 |
An Interview with Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais |
|
|
|
An Interview with Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais |
|
|
by Stephen L. M. Heiner |
|
|
|
Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais Remnant Editor's Note: Due to the controversial nature of some comments made in this interview, we have decided to open up a small readers' forum at the conclusion of the interview. Comments should be sent to editor@RemnantNewspaper.com. MJM (32 Responses) Interviewer’s Note: I had met His Lordship Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St. Pius X on only one occasion previously. It was the 1997 ordination of Fr. Frank Kurtz, after which I had the chance to ask His Lordship some questions. I was struck by his courtesy and gentleness, especially as I had just seen him celebrate Mass in one of the most precise and holy ways I had ever seen. Recently, I expressed a desire to Michael Matt to interview His Lordship for The Remnant. Mr. Matt allowed me to “track him down” and line up an interview while the Bishop was here in Colton 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. Before being published here in The Remnant, the text was approved and signed off on by His Lordship. (Please note that I use and prefer “Your Lordship” to the more contemporary “Your Excellency” when referring to a Bishop.) SH Stephen Heiner: My Lord, Zenit.org released a text on 7 April from the French episcopate on the occasion of the end of their plenary assembly which included the following statements: “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 as a Roman Rite bishop, who recognizes the valid election of Benedict XVI, respond to these comments? His Lordship: Firstly, I am not familiar with this text. I do not know it. It is not interesting to me as 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. SH: And what is that, My Lord? HL: 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.
SH: 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? HL: 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 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!
SH: 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? HL: 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!
SH: So you have seen nothing concrete that he has done, My Lord? HL: No, nothing.
SH: 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. In the wake of the recent riots and a February excerpt in DICI website regarding the rise of Islam in Europe, what is the state of the Church in Europe? Is Europe prepared to take the reins, so to speak? HL: 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.
SH: You would say that this is the attitude of the bishops in Germany, France, Switzerland—there is no difference? HL: 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.
SH: 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? HL: 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! Collegiality paralyzes him. Voila – yes, collegiality paralyzes the Pope.
SH: And he is willing to be paralyzed? HL: Yes, he believes it (in collegiality)!
SH: Regarding ecumenism, it is said that he was not happy about Assisi… HL: 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.
SH: Did he not reduce the independence of the Franciscans at the Basilica (of Assisi)? HL: Yes, but this is not a major matter.
SH: 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 by saying “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? HL: 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.
SH: Yes, and the Syllabus… HL: 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.
SH: 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? HL: 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.
SH: If they saw His Grace’s Christian personality, how did they not see his Christian conclusions? HL: Because they were liberal, hence they could not understand that a man could be so kind and yet so strong at the same time.
SH: You are coming up on your 18th anniversary of consecration. What have been your thoughts about the episcopate? That is to say, what did you not expect in June of 1988? HL: 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.
SH: So in your role as a bishop you must travel all around the world to see the faithful. What is a common link between the traditionalist faithful? HL: 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.
SH: My Lord, the General Chapter of the Society is this summer… HL: Ah, yes.
SH: 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? HL: Yes, there is no limitation.
SH: 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 situation of having a bishop as Superior General will continue? HL: No, it is not normal. Actually, the most normal thing would be for a simple priest to be Superior General.
SH: Why do you say that, My Lord? HL: 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.
SH: So it is an extraordinary situation for the Society to have bishops, but you can accommodate yourself to the idea of reporting to a priest – well, obviously you did so with Fr. Schmidberger. Let me ask you to clarify this: the constitutions do not prevent a previous Superior General from being re-elected? HL: No.
SH: So Bishop Fellay could be re-elected. HL: Yes.
SH: There are always troublemakers, especially on the Internet, who quote so-called anonymous “inside sources” who often know really nothing, and who seem to 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 this: when Bishop Fellay speaks, or makes a statement, does he so “on behalf of the bishops” of the Society? HL: No. I would say he speaks as the Superior General of the Society. Simply that.
SH: So, as bishops your primary role is… HL: 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.
