comment.

Well, that you and others here not get a wrong image: I am not an "antiaccordista" from the "hardline-deal-braker-fraction", supporting and defending "the Three".

So you may critisize His Exellency, yes, - but most of the comments I read here are at least as unbalanced and handle the complicated matter of modern day "pelagianism", "naturalsim" and "salvation-optimism" in a too simple and simplicisitc way - as they accuse Mgr. de M to do so!

You, Fr. H., pointed to a very important point ("although several studies of the OF collects ... Sin seems to have done a bit of a runner and Pelagius... canonisation")!

That´s a hard, strong accusation - so strong as Bf. Tissiers, but, I admitt, seemingly more accurate.

And btw. an additional argument(to many others) that shows that there is a real problem with the NO (itselfe, not its abuses) - that now also more and more non-sspx´ers seem to admit (as did recently at least Alcuin Reid, Card. Ranjith and Bf. Schneider.)
Further I can testify to it that even semi-conservative bishops (as the German Schlembach) and conservative ones (as the German Card. Meisner) hold that the original sin is not a real problem and the unbaptized babys go straight to heaven (so Schlembach dirctly speaking with me) or that nobody will really ever committ a sin that leads to hell [so hell will be empty] (as Card. Meisner writes in an interview-book with Gloria von Thurn und Taxis).

Schlembach rejected also the differenciation between grace and nature and the concept of limbo as scholastic pernicketiness/sophistry and he exposed (to) me that this he was tought in the 50ies and it is common since that time...

in that light it is more than clear that the new-baptismal Rite reflects this erroneous - real heretical or better: apostatical - thinking (remember, there is no beginning outside of the Church, no purple vestments, no exocisms anymore): the baby is yet in the state of grace, baptism is only symbollical, no need for freeing of the original sin!

And the list could go on....

Re "try looking up his idiotic reading of Ratzingers Introduction to Christianity" of _said:

Well, either you, _said, are self "idiotic" so that you did not get what it is written in that heretical (or at least near-to-heresy -- hersim proxima -- book) or you do not know your faith or the debate of the 60ies and 70ies and the still ongoing debate in dogmatic theology.

In both cases you should be very cautious to accuse a man, even a bishop, of "idiocy".

As German and having studied theology I read the book in the original language and I can wholeheartedly assent to His Excellencie´s remarks. I have seldom seen such a brillinat but terrible book!
Even non-sspxer admitt that this book shows us the liberal Ratzinger and is full of heresies or at least troubelsome teachings tantamount ot heresy.

Many of you that were not at a modern univerisity to learn theology will not have a clear idea of how big the crisis of the Church is.

I (as having studied theology at a German university) can testify to you (believe me or not): the theological crisis is bigger and deeper as most of you think. So in many aspects Mgr. de M. is on focus, spot on and right (even if he may be over the top re others)

Enoch said...

Quote:

"Many of you that were not at a modern university to learn theology will not have a clear idea of how big the crisis of the Church is."

So, it would seem as though you attended a Catholic Universtiy in order to learn theology. Presumably, you had not known theology previously to this, correct? So how would you know, then, that the theological teaching is deficient?

You mention those non-SSPXers believe that the NO has problems - and yet - they are still in full communion with the Church, are they not? (though I don't rightly know who Bf. Schneider is). They have not left the Church, even though they believe that there are problems. So why would you want to use them as examples? Why haven't they left and joined the SSPX, or an SV group?

You mention a book which shows that "the liberal Ratzinger is full of heresies." But actually, the Church does not give the writer of that book that authority to judge the Pope as a heretic. You or I do not have the authority to do so, either.

You seem to have been won over at some point by the sedevacantists, who are just plain angry people, who would still be angry, even if the Church were full of perfect people (which has never been the case).

Picard said...

Enoch:

Gladly I knew some theology before I went to modern university - and I knew my faith very well (thanks to different sources, but one was an old trad diocesan priest (diocesan, but very friendly to the sspx) -RIP!)

- if that had not been the case I would probably have lost my faith at the university. Oh, no, wait - if it were not for this old priest and also the sspx I would have lost it most probably before, in my youth, in my parish, were all kind of heterodoxies were taught!