Obituary: +Tissier de Mallerais' theological legacy
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of four bishops consecrated for the SSPX by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, leaves behind a remarkable theological legacy.
It was with great sadness that we learned that Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) died on 8th October 2024.
Voici la traduction en français:
Tissier—as his long surname was often abbreviated, at least in the Anglophone world—was one of the four bishops consecrated for the SSPX by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.
On Saturday 28 September, he fell down the stairs at the Society of St Pius X Seminary, at Ecône, Switzerland, and lost consciousness.
Having fractured his skull and suffering internal haemorrhaging, he was placed into an induced coma. Doctors stopped the sedatives on or around 30 September after his condition stabilised, but his Lordship did not regain consciousness.
The SSPX released the following notice on 8 October 2024:
Society of Saint Pius X
Menzingen, October 8 2024Don Davide Pagliarani,
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Father Christian Bouchacourt, General Assistants, Bishop Bernard Fellay and Father Franz Schmidberger, General Counsellors,
have the sorrow to inform you of the passing away of
His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais,
Auxiliary Bishop of the Society of St. Pius X,on Tuesday 8 October 2024 at 10:08 pm,
having received the sacraments of our Holy Mother Church.He was 79 years old, had been a priest for 49 years and a bishop for 36.
Born on 14 September 1945 in Sallanches, Savoy, of French nationality,
He was one of the first seminarians welcomed to Fribourg by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1969.Ordained a priest in Ecône on 29 June 1975,
he was Rector of the Seminary from 1978 to 1983.Secretary General of the Society from 1974 until 1979,
he held this post again between 1984 and 1996.He was consecrated a bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on 30 June 1988,
and devoted himself humbly to the end, with zeal and fidelity to his duties as Auxiliary Bishop of the Society of St. Pius X.The funeral Mass will be celebrated at the St. Pius X Seminary, Ecône, Switzerland, on Friday 18 October at 9:30 am, followed by burial in the seminary vault.1
Who was Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais?
Tissier studied biology at master’s level before entering the seminary. As the SSPX’s death notice reads, he was one of the first seminarians at the seminary founded by Lefebvre following Vatican II. Several seminarians had approached the retired Archbishop, asking him to provide them with the traditional priestly formation which was no longer available to them.2
In 1970, before the SSPX even existed, Lefebvre solicited the opinions of his seminarians regarding the establishment of a “priestly society.” Tissier’s response was:
“It’s a possibility to be considered… if it becomes difficult or even impossible to be incardinated directly into dioceses.”3
The rest is history.
The road to the episcopate
In the 1980s, Tissier served as one of the SSPX’s negotiators in the talks with Rome, and was present when Lefebvre initially signed the “Protocol” of May 5 1988.4 During this time, he assisted Lefebvre in producing his dubia, which has since been published as Religious Liberty Questioned.
The negotiations at the Vatican were chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger and moderated by Fr Benoît Duroux OP.5 Tissier was accompanied by Fr Patrice Laroche SSPX. Together, they faced Fr Tarcisio Bertone, who later became a Cardinal and the Vatican’s Secretary of State, and Fr Fernando Ocariz of Opus Dei, who later became the Prelate (head) of Opus Dei.
Bertone also went on to be involved with the “third secret” of Fatima, and Ocariz was again involved with Vatican-SSPX negotiations in the events leading up to 2012.
Tissier wrote that during this time, he was also arguing for the legitimacy of Lefebvre consecrating bishops against the wishes of John Paul II. Tissier stated that it was impossible to settle the question based solely on the necessity of a papal mandate, which “presupposes a Pope who is morally accessible and not ‘occupied’ by errors,” and because “the crisis in the Church and the situation of the Pope must enter into the argument because they would be the only reason for the consecration.”6 He later published a study on this question.
Tissier stated that in May 1988, he was still willing to find some form of agreement about episcopal consecrations with the Vatican (although he took a different position in 2012).7
However, these negotiations soon broke down completely. In June 1988 Lefebvre (along with Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, the retired diocesan bishop of Campos, Brazil) consecrated Fr Tissier de Mallerais as a bishop, along with Frs Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta.
Living under the stigma of “excommunication”
There can be no doubt that accepting to receive the episcopate, especially under these circumstances, was an astonishing act of sacrifice for Tissier and the other bishops.
First, the four new bishops, along with Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer, were swiftly declared to have incurred an automatic excommunication. The contrast was noted then, as it was with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, between the treatment of those who stood against Vatican II, and those who openly rejected the received dogmatic and moral teaching of the Church.8
The received position of the SSPX was that this alleged excommunication was invalid in itself, but also a badge of honour.9 Nonetheless, it is still a sacrifice to submit oneself to the opprobrium not only of the world, but also of the many good men who opposed Lefebvre’s historic move.
In 2016, Tissier was asked about his reaction to Lefebvre’s proposal of episcopal consecration:
“It was around April 1987. He summoned me from Rickenbach to Econe. In his office, he told me his wish. I answered him: ‘Your Excellency, I have made many mistakes, I do not feel capable of being a bishop.’ And he responded: ‘I, too, have made mistakes!’ That reassured me, very simply.