SH: So, if there were to be a restoration within the Church, the bishops within the Society would not be necessary? HL: If there were Catholic bishops in Catholic seats, no, we would not be necessary.
SH: 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 – something which has been under some discussion of late since the Holy Father is the first pope to have been consecrated a bishop in the New Rite. There are, circulating on the Internet, statements that the Archbishop doubted the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration… HL: No, no, no. He never discussed the matter, never. No, no.
SH: So there has never been a question in the Society about the validity of any of the new sacraments? HL: Archbishop Lefebvre never discussed the validity of episcopal consecrations.
SH: No, not about the episcopacy? HL: 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.
SH: I think I have one more question: where is the Society growing the fastest in the world? HL: 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.
SH: 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 send you a transcript before you go to Veneta… HL: 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.
SH: What more, My Lord? HL: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.
SH: When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does? HL: No, but he has never retracted his errors.
SH: But My Lord, if he has not retracted them, does he not still retain them? Of what are you speaking? 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? HL: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies.
SH: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter. HL: 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.
SH: In what sense, My Lord? HL: 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.
SH: Ah, I’m not sure I understand… HL: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.
SH: This sounds like Luther. HL: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ. It is worse than Luther, much worse.
SH: My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic? HL: No. But he has never retracted these statements.
SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”? HL: 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).
SH: What other heresies, My Lord? HL: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…
SH: This cannot be true… HL: 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.
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights… HL: Yes, exactly. According to the new philosophy, the idealist philosophy of Kant.
SH: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist… HL: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…
SH: But these are strong words… HL: 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.
SH: My Lord…has there been such a dark time in Church history? HL: That is difficult to say. I would not say such a thing. It is sufficient to say that he has professed heresies.
SH: 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? HL: Yes. Yes. I have read Joseph Ratzinger, and have read his books. I can assure you that it is true.
SH: Well, then I’d like to know what was the Archbishop’s opinion of him when he was Cardinal Ratzinger? HL: 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.
SH: 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? HL: Absolutely not. Not any more.
SH: So then what would be said, that the Council needs to be revisited, revised entirely? HL: 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.
SH: So you would say the Society reads the Council in the light of the “new philosophy.” HL: Exactly.
SH: And hence rejects it? HL: 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.
SH: Idealism? HL: Exactly, German idealism.
SH: 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? HL: 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.
SH: Let me read it back to you from my notes. “The Church must erase this Council, not speak of it, forget it.” HL: Forget it, yes. As a blank – tabula rasa. Ah, you must excuse me, Stephen, I must go hear confessions before Mass. Please excuse me.
SH: My lord, it has been a great pleasure, and both interesting and surprising. HL: 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 Bishop Tissier 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 interview for The Remnant. Stephen Heiner is the editor of TrueRestoration.com. He currently resides in Anaheim, California but will be moving to St. Marys, Kansas, this June.
