The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[Dee_S]

That’s the way I read it and I thought the inference was pretty straightforwad…dissapointing to say the least.

That it is. It gives one an idea what Bishop Fellay was up against. I’m thinking that my earlier theory that he was hoping for support from the General Chapter may be fairly accurate, because everything *changed *after that. He had not seemed too concerned about the letter of the 3 bishops, or what BW was saying about him on youtube etc. - perhaps one can draw the conclusion that too few to be significant would have gone along with him.

 

[Lormar]

Sorry to disappoint, but good man or not, he did mean what he said - and he is a ‘hard liner’. Not only has he accused Pope Benedict of heresy, he even published a booklet saying the same. I had forgotten quite how dangerous he is to the process of reconciliation, whereas BW has gone off on his own mission, this bishop is still right there to stop any further attempts.

Q. “What more, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: “Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.”

Q. When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, but he has never retracted his errors.

Bishop Tissier De Mallerais says that Benedict XVI published a book full of heresies.

Q.: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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.

Q: In what sense, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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.

Q.: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.

Q.: This sounds like Luther.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ**. It is worse than Luther, much worse**.

Q. My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No. But he has never retracted these statements.

Q.: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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).

Q.: What other heresies, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…

So, according to Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, Benedict XVI has taught heresies worse than Luther and put doubts on the divinity of Christ; but he’s not a heretic or even “favoring heresy”!

Q.: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…

Isn’t that interview quite a few years old already?

Let me clarify what I meant. It is true that he is outspoken, but when he was told to put a lid on it lest he throw a monkey wrench into the discussion process (like his counterpart BW), he did.

 

[otjm]

This news article, of Sept 2012 by Vatican Insider gives an idea of how Bishop T de M thinks, and I don’t think his thinking has changed, as he is noted for his accusations of heresy against Cardinal Ratzinger etc.**
During a conference, Lefebvrian bishop Tissier de Mallerais unveiled a letter written by Benedict XVI which says an agreement between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See is impossible**
Andrea Tornielli

Last 30 June, just days after the start of the Society of St. Pius X’s General Chapter, Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the Lefebvrian Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay.

The letter was revealed during a conference held on 16 September at the Priory of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Monfort in France, by Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the Fraternity’s four bishops, who is renowned for his disapproval of an agreement with Rome.

During the conference, the prelate said: “On 30 June 2012 – this is a secret but will be revealed to the public – the Pope himself wrote a letter to our Superior General, Mgr. Fellay: “I confirm to you that in order to be fully reintegrated into the Catholic Church, you must really accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar teachings.”
“This really is a sticking point – Tissier de Mallerais said – because we cannot accept or sign something like this. Clarifications can be made as the Council is so vast and it does have its positive points but this is not the essential element of the Council.”

The Lefebvrian bishop was very tough in some of the points he made during the conference:*** “Weapons cannot be surrendered right in the middle of a battle; we will not look for a truce while the war rages on, with the beatification of a fake beatification, that of Pope John Paul II. This was fake, it was a fake beatification. And with the requirement, continuously stressed by Benedict XVI, that we accept the Council and the reforms to the post-conciliar teachings.” ***

” “Evidently – the Lefebvrian bishop said – we cannot sign such an agreement. There isn’t and never will be agreement over this point.” Despite “modernist Rome’s” insistence, Tissier stressed: “Personally I will never sign anything like this that is for sure. I will never accept that the new Mass is legitimate or licit; I believe it lacks validity, as Mgr. Lefebvre used to say. I will never accept the idea that “the Council, if interpreted correctly, could be made to correspond with the Tradition [and that] an acceptable meaning could be found.”

After calling the doctrinal preamble which Cardinal William Levada delivered to Fellay, “false”, the Lefebvrian bishop said some “very mild and soft” decisions were taken at the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X, convened last July, so as to “present Rome with such great obstacles that it would be prevented from making any new proposals to us. But the Devil is evil and I think they will strike again, so I am discreetly preparing to defend us and the Fraternity will defend itself.”
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/concilio-18455/

All of which seems to indicate that if there will be any reconsilliation, it will be piece-meal and most likely individual.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sorry to disappoint, but good man or not, he did mean what he said - and he is a ‘hard liner’. Not only has he accused Pope Benedict of heresy, he even published a booklet saying the same. I had forgotten quite how dangerous he is to the process of reconciliation, whereas BW has gone off on his own mission, this bishop is still right there to stop any further attempts.

Q. “What more, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: “Well, for instance, that this Pope has professed heresies in the past! He has professed heresies! I do not know whether he still does.”

Q. When you say “has professed,” do you mean he still does?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, but he has never retracted his errors.

Bishop Tissier De Mallerais says that Benedict XVI published a book full of heresies.

Q.: My Lord, I need you to be more specific, so we can examine the matter.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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.

Q: In what sense, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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.

Q.: Ah, I’m not sure I understand…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: He denies the necessity of satisfaction.