“And I told myself: ‘He has thought this through, he knows what he must do, better than I, he has made his choice, I have only to accept.’
“Of course, I thought of the excommunication that I would incur, not that I thought it valid, but sociologically it was a disgrace I would have to bear. I accepted it, with the grace of God.”10
In due course, we will discuss what happened after this, but these alleged excommunications were “lifted” in 2009 under Benedict XVI. In his decree, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re stated that:
“On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.”11
We should note first that this “remittance” contained three serious injustices:
First, in presuming the validity of the alleged excommunications
Second, in its silence regarding Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer
Third, in its allegation that the four bishops were not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church.12
Sacrificing himself for the good of souls
In addition to the stigma of an alleged excommunication, by accepting the episcopate as an “auxiliary bishop” of a group like the SSPX, Tissier was consenting to an exhausting life of travelling the world for administering the sacraments, particularly that of confirmation.
Tissier was known to have health problems, which added to the exhausting nature of his ministry. It all tested his patience at times, as was visible during some of his ceremonies—sometimes comically so. He was known to need Coca-Cola on hand for medicinal reasons, and sometimes even needed to cut ceremonies short due to exhaustion. Because of this, there were rumours of his imminent death for years before it finally happened.
All of this strain, exhaustion and sacrifice could have been avoided, if Tissier had wanted to avoid it. No-one would have been surprised if he had retired from this sort of work many years ago, and retired to a position of teaching and forming seminarians, as he had done as a priest.
But regardless, submitting himself to such a life for 36 years from 1988 to 2024 was an incredible act of sacrifice for the Church and for souls, and is worthy of utmost gratitude and respect.
Other aspects of his post-consecration career
There is much to be said about Tissier’s fascinating post-consecration career.
In addition to his ministry, full of suffering and sacrifice as we have already seen, Tissier has left behind him an extraordinary legacy.
Lefebvre’s biography and other works
Tissier was responsible for the definitive biography of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a work which has been praised by many parties.
Tissier recounts Lefebvre’s upbringing, vocation, priesthood, episcopate and positions as the Holy See’s Apostolic Delegate for French-Speaking Africa and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, as well as his involvement with the preparation for Vatican II.
Many only know Lefebvre as a “radical” and a rebel, and he has been vilified by so many since Vatican II. As well as recounting this “second act” of Lefebvre’s life, Tissier’s biography shows the piety of the man.
His great contribution with this work was to have shown that Lefebvre’s crime was not having changed along with the rest of the world. This was also particularly apparent in the film Archbishop Lefebvre: A Documentary, which drew on Tissier’s biography and work to a significant degree.
In addition to the biography, Tissier was also involved (along with Mr and Mrs André Cagnon) in the editing and arrangement of Lefebvre’s commentary on the acts of the magisterium, delivered to seminarians at Ecône in the years 1979-81, and published in English as Against the Heresies: Comments on the Papal Encyclicals Condemning Modern Errors infecting the Church and Society.
He was also involved with the publication of The Mystery of Jesus, a series of Lefebvre’s meditations and conferences on the Person of Our Lord. We have already mentioned his contribution to Religious Liberty Questioned, which remains an important contribution to the debate on this contested doctrine of Vatican II.
However, Tissier’s post-consecration career was focused not just on the past, in terms of dealing with Lefebvre’s legacy, but also on present and future threats to the Church.
Critique of Benedict XVI’s modernism, accusation of heresy
In 2006, Tissier gave an interview to Stephen Heiner, at that time writing for The Remnant.
Towards the end of his interview, Tissier took charge of the interview and directed it into a frank discussion about Benedict XVI:
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…
TdM: 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?
TdM: Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies13 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?
TdM: 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?
TdM: 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.
TdM: 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?
TdM: 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…
TdM: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.SH: This sounds like Luther.
TdM: 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?
TdM: No. But he has never retracted these statements.SH: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
TdM: 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?
TdM: 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…
TdM: 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 2005.14
This was not the last that Tissier had to say on the matter of Cardinal Ratzinger’s theology.
Tissier on Ratzinger continued
A few years later, in 2009, the Avrillé Dominicans published a lengthy article (over 100 pages) by Tissier in their journal Le Sel de la Terre, on the subject of Ratzinger’s modernism.15
In this article, Tissier expanded his explanation of Ratzinger’s “hermeneutic” and “re-interpretation” of “all the dogmas,” demonstrating that this approach was in perfect conformity with the modernism condemned by Pope St Pius X and his successors.
It was published in monograph form the following year as L’Étrange Théologie de Benoît XVI (The Strange Theology of Benedict XVI) in French, and Faith Imperiled by Reason in English.