Reader Response Forum
Editor's Note: Mr. Jacob Michael has prepared a thoughtful and well-researched critique of Bishop Tissier's comments regarding Father Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity. Please see I accuse the Pope. In the meantime, Fr. Lawrence Smith has responded to Mr. Michael. Father's comments appear below. Should there be further substantive reactions to this debate over the next day or two, we will post them here on this forum. Comments may be sent to: Editor@RemnantNewspaper.com
Dear Remnant Editor: Here are some thoughts I shared with Mr. Michael regarding his response to the claim of heresy leveled against Father-then-Cardinal Ratzinger: 1) There is still lacking in Father Ratzinger's explanation the specific necessity of salvation predicated on the Sacrifice of the Son accessed by man only through the Cross, only through the Mass, and only through the Catholic Church. That God could have effected salvation in other ways is true, but the fact is that He does so only in the way in which He did so. The human subject, therefore, is obliged to receive salvation only in that way. However it is described, and that issue accounts for the growth and development of the conceptions of the Redemption down the centuries, the fact remains that what is necessary is the Cross, the Sacraments, and the Church. A corrective to Father Ratzinger would be a clear statement of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. 2) Have you read C.S. Lewis', That Hideous Strength? There is a character named Withers who perfectly personifies the incomprehensibility of Vatican II, and serves as an archetype for the conciliar and post-conciliar theologians adopting its style. It is a matter of obfuscation as a means to deceive, which leads to point 3) This is vital to understanding the modernists’ modus operandi: They do not intend to make an outright denial of perennial truth so much as to effect an inability amongst the faithful to assert the truth. This is accomplished through confusion, obfuscation, and misapplying traditional terminology in such a way as to lure the faithful into heterodoxy without technically bringing the Magisterium into error. At the end of the day, Ratzinger and his ilk can claim not to have officially condoned error. They will claim that the error lies in ascribing “meaning [to] the propositions…[which do] not belong to the authentic position of [the modernists], but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of [their] works." Cardinal Ratzinger would have himself absolved in the same way and on the same grounds that he sought to absolve Rosmini. (This is a quote from my comments on James Larson's critique of Cardinal Ratzinger) 4) The caution you offer Bishop Tissier about care necessary in accurately stating one's position is equally applicable to Father then Cardinal Ratzinger. If indeed the Bishop was rash in his judgement, it is as well the case that Father Ratzinger was indiscreet in his descriptions, making it likely that his words would be misinterpreted. 5) You make mention of the fact that Father Ratzinger did not write in a vacuum. How true! The context for his thoughts includes his first year in the Pontificate, in which he has repeated gestures of false ecumenism, endorsed an Americanist notion of Church-state relations, and elevated men of questionable moral character to the Cardinalate. In understanding his difficult theology, one must also keep in mind Father then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict's actions. A distorted collegiality still informs how the papacy approaches lesser prelates, a protestant ethos still infects Catholic worship, and concessions to the structures and mindset of the world go on unabated. 6) The essence of modernism is an unnatural and erroneous wedding of the true and the false in which confusion makes impossible the perception or declaration of the truth. That Father Ratzinger's writings (and the ambiguous texts of Vatican II) make nigh on impossible a certain declaration of their meaning in itself disqualifies them as being accurate representations of Catholic truth. Catholic truth is most certainly capable of bearing many interpretations, but it is never expressed in ways in which an error or omission forms part of the expression. An example of such an error would be this statement from Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3: “The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.” False religions, even with valid sacraments, have absolutely no power to save. That is a dogma defined and repeated throughout the entirety of the history of the Church. The communion of salvation can not be accessed outside of the Catholic Church. Period. 7) Yes meaning yes and no meaning no should be the guiding principle behind all dogmatic theology. Speculations running amok can not but lead to heresy, if not in the theologians themselves, then quite possibly among the less informed. It would serve the Church very well if theologians refrained from speaking unless and until they are able to offer a clear teaching capable of leading the sheep of the Flock toward greater sanctity.