To understand the issue here, let us consider Fr Pietro Parente’s definition of modernism:
“A heresy, or rather a group of heresies, which have arisen in very bosom of the Church […] with the pretence of elevating and saving the Christian religion and the Catholic Church by means of a radical renovation.”16
This approach was also noted by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis, in words which align closely with what Tissier demonstrated to be the case with Ratzinger:
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […]
It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.17
In his monograph, Tissier’s focused on Ratzinger’s engagement with modern epistemology and ontology, as well as his approach to the Gospel as a whole, the dogmas of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption, and many other truths of the Catholic religion. He demonstrated what he had merely claimed in the Heiner interview; namely, that the modernism described by the Popes and Parente was precisely the project of Ratzinger’s whole theological career.
For Ratzinger, modernity had so disrupted the intellectual landscape, through its science, philosophy and other changes, that it was almost impossible to assent to Catholic dogma. For this reason, there must be a “new relation between faith and reason” (as Tissier put it).18
Following his lengthy exposition of Ratzinger’s approach over the course of 100 pages, Tissier concludes:
“Thus, Benedict XVI’s hermeneutics goes much further even than I discerned at the beginning: more than a reinterpretation, it is a regeneration; and it goes beyond the only links of the Catholic religion with Western rationality. It consists first in a mutual purification of faith and reason, which corrects the intolerant drift of the first and the blind autonomy of the second.
“It finally consists in a mutual regeneration of faith and reason, which would enrich faith with the liberal values, duly limited, of the Enlightenment, and which would win reason over to a hearing of the faith duly decoded and transcribe in secularized language. And this process would stretch out universally to all religious faiths and to all rationalities.”19
In effect, Ratzinger’s project was to “save” Christianity by rethinking, reimagining and reinterpreting all the dogmas of the Christian religion, supposedly without changing them. Only through this process would it become possible for modern man to assent to Catholic dogma.
But what is left of dogma after the whole sense has been reinterpreted?20 And what of the famous maxim of St Vincent of Lerins, repeated by Pope St Pius X and Vatican I?
“Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries—but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.”21
Tissier demonstrated that, while Ratzinger believed himself to be “saving” Catholic dogma by making the traditional formula acceptable in light of modern science and philosophy, the reality is that the traditional meaning and understanding of the dogma is denied, and openly so.22
Tissier did the Church a great service in providing a thorough analysis of Ratzinger’s modernist theology, and it is a tragedy that this work is not widely distributed in English.
It is accessible online, but the most commonly available version is formatted in a way which is very difficult to read and understand. There is another version available which is easier to follow.
Standing against a practical agreement with the Vatican without a prior doctrinal agreement
In 2012, when a practical agreement with Rome seemed to be on the cards, Tissier was interviewed by the French periodical Rivarol, in which he expressed strong opinions about the idea of the SSPX’s “reintegration” with the Vatican:
“This project of ‘officialization’ of the SSPX leaves me indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction, that attracts those noble souls, that attract lots of young priests, despite our pariah status. One would wish to place our lamp under the bushel for our integration in the Conciliar world. This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to ‘regularize the war’. […]
“The irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome. A Modernist Rome. A Liberal Rome that has renounced Christ the King. A Rome that had been condemned in advance by all Popes up until the eve of the [Second Vatican] Council. On the other hand, the experience of the priestly societies that have joined current Rome is that all, the ones after the others, included Campos and the Good Shepherd, have been constrained to accept the Vatican II Council. And we know what has become of Bp. Rifan, of Campos, who now has no objection to celebrating the new mass and who has forbidden his priests from criticizing the Council!”23
In the same year, a draft letter to Bishop Fellay from Tissier and the other two SSPX bishops was leaked onto the internet. This document, perhaps inspired by the studies already mentioned, strongly argues against a practical agreement, stating (among other things):
“But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberal subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in ‘full communion,’ in relation to the authority and to other ‘ecclesiastical entities.’
“For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Conciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down.”
It is difficult to know what (if anything) was changed before a letter was sent to Menzingen, but Bishop Fellay’s reply (jointly signed with along with Frs Pfluger and Nély) to the three bishops shows that they definitely sent him something along these lines.24
Further, in the interview mentioned, Tissier acknowledged its authenticity, saying that “[t]he publication of our letter is due to an indiscretion for which we are not responsible”—but immediately proceeded to state that the three bishops “refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental,” and then to explain why.25
Despite the defence that Fellay et al. made for their position, the dreaded personal prelature did not appear.
Tissier’s distinction between the Catholic and the Conciliar Church
However, in this letter, Fellay et al. made the following observation:
“To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church.”26
Now, the leaked letter of Tissier et al. did indeed refer to the “Conciliar Church,” by which was meant the body of men of which Benedict XVI was the head, and of which Francis is the head today.
Fellay et al. were in fact correct in suggesting that at least Tissier and Williamson held that the Catholic Church and the “Conciliar Church” are distinct.27
But Tissier and Williamson did not invent this question—or the term.
Whether the “Conciliar Church” was a new and distinct body to the Catholic Church was asked very early on. In 1968, before the Novus Ordo Mass was even introduced, the famous apologist Frank J. Sheed wrote a book entitled Is it the Same Church? Throughout this book, Sheed argues that it is indeed the same Church; nonetheless, he frequently gives examples of events—several of which have occurred within the milieu of the Conciliar Church—which would mean that it was no longer be the same Church.28
The term “conciliar Church” was first used by Paul VI himself in an address to lay leaders in 1966, when he said:
“For it is not a matter merely of collecting and spreading the council’s teachings, but of transforming oneself into the image of the conciliar Church.”29
However. it was long thought to have been first used by Bishop Benelli, when he called for Lefebvre and his seminarians to submit themselves to the “Conciliar Church.”30 Archbishop Lefebvre seized on this term, and the distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church became a recurring theme for him. He actually called equating the “visible Church” with the Conciliar Church “childish”.31
In the June 2024 document The Bishop of Rome, the authorities of this “Conciliar Church” appear to have rebranded themselves as the “conciliar/synodal Church” (curiously, taking up a term which we had been using since December 2023). This document states that “dialogue documents generally use ‘conciliarity’ and ‘synodality’ interchangeably.”32
It was not always clear how Lefebvre and others thought that the Catholic Church and the Conciliar/Synodal Church were distinct, and there have been several explanations. In 2013, Tissier published his explanation in French, in the Dominicans of Avrille’s journal Le Sel de la Terre.33 He approached the question from the angle of “the four causes” of classical metaphysics.
Tissier also appeared to reject the idea, at that time promoted by Fr Jean-Michel Gleize SSPX, that the “Conciliar Church” was simply a metaphor or a sickness affecting the Church. On the contrary, Tissier stated that it was a real and existing society:
The Catholic Church is the society of the baptised who want to save their souls in professing the Catholic faith, in practising the same Catholic worship and in following the same pastors, successors of the Apostles.
The conciliar church is the society of the baptised who follow the directives of the current Popes and bishops, in espousing more or less consciously the intention to bring about the unity of the human race, and in practise accepting the decisions of the Council, following the new liturgy and submitting to the new Code of Canon law.
If this be so, we have two churches who have the same heads and most of the same members, but who have different forms and ends diametrically incongruous: on the one hand eternal salvation seconded by the social reign of Christ, King of Nations, on the other hand the unity of the human race by liberal ecumenism, that is to say broadened to all religions, the heir of the conciliar decisions of Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae, and which is the spirit of Assisi and the antithesis of the social reign of Christ the King.34
He continues elsewhere:
“Firstly, the conciliar church is not materially separate from the Catholic Church. It does not exist independently from the Catholic Church. There is a distinction certainly between them, a formal one, without an absolute material distinction. The hierarchy of the conciliar church coincides almost exactly with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the members of the conciliar church are all members at least materially of the Catholic Church. […]
“[T]he conciliar church is born of the corruption of the Catholic Church and it cannot exist but by living of this corruption, as a parasite lives depending on an organism, sucking of the substance of its host to construct its own substance. […]
“On the other hand, the conciliar church does not necessarily coincide with the Catholic Church, neither in its leaders nor its members. The leaders of one are not always leaders of the other. The members of the first can, by heresy, cease to be members of the second, but not necessarily. The Catholic Church is the only true Church, the only Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.
“But this does not hinder the conciliar church from being a social reality; not only a section, but a counterfeit church, led by a sect of directors, a sect whose ideology or system is the form of this conciliar church, and which manoeuvres it towards its ends, with its relays and its executors, formed of a large part of the hierarchy and faithful Catholics more or less conscious and consenting, to a diametrical overturning which it is trying to bring about. In this sense, Fr. Calmel O.P. was able to speak of the ‘church of Pirates’; this metaphor says it all.”35
The Dominicans of Avrillé, who have since broken ties with the SSPX, state that they were reproached at the time for having published Tissier’s study. That said, it is easily accessible on La Porte Latine, the official French site of the SSPX.
Intriguingly, these Dominicans also state that the following:
“Fr. Rostand (at that time district superior of the U.S.) had the Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the Dominicans of Avrillé of September 2013 removed from the press tables of all SSPX chapels, precisely because it contained an article treating this same subject.”36
It is unsavoury to do so, but we cannot help but note that on 6 June 2024, Rostand (who had been removed from his position by the SSPX) was sentenced to prison for unspeakable crimes against minors.37
While aspects of Tissier’s explanation of the distinction seem to be untenable,38 his article was an important contribution to the subject, and keeping alive a crucial theme of Archbishop Lefebvre’s analysis, which has lessened in prominence over the years.
Strong statements on the importance of valid sacraments
In 1998, the retired Filipino diocesan bishop Salvador Lazo y Lazo formalised his long-standing association with the SSPX with a powerful declaration of faith.39
As is well known, every single sacramental rite “reformed” during the post-conciliar liturgical reform, and four of the sacramental rites were changed in their essentials.40
Also in 1998, Tissier received a copy of Rama Coomaraswamy’s critique of the new rite of episcopal consecration, which called its validity into question.
Lazo had been ordained in the traditional rite in 1947, but he had been consecrated in 1970. This being after 1968, the rite used had been the reformed, Novus Ordo “new rite of episcopal consecration.”
Tissier’s reply, signed and with a handwritten postscript, was published in 2000 after Lazo’s death. It read as follows:
“Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet ‘Le Drame Anglican.’