God bless you, Dear Editor, Many thanks for this wonderful interview and for giving us the opportunity to comment on it. Stephen Heiner is to be congratulated on conducting such an informative interview. The facts about Father/Cardinal Ratzinger's professed heresies are crucially important to publish and you do the Church a marvelous service by so doing. May I suggest that The Remnant initiate a petition of some sort to which we can all contribute online as well as by hard copy means, in order to bring the Pope face to face with his position and ask him to retract these heresies without delay? Giving chapter and verse examples in the introduction and widely publicizing this petition might well do much good. He needs to face up to the terrible scandal his heretical views are causing since we have to presume that he continues to hold these false beliefs unless he tells us otherwise. Just a thought! Let me know if our humble publication in Scotland (which is read south of the border in England and Wales and on every continent including your own) can be of any practical assistance if, as I sincerely hope, you do decide upon some such course of action as a follow up to this excellent, if troubling, interview. God bless. Patricia McKeever Editor, Catholic Truth (Scotland) Dear Editor, I regard to your offer of readers comments to Mr. Michael's article on the "Introduction to Christianity", I would point out this. That in saying that the shedding of Christ's blood is not the cause of our redemption, but only the destruction of the personality of Christ, the "real cause", Fr. J. Ratzinger errs by implicitly holding that the death of Christ caused or resulted from the destruction of Christ's Personhood or personality. But Christ, we must remember, though perfect God and perfect man, is a perfect Divine Being and a perfect human being, He is not a human person; but rather a Divine Person. The ignoring of this distinction is the vital flaw in Fr. Ratzinger's critique. Let me explain why. First, a person is according to the ancient definition of St. Severinus Boethius, " an individual substance of a rational nature " [rationalis naturae individua substantia ], or according to the more exact definition, approved of by Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure, of the medieval Franciscan Theologian, Alexander of Hales, a person is "a supposit of a rational nature distinguished by a property" [rationalis naturae suppositum proprietate disctinctum]. For us men, a person is constituted at the instant that God creates and infuses a human soul into the body which is conceived by our parents. A human person, therefore, is an individual being which belongs to the category of human beings. Such an individual member (which in medieval logic is called a "supposit"), is constituted as an individual by a single and unique, individual human soul and a single and unique human body, which when separated, cause the death of that individual, and hence the destruction of the human person. Thus when a human person is offered in sacrifice, there is offered not only the life, soul and body of that person, but also the person himself, since all these, but the soul, are destroyed in his being sacrificed. But it was not so with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Because in Christ there are Two Natures and one Person. One nature, which is Divine, the other, which is human. But the one Person is divine. This is because, when the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father became man, for our sake, in the spotless womb of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, He was already God, and the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity; that is, He already was a Divine Person and a possessor of the Divine Nature. In becoming man, He assumed into the embrace of His Divine Person, the human nature which Our Blessed Lady conceived: a human nature composed by a human soul, created and infused by God, and an immaculate human body, taken by the Holy Spirit from the womb of the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mary. Thus, Jesus Christ, had two natures, the Divine Nature and a human nature; but one Person. Thus, when He died upon the cross, which He freely did, and which resulted from His free act of acceptance of death -- just as He said, "No one takes My life from Me; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again, for thus has it been given to Me by My Father" -- His human soul was separated from His human body, and as man, He died. But His Divine Person and personality, was not destroyed, because as Son of God, He remained an individual supposit, or sharer, in the Divine Nature; and since His human body and soul, though separate from one another, remained united to His Divine Person. This is the common teaching of all the Doctors and Fathers of the Church. And is de fide. Now to apply this directly to Fr. Ratzinger's critique: From this we can see that, the efficacious value of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, CANNOT result "really" from the destruction of His "I", His "personality", because His "I", or "personality" WAS NOT DESTROYED. Rather what was destroyed was His human life. And Scripture alludes to this, when Christ Himself shouts out from the Cross, "It is consummated!". If Our Lord and Master redeemed the word by the destruction of His "I" or "Personality", then the consummation would only come after His death. But He declares that His Sacrifice is consummated prior to His death, yet in such a way that He truly dies on this account. The merit of Christ's Sacrifice then is accomplished, consummated, by the completion of His Suffering, and all that entailed, not because His "I" was annihilated, nor because His Body and