“After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
“The [phrase] ‘spiritum principalem’ in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.
“As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.”41
In the handwritten postscript, Tissier mentioned that Lazo had already confirmed several of the faithful, and he adds:
“And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!”42
There are some obvious similarities between Lazo’s situation and that of the late Vitus Huonder.43
In 2005, Fr Pierre-Marie of the Dominicans of Avrillé published a study purporting to refute Coomaraswamy’s and to prove the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration.44 In 2006, Fr Anthony Cekada responded to Fr Pierre-Marie with his own study, arguing instead for the intrinsic invalidity of this rite.45 This prompted a further exchange of studies in the following years.46
The debate did not seem to progress further (with most, depending on their opinions, holding that either Cekada or Pierre-Marie had definitively settled the question) until Fr Álvaro Calderón SSPX, of the Argentine seminary, released his 2014 study. Calderón’s study took a more nuanced approach than either Pierre-Marie’s or Cekada’s, whilst also concluding that conditional ordination/consecration was necessary in all cases for clerics joining the SSPX.
Although, as mentioned, the Dominicans of Avrillé are no longer affiliated with the SSPX, they publicly accepted Calderón’s practical conclusions in 2023.47
Tissier did not release a study on this issue, or engage with the debate in great detail in the intervening ears. Nonetheless, he took a surprising public position on the question of the validity of Novus Ordo priestly orders in his ordination sermon of 29 June 2016.
During the sermon, he refers to the anointing of the ordinand’s hands, saying:
“Now, dear faithful, this marvelous anointing of the priest’s hands has been falsified (truquée) by the conciliar Church for the past 46 years. Paul VI instituted other words, which speak neither of consecration nor sanctification. That is why we carefully preserve this treasure of the ordination prayers.”48
He continues, discussing the prayer said by the ordaining bishop when he presents the chalice and paten to the ordinand, which was removed in the new rite of ordination:
“Now, this beautiful prayer has been falsified (truquée), once again, by the conciliar Church, in the new rite of ordination where the bishop presents the chalice and the paten, with the wine and the host, yes, simply saying: ‘Receive the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God.’
“So what is that? You receive the gifts of the faithful to offer them to God? That’s it? We do not receive the gift of the faithful, we receive the gift of God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed on the cross, to offer Him again to God His Father. That is the truth!
“We obviously cannot accept this falsified (truqué) new ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of many ordinations performed according to the new rite."49
He then discusses the prayer in which the ordaining bishop signifies the power to forgive sins, which was also removed in the new rite of ordination:
“Now, dear faithful, this prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sins, has simply been removed from the new rite of ordination. It is no longer mentioned.
“Therefore, this new ordination rite is not Catholic. And so we will, of course, continue faithfully to transmit the real and valid priesthood, truly valid, through the traditional rite of priestly ordination.”50
Stating that “this new ordination rite is not Catholic” is very striking, and has striking implications, but this is not all.
Throughout this section, Tissier uses words related to truquer, which is a strong word which could be translated as to falsify, to fake, to tamper with, to trick—in all cases, implying more than a simple change or alteration.
It is also remarkable that he repeated the word “valid” twice at the end, the second time with emphasis.
The features of this text clearly indicate, by at least implication, that Tissier doubted the validity of the reformed rite of ordination. It is true that he was discussing prayers which did not make up the sacramental form for either the traditional or the Novus Ordo rites, nonetheless it appears that he had concerns about the effect that such changes might have had on the validity of the sacramental form (perhaps via obviating the sacramental intention of the ministers, as expressed by Lefebvre and argued by Calderón).
As noted elsewhere, concerns about the validity of Novus Ordo sacraments (rooted in a variety of reasons) were instrumental in prompting Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations.
And this brings us to the last aspect of Tissier’s legacy which we need to discuss, as well as a possible impact which his death will have on the future.
The episcopal consecration of Bishop Rangel for Campos, Brazil
In 1991, soon after the episcopal consecration, both Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer died.
De Castro Mayer had resigned from his diocesan see of Campos, Brazil, in 1981, but had continued to lead an opposition to the Vatican II reforms in the diocese. Many priests of this diocese rallied around de Castro Mayer, and eventually formed themselves into the Priestly Union of St John-Mary Vianney (or the SSJV).
The SSPX quickly provided a new bishop for the priests of Campos in the person of Fr Licínio Rangel. Tissier was the principle consecrator at this episcopal consecration, with Bishops de Galarreta and Williamson as the co-consecrators.
This consecration was not mentioned in the 2009 decree purporting to remit the alleged excommunications of the four bishops. It almost seems to have been forgotten—although not by the priests whom Rangel himself ordained for the SSPX.51 But this 1991 episcopal consecration may even be surprising for some today, given that the SSPX has not proceeded to further episcopal consecrations for itself, and various figures been critical of Bishop Richard Williamson’s episcopal consecrations following his removal in 2012.
Conclusion—Tissier de Mallerais’ final gift
As with receiving the episcopate in 1988, the conferral of the episcopate in 1991 by Tissier (as well as his two co-consecrators) was an act of sacrifice and courage.
In 2024, after 36 years of ministry by Tissier and his fellow bishops, as well as the many traditionalist consecrations outside the SSPX, we may be de-sensitised to the significance of conferring the episcopate without pontifical mandate.
Even if the justice of the 1991 consecration was clear to those involved, it remained a difficult and potentially unpopular act of doing what needed to be done for the good of the Church, and accepting whatever further condemnation this would entail.
Tissier’s readiness to accept difficulty and unpopularity has been the recurring theme throughout the areas discussed in this piece. In this tribute, we have considered his constant adherence to ideas which have been markedly unpopular, even amongst his collaborators. We have seen…
His readiness to state that Benedict XVI “professed heresies” and to condemn his modernist theology
His insistence on a distinction between the Conciliar/Synodal Church and the Catholic Church
His expression of prudent doubts about the validity of the Novus Ordo rites of ordination/consecration and clerics (even after such admirable abjurations as Bishop Lazo’s)
His willingness to himself follow in Lefebvre’s footprints and to confer the episcopate without a mandate from Conciliar/Synodal “authorities.”
Whether or not we find ourselves in agreement with all Tissier’s conclusions, we can be grateful for this legacy, which provides an invaluable basis for further and necessary conclusions about the post-conciliar crisis.
However, following his death, the question is this: What will the leadership of the SSPX do now?
Whatever they decide, the numbers are clear. On 29 June 1988, the SSPX counted six bishops at their “disposal,” albeit with two withdrawing themselves from active ministry, and one of these two being replaced in the person of Rangel.
Today, following the death of Tissier de Mallerais, as well as the deaths of Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer, the departure of Rangel, and the expulsion of Williamson, they have two bishops.
This will not be sustainable for the SSPX’s operations. It seems certain that something will happen; what it will be, remains to be seen.
Just as in 1988, there may be a temptation to find a solution by striking a deal with the enemies of the faith. There may also be a temptation to set aside the doubts about sacramental validity which drove Lefebvre in 1988, and which were expressed by Tissier, and thus to work with doubtful bishops ordained or consecrated in the Novus Ordo rites.
But it may be that Tissier’s death, a greater appreciation of his ideas, and the memory of his actions in 1991 (undertaken with Williamson, da Galarreta and the SSPX as a whole) will together prompt the SSPX to take the daunting step of consecrating further bishops—just as Lefebvre encouraged de Castro Mayer to do before his death, based on the priests’ and faithful’s “strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests.”52
In the meantime, we should pray for the repose of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’ soul, and thank God for his example of energy and sacrifice, and the witness which he gave to so many crucial truths about the post-conciliar crisis.
Merci, Msgr Tissier de Mallerais. RIP.
Further reading:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p 412. Trans. Brian Sudlow, Angelus Press, Kansas City MO, 2004.
Ibid. 432.
Cf. photos in The Biography, between pp 512-3.
Indeed, given other conferences delivered at the time, it seems that Lefebvre must have been conflicted throughout these talks. In 1986, Lefebvre was openly discussing the possibility that John Paul II was not the legitimate Roman Pontiff, and even suggesting that his priests discuss the idea with the faithful and prepare them for such an idea.
Ibid. 552
Ibid. 540
Ibid. 558. In 2012, Tissier said the following in an interview with the French periodical Rivarol:
“We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. To submit ourselves now unconditionally to the higher authority imbibed with Modernism would be to expose ourselves to have to disobey. And what is the good in that? Abp. Lefebvre said since 1984: ‘one does not place oneself under an authority when that authority has all the powers to demolish us.’ And I believe that that is wise. I would like us to produce a text that, renouncing to diplomatic subterfuges, clearly affirms our faith and, consequently, our rejection of the conciliar errors.”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/bishop-tissier-de-mallerais.html
Lefebvre said in 1990:
“That we are being persecuted is obvious. How could we not be persecuted? We are the only ones to be excommunicated. No one else is. We are the only ones being persecuted, even in material matters. For example, our Swiss colleagues are being obliged again to do their military service. That is persecution by the Swiss government. In France they are persecuting the Society's French District by blocking legacies from being handed over to the District, this in the attempt to stifle us, by cutting off our income. This is persecution, of such a kind as history is full of, it is merely continuing.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20240228183416/https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
For instance, the District Superiors of the time wrote this letter to Cardina Gantin in support of the allegedly excommunicated bishops:
“… we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
“To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Emphasis added)
District Superiors of the SSPX, Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, July 6 1988. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20211222165521/https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-07-06.htm
Ibid.
Heiner later described this as follows:
“He said, ‘But you haven't asked any of the important questions,’ and I said, ‘What important questions?’
“He said, ‘For example, the fact that Benedict XVI is a heretic and he remains a heretic.”
Following the interview, Heiner sent him a transcript, which Tissier revised in various respects. Most of these revisions were grammatical, but he also inserted a long text from Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity which he had not had to hand at the interview.