Soul where annihilated, because none of these 3 things were annihilated. For this reason, Fr. Ratzinger's critique of what he sees as a crude misunderstanding of the Redemption by the masses of the laity, is itself based upon an erroneous understanding of the nature of Christ's Sacrifice. We have a case of the Theologian seeing speck in the layman's eye, and not seeing the beam in his own. Finally, if Fr. Ratzinger wants to emphasize that the merit of Christ's Death lay not so much in His Passion but in his Death, nevertheless, he is thus confronted by a more profound truth, namely, that death itself cannot be meritorious; but only the acceptance of death and suffering. Because death is not an act or passion of human nature; it is something which a human being undergoes, but he cannot as man, without committing the sin of suicide, cause his own death. And thus the merit of the Redemption must lie elsewhere, very close to the actual Death, but not the actual death, rather in the suffering which inevitably and naturally would lead to human death, though, as I said, in Christ's case, it was rather His Will laying down His life, rather than being in any sense compelled to death by the force and violence of His Sufferings. For this reason all Catholics can merit with Christ, not only by our actions, motivated by faith and charity and hope, but also by our sufferings, and the voluntary acceptance of our own deaths, in howsoever a manner God has ordained from all eternity that this come about. If Fr. Ratzinger were correct, we could not merit with Christ, because Christ would have never merited by the destruction of His "I" or "personality", because, as I said, these were not destroyed; and if they were not destroyed, there would be no merit in Christ's Death, if their destruction was the "real" cause of the Redemption. Is this kind of error in Father Ratzinger's book a heresy? I do not think so; I think rather that, in attempting to critique the medieval synthesis of Catholic theology, by rejecting Scholastic categories, Fr. Ratzinger shows his profound ignorance of theology and philosophy, and that he is more a politician of theology, than a theologian. Sincerely in the Risen Lord, Br. Alexis Bugnolo Editor The Franciscan Archive http://www.franciscan-archive.org 1-508-339-2217 Dear Editor, Let us not make too much of the words of a man whose primary language is not English. He accepts Benedict XVI as a valid pope. Good! He says the first year of the new pontiff has been a disappointment. All agree. To say the Supreme Pontiff has done "nothing" is close to the truth, but a melodramatic overstatement. The Supreme Pontiff's demotion of "Assisi" organizer Fitzgerald is at least "doing something" and evidence of ecumenism weariness. At the Cologne synagogue he said we should know each other better to resolve differences and come to the truth, not exactly the religious indifferentism of recent memory. Benedict XVI's impending sacking of Cardinal Sodano should bring a chorus of cheers. I do believe Bishop Bernard saying Joseph Ratzinger in 1968 denied the redemption and the incarnation is an uncharitable slander arising from a narrow interpretation of vague concepts expressed in German by one likely reading a translation in French. Let us not make mountains of mole hills. Richard N. Nicoletti Dear Editor, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the excellent interview with his Lordship. I have just been kicked off Angelqueen for posting some links to the superb series of articles by James Larson in Christian Order on the heresies contained in the published works of the present pontiff. I highly recommend them. I did not (and neither did Mr. Larson) call the Pope a heretic. This would be quite wrong, and indeed his Lordship adopts the same position. But unless words have lost their meaning the Pontiff's previously published writings harbour obvious heresies. I pray for the Holy Father daily and of course now he is pope he receives the graces to go with an incredibly high office so I could never imagine his teaching the aforementioned heresies as pope. There does seem to be a tendency though, to a kind of knee jerk reaction with regard to criticism of the present pontiff's literary corpus. I suppose it is very strange for Catholics to be in the position of having to defend the Catholic Faith against the heresies of a reigning pontiff!
Gerard Brady (Liverpool UK) Dear Editor: My wife and I are members of the Pius X Chapel in Post Falls, ID. After reading the interview with Bp. Tissier, I was quite upset frankly. Since I am merely a layman and not a theologian, I am unable to turn an appropriate theological phrase or two, or offer a lengthy, reasoned critique of the interview. All I have at my disposal is simple logic: If, as his Lordship declares Ratzinger's writings contain a "negation of the dogma of the Redemption," and, if additionally, according to His Lordship, ”He (Ratzinger) 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."