In addition, Heiner states, he changed every reference to Benedict XVI being a heretic to “professing heresies,” which accounts for the difference in the published text. Heiner also correctly notes that while “professing heresies” may seem somewhat softer, this is not a substantial change.
https://truerestoration.org/the-flagship-show-episode-71-true-restoration/
https://truerestoration.org/rediscovering-my-catholic-birthright-how-i-found-the-traditional-mass/
The interview continued along these lines:
SH: This hermeneutic is also known as the “living tradition…” It would interpret existing doctrines in new lights…
TdM: 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…
TdM: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…
SH: But these are strong words…
TdM: 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?
TdM: 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?
TdM: Yes. Yes. I have read Joseph Ratzinger, and have read his books. I can assure you that it is true.
While we might disagree with Tissier’s application of the maxim ecclesia supplet in this context, along with the conclusion which he seeks to justify with it, we must acknowledge that such a frank appraisal of Benedict XVI and his “theology.”
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0430-tissier.htm
La Sel de Terre, Issue 69, Summer 2009.
Pietro Parente, “Modernism”, 190-1, in Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951.
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 14-16, 1950.
J. Ratzinger, “Right, Democracy and Religion” (debate with Jürgen Habermas, Catholic Academy of Bavaria, Munich, January 19, 2004), Esprit, July 2004, p. 28. In Tissier de Mallerais, Faith Imperiled by Reason, 7. From La Sel de la Terre, Issue 69, Summer 2009.
Tissier de Mallerais, Faith Imperiled by Reason, 102.
A prime example of Ratzinger’s approach to the dogma of transubstantiation. James Larson, taking a similar analysis to Tissier, emphasised that Ratzinger’s methodology entails retaining the classic terminology (transubstantiation, substance, change of substance) whilst “employing these terms is ways that are meant to totally change the way the Church has previously used them.”
Ratzinger wrote:
“The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.”
(Joseph Ratzinger, God is Near Us, p.86. Quoted in Larson, ‘Adendum, The Ratzinger Eucharistic Heresy,’ Article 4: The Rosmini Rehabilitation – When To Be is Not To Be. Available at: http://waragainstbeing.com/parti/article4/)
Larson commented as follows:
“In Thomistic Metaphysics (and absolutely integral to the traditional understanding of Transubstantiation) all physical properties or accidents inhere in a substance. Substance, in other words, is not some sort of real being ‘way down there’ or ‘way out there’, underneath and distinct from physical reality. It is absolutely integral to the real physical existence of any physical substance, whether it be bread or the Body of Christ. It is this substantial being which is truly ‘physically’ changed through the miracle of Transubstantiation, the accidental properties of being alone remaining.
“It is precisely this meaning of substance which Cardinal Ratzinger denies because he appears to have succumbed to the secular world-view that all physical reality is reducible to quantified particles (molecules, atoms, etc.). He must therefore make ‘substance’ and ‘substantial change’ into realities which are ‘metaphysical’ in a sense which is totally opposed to the Thomistic understanding, and also to the traditional understanding of the Eucharistic change of substance.”
(Larson, Article 4: The Rosmini Rehabilitation – When To Be is Not To Be. Available at: http://waragainstbeing.com/parti/article4/)
Pope St Pius X, quoting Vatican I, Pascendi Dominic Gregis, n. 38.
Regarding Ratzinger’s thought on the dogma of transubstantiation, Larson writes:
“In Thomistic Metaphysics (and absolutely integral to the traditional understanding of Transubstantiation) all physical properties or accidents inhere in a substance. Substance, in other words, is not some sort of real being ‘way down there’ or ‘way out there’, underneath and distinct from physical reality. It is absolutely integral to the real physical existence of any physical substance, whether it be bread or the Body of Christ. It is this substantial being which is truly ‘physically’ changed through the miracle of Transubstantiation, the accidental properties of being alone remaining.
“It is precisely this meaning of substance which Cardinal Ratzinger denies because he appears to have succumbed to the secular world-view that all physical reality is reducible to quantified particles (molecules, atoms, etc.). He must therefore make ‘substance’ and ‘substantial change’ into realities which are ‘metaphysical’ in a sense which is totally opposed to the Thomistic understanding, and also to the traditional understanding of the Eucharistic change of substance.”
Bishop de Galarreta’s thought on this matter is unknown to this writer.
For example, Sheed acknowledges clearly that the Conciliar Church “does not look quite the same, or feel quite the same” (pp 122-3). He says that “in one sense, certainly, we are living in a new Church—the relation between the clergy and the laity is not altogether what it was.” (pp 62-3). He also states that the question “Is it the same Church” might have a “sub-section” entitled “Can it sing the same hymns?” (p 175)
Sheed states that there are some views which “if they should come to be accepted would really mean that it would no longer be the same Church.” (p 189). He explicitly states that “it” would not be the same Church…
If it accepted the idea that there can be no absolute moral laws, binding in every circumstance (p 27)
If it withdrew the claim to teach what is morally right and wrong (p 46)
If it accepted the temptation to say that discussing religious differences with Protestants was “inopportune” (p 130)
If “she accepts the presence within her of men who deny teachings to which she committed herself” (p 175).