...then where does that leave us? What is more, if Ratzinger wrote, as His Lordship affirms, "He (Ratzinger) has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…: we are, as His Lordship readily admits, dealing with raging, blatant heresy And, if so, how does the mere declaration that "He's the Pope" shield Ratzinger from a charge of what, in fact, he is- a heretic? Why doesn't the Bishop call him what he is? Does Bp. Tissier imply, reading between the lines, that a true pope could never be a heretic? I frankly wonder whether this SSPX bishop is clear in his own mind. Respectfully, Tim Moore Dear Editor, I have read the Bishop's interview; Mr. Michael's response; Fr. Lawrence Smith and the follow-up letters. Being a parishioner of Corpus Christi, Tynong established by the Society of Pius X my reaction initially to the interview itself was very similar to your last correspondent, Tim Moore, except for wondering if the bishop is clear in his own mind. Of course he is clear in his own mind. Like Mr. Moore my thoughts crystallised around the idea that the words of theologian Ratzinger are "professed heresies, (that) he published a book full of heresies." Father Paul Kramer in his book, "The Devil's Final Battle" virtually says the same thing, especially when analysing Cardinal Ratzinger's portrayal of the official version of the third secret of Fatima. Therein the Cardinal said clearly(or unclearly) that anyone in a state of grace can be said to have an immaculate heart. Of course it is a logical question for ordinary garden-type Catholics to ask, that if a person 'professes heresies" and "published a book full of heresies" then is he not then a heretic? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck then it is a duck. As I understand the matter, an official procedure is required to proclaim a person to be a heretic. We've all seen these things done in the past. And only a Pope can authorise this judgement (for that is what it is). So Bishop Mallerais cannot say Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic. He does not have the authority - full stop. However, he can tell us that heresy is involved, surely. I doubt if there are many traditional Catholics who do not share this view. May not this be compared to the state of the Society of Pius X itself? We have not been 'formally' excommunicated - therefore we are not excommunicated .I agree with the Bishop that the whole thing is 'worse than Luther'. All the confusion so aptly shown in Mr. Michael's analysis and in subsequent responses, is like living in a kind of limbo of uncertainty. Father Smith's seven points are priceless. Spoken with the clarity that lay-Catholics understand and 'hear' as sheep that know the voice of the Master. I especially appreciate the statement that "Catholic truth is most certainly capable of bearing many interpretations, but it is NEVER expressed in ways in which an error or ommission forms part of the expression." (Well said Father!) We have nothing to fear when we plant our feet firmly on the dogmatic teachings of the Church of all ages. Nothing to fear that is, if we pray unceasingly. Our Lord is not going to let us go astray and when we hold fast to what has always been taught through and in the Church founded by Christ, then the Holy Spirit cradles us in the Bosom of the Father. Kathleen Donelly Dear Editor, I am amazed by the Bishop’s statements. Two concerns arise for me. One is the inevitable flurry of reaction within Tradition, which will be closely scrutinized by her enemies. Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. This will be one more instance where Tradition is publicly held up to be a disunity – a bad fruit. The Lord says, if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. On the contrary, conservative novus ordo Catholics (practical modernists) appear quite united in their opposition to the arguments of Tradition. Nonetheless, the seeming disunity in Tradition is nothing more than a sign of the times, for in spite of the apparent seamlessness of the modernist garment, the unity of Holy Mother Church has been completely shattered by a great apostasy on the part of the members of the hierarchy. Two is that the Bishop, an indisputably thoughtful man, may have chosen the wrong vehicle to make public his convictions. An interview as a format for communication is suitable when one wants to inject a few sound bites into the public discourse; but it is an absolutely inefficient vehicle to disseminate precise theological affirmations of the most profound import. Furthermore there is a substantial problem with idiom. Perhaps it were better if his thoughts were presented within the framework of a theological study, translated from an original written in either French or Latin; for the current presentation of his thoughts, being as raw as it is, can come off to English-speakers as borderline hysterical. In spite of the articulated concerns, this interview is good because it will provide the impetus to initiate a thorough and scholarly analysis of the Pontiff’s writings. It is imperative that the falsity of the New Theology be constantly put before the eyes of the clergy and the faithful, no matter how much persecution the telling of the Truth will bring, and no matter how calumniated and reviled be Tradition Itself. I stand in support of Bishop Tissier. Were it not for this man’s importunate and dogged persistence in beseeching Archbishop Lefebvre to act on behalf of seminarians perhaps none of us would have our Catholic life. In the end it may be said that this man issued forth the battle cry that commenced the final and decisive campaign against the Church’s enemies. Let us not forget that we have the blood of Crusaders running through our veins. They have seized the holy places. They have made a mockery of God. In the end it will be fidelity in combat that does the overthrowing. We can sift through theological texts in an attempt to render the Bishop’s statements more cogent; or we can split hairs over an espresso or beer as to whether the Pope’s writings contain heresies. As for me, I will use the standard the Lord gave me: By their fruits you shall know them. In Christ Jesus, Suzanne Romano Dear Editor, It's very interesting that this topic should come up now. In 2004 and 2005, The Christian Order website ran a series of articles by a James Larson from Long Prairie MN about some of the errors in Cardinal Ratzinger's writings. I do not believe he mentioned the issue of the Redemption that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais discusses in this interview, but he did present some very perplexing and disturbing quotes from the then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the exact nature of the change in the Eucharist and the nature of Original Sin in the human race. The late and great Michael Davies (may he rest in peace) was outraged at Mr. Larson's assertions but did not really reveal Mr. Larson's supposed errors of interpretation or even really discuss the points Larson raised. Someone tried to explain to me, after reading Larson's article, how Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation of transubstantiation was not the same as Luther's consubstantiation. Perhaps it's not, but I don't see how it is fully compatible with orthodox Catholic teaching on this subject either and I find it rather scandalous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Pope is a heretic. Often in the past, popes have condemned the writings of various authors. Sometimes the author in question would come to explain himself and his writings to the pope. It usually went something like "What I meant by that phrase was XYZ". The pope would, essentially, say "that's good that you meant to express the orthodox teaching, but your words themselves are erroneous or even heretical". In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger might truly be orthodox on these subjects but expresses himself badly. I am reminded of a talk I heard by Dr. William Marra where he bemoaned the fact that Pope John Paul II unfortunately "writes like a German". Pope Benedict, of course, is a German, and German philosophers are notoriously abstruse. As regards whether all this could lead to Sedevacantism, I quote from Larson by way of The Christian Order: "I have carefully re-read all my articles on Cardinal Ratzinger. I find nothing that I can, in good conscience, now deny as being my firm conviction. His writings clearly contain what must be considered objective errors or heresies. Even more certain (with the certainty of faith) is my complete submission of intellect and will to the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council I (in three very striking passages) that a Pope cannot lose his personal Catholic faith." See http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2005/features_apr05_bonus_2.html for an index of the articles by Larson and the rebuttals by Davies. In St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Pius X,
Tracy Hummel Dear Editor In connection with Bishop de Mallerais' interview, I am aware that web browsers interested in accessing James Larson's series of analytical articles critical of Cardinal Ratzinger's personal theology, alluded to by some of your correspondents, are having difficulty finding them on the Christian Order website. Here then are the direct links to all the Larson articles (they can also be accessed through the "Features" button on the CO home page, under the relevant month and year of publication given below): In Domino Rod Pead Editor Christian Order (London)
The War Against Being - Part I - October 2003 (which contains the links to Part II - Aug/Sept 2003 - and Part III - Oct. 2003) http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_jun-july03.html
The Heart of Betrayal http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_nov03_bonus.html
Rosmini's Rehabilitation and the Ratzinger Agenda: When To Be is Not To Be http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_feb04_bonus.html
The Point of Departure http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_mar04_bonus_1.html
Michael Davies' defence of Cardinal Ratzinger against Larson can be found at http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_junejuly04_bonus.html
and the Larson response to Davies at http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_junejuly04_bonus_1.html Dear Editor, The recent article called "An Interview With Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais," raises the question of "who speaks for the SSPX?" Regarding the question: "One of the points there is that the Society would interpret the Council ‘in the light of Tradition.’ Is that still the case today?" The Bishop answered, "Absolutely not. Not any more." On the other hand, just last June I sent the following letter to the SSPX, and received the following reply: Dear SSPX, I recall the position of Archbishop Lefebvre regarding these two issues as basically: (1). Acceptance of the validity of the Novus Ordo as promulgated by Rome and said with the right intention and, (2). Acceptance of Vatican II in the light of the traditional teaching of the Church. Is this still the formal position of the SSPX regarding these two subjects. The SSPX remains in my prayers, and sincere thanks for your response, Frank Denke ---------------------------
Dear Mr. Frank Denke (July13, 2005) |