Paul VI, Address to Members of the Permanent Committee of the International Congresses for the Apostolate of the Laity, Mar. 8, 1966; underlining added. Translation taken from The Messenger, Mar. 18, 1966, p. 3.)
With thanks to Novus Ordo Watch for drawing this to our attention.
Note of July 12, 1976, to the Agence France-Presse. https://web.archive.org/web/20211213201555/http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_12.htm
Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview One Year After the Consecrations, published in Fideliter, July-August 1989. Available here: https://web.archive.org/save/http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm
Page 77, available here: http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/documenti/altri-testi/the-bishop-of-rome.html
Le Sel de la Terre, No. 85, Summer 2013.
Ibid.
Ibid.
I do not wish to enter into a critique of this article here. But as one example, Tissier repeats an idea mentioned in the Heiner interview, namely:
“… in case of doubt, the Church supplies at least the executive power of the apparent Pope (can. 209 of the Code of Canon law 1917).”
It is difficult to understand what Tissier means here. Is he claiming that the Church supplied jurisdiction in order to validate an invalid election of a public heretic? But this is equivalent to claiming that the Church could supply jurisdiction in order to validate the invalid election of a woman. Is he claiming that the Church supplies the jurisdiction which Benedict XVI (and now Francis) was lacking? But for these men to lack jurisdiction and to be in need of the Church supplying this is to concede that they were/are not popes, which is the very idea Tissier seems to be wanting to avoid.
Taken from Fr Hervé Belmont’s article:
Order: Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani of 18 June 1968; AAS 1968 pp. 369-373.
Eucharist: Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969; AAS 1969 pp. 217-222.
Marriage: Decree of 19 March 1969; Notitiæ (bulletin of the Congregation for Divine Worship) 1969 pp. 203.
Baptism: Decree of 15 May 1969; AAS 1969 p. 548. 548.
Confirmation: Apostolic Constitution Divinæ consortium naturæ of 15 August 1971; AAS 1971 pp. 657-664.
Extreme Unction: Apostolic Constitution Sacram Unctionem infirmorum of 30 November 1972; AAS 1973 pp. 5-9.
Penance: Decree of 2 December 1973; AAS 1974 pp. 172-173
Ibid.
Vitus Huonder was a diocesan bishop of the diocese of Chur, Switzerland, who had putatively received presbyteral and episcopal orders in the reformed rites in 1971 and 2007 respectively. He had been permitted to spend his retirement with the SSPX in 2019, and who died on 3 April, 2024 (Saturday in Passion Week).
The previous year, Huonder had consecrated holy oils on Holy Thursday (6 April 2023), which caused considerable controversy due to concerns about validity.
Formely available here: https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
“Or, bien chers fidèles, cette merveilleuse onction des mains du prêtre a été truquée par l’Eglise conciliaire depuis 46 ans. Paul VI a institué d’autres paroles, qui ne parlent ni de consécration, ni de sanctification. C’est pourquoi nous gardons précieusement ce trésor de ces prières de l’ordination.”
“Or, cette belle prière a été truquée, encore une fois, par l’Eglise conciliaire, le nouveau rite d’ordination où l’évêque présente le calice et la patène, avec le vin et l’hostie oui, en disant simplement : « Recevez les dons des fidèles pour les offrir à Dieu ». Alors qu’est-ce que c’est ? Vous recevez les dons des fidèles pour les offrir à Dieu ? C’est tout ? Nous ne recevons pas le don des fidèles, nous recevons le don de Dieu qui est Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ immolé sur la croix, pour l’offrir à nouveau à Dieu son Père. Voilà la vérité ! Nous ne pouvons pas, évidemment, accepter ce nouveau rite d’ordination truqué qui fait peser des doutes sur la validité de nombreuses ordinations selon le nouveau rite.”
Ibid.
“Or bien chers fidèles cette prière, ce rite de transmettre le pouvoir de remettre le péché, a été simplement supprimé du nouveau rite de l’ordination. Il n’en est plus question. Donc ce nouveau rite d’ordination n’est pas catholique. Et donc nous continuerons bien sûr fidèlement à transmettre le sacerdoce réel et valide, et valide, par le rite traditionnel de l’ordination sacerdotale.”
Ibid.
Unfortunately, Bishop Rangel led the SSJV back to the Conciliar Church in 2001. The Priestly Union of St John-Mary Vianney then became the Personal Apostolic Administration of St John-Mary Vianney. Rangel died in 2002.
Bishop Rangel was succeeded by Bishop Rifan, another of de Castro Mayer’s priests, who was one of the stalwart defenders of tradition under the late bishop, and who assisted him at the 1988 consecrations. In 2013, he was pictured concelebrating the Novus Ordo Mass with Francis at Casa Santa Marta.
Lefebvre’s letter to de Castro Mayer, 1990, Appendix of Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre—The Biography
Sean,
very thorough and well documented; how did you put this together so quickly and so well done?
Congratulations, and R..I.P. To Msgr. Tissier