Q.: This sounds like Luther.
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, it goes much further than Luther. Luther admits the sacrifice…the satisfaction of Christ**. It is worse than Luther, much worse**.

Q. My Lord, I must return to the beginning of this line of questioning: are you saying he is a heretic?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No. But he has never retracted these statements.

Q.: Well, then, what would you say, My Lord, that it was “suspicious,” “questionable,” “favoring heresy”?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: 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).

Q.: What other heresies, My Lord?
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: Many others. Many others. He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…

So, according to Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, Benedict XVI has taught heresies worse than Luther and put doubts on the divinity of Christ; but he’s not a heretic or even “favoring heresy”!

Q.: These are very strong words, My Lord, but yet, the Society is not sedevacantist…
A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: No, no, no, no. He is the Pope…

What is your answer to the specific charges levied by Bishop TdM? You have attacked him, but have you answered the specific items he mentions in the interview which you have posted here? Why post this interview if you are not going to respond in detail to what he has alleged.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

As to the Bishop’s charges - I cannot answer them, because I have not read the book. However, even if his charges are true, they are not grounds to seperate from the Catholic Church. While the Pope was writing this book, he was not speaking “Ex Cathedra,” and therefore are not infallible. Meaning - that the Pope could have made an error.

 

[Filioque]

They owe their obedience to the Archbishop. That is how they think. And to “Eternal Rome”.
In their mind, they are behaving exactly as Christ would have them behave. They are saving the Church.
The Archbishop was the St. Athanasius of last century.

That is the reality of their thinking.

Anyone here who has spent any significant amount of time with them will know exactly what I am saying because they will recognize the thought process.

Having been on the inside, then looked at it from the outside, where one’s thoughts are not controlled by conformity do or die, one can see that. Sailing the seas toward the gates of heaven without Peter, is like taking a ship without a rudder.

 

[pnewton]

What is your answer to the specific charges levied by Bishop TdM?.

Using his own logic, I would wonder whether he is having doubt about the divinity of Christ. . “He has put up doubts regarding the divinity of Christ, regarding the dogma of the Incarnation…”

Fuzzy reasoning to be sure, but a man knows no mind but his own. Perhaps we should not be so quick to judge others (lest we ourselves be judged). And yes, when we start trying to judge hearts, we cross the line. I for one have not found much confidence in the ability of the SSPX leadership to read and understand others.

 

[Filioque]

I’m coming in late to this discussion and have not reviewed all the posts, But we have all seen how someone’s words can be twisted out of context.

Before the Vatican Council, (Vatican I) Cardinal Wiseman was asked if Catholic believed that the Pope was Infallible.) He replied no, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is Infallible. Some Protestants have used this to say the Catholic Church changed doctrine. What really took place was that in Engaland at the time the term Papal Infallibility was used by Protestants to mean that the Pope was sinless and could never make any error on any subject. With the clarification and solemn defenition of Papal Infallibility at the Council, we see that his answer would still be NO.

Anti-Catholics have also distorted what Cardinal Newman wrote regarding the Primacy of the Pope, while it is true that he wrote that there was no scriptural proof of Papal Primacy, he wrote that when he was still a Protestant, Later in his Apologia, as a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, he quoted his earlier statement, and then explained how he came to through Scripture and the Church Fathers accept Papal Primacy. Anti-Catholics leave out the second part, as their primary sources don’t explain that.

So too I think we need to read what was written by then Fr. Karl Ratzinger, and see in what context he was writing.and if as in Cardinal Newman’s case what he wrote was a statement which was proposed as speculative and he shows how it could be wrong, before jumping to accept what the bishop claims about his book. Even if he did write what the bishop claims, then as some did early after the Council, (Vatican II) he seems to have been swept up with the openess of the time, but to have seen the folly of Modernism, and returned to Orthodoxy. If that is the case, it is not the position of the SSPX bishop to determine, or even speculate on that issue, but rather the position of his then Ordinary, or Superior, to bring him back into line. A SSPX bishop making unfounded statements which he seems in the article not to be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint to any actual text is wreckless, and could appear to be an attempt to undermine the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI.

One of the issues that drove me away from the SSPX were priests and a couple of the bishops who in Public made statements that we must pray for the Pope, but in reality were occult Sede-Vacantists. They appeared to remain in the Society because it would further their own ends, even if they did not fully support the public stance of the SSPX. To be balanced, there were others who were quite holy and orthodox, with a strong desire for unity with the Holy See. These are of course my own personal observations,

 

[Lormar]

One of the issues that drove me away from the SSPX were priests and a couple of the bishops who in Public made statements that we must pray for the Pope, but in reality were occult Sede-Vacantists. They appeared to remain in the Society because it would further their own ends, even if they did not fully support the public stance of the SSPX. To be balanced, there were others who were quite holy and orthodox, with a strong desire for unity with the Holy See. These are of course my own personal observations,

For years I have said the same thing, and if you ever want to get anyone that either belongs to their chapels or is a member of the SSPX steaming mad, just mention this to them. Somehow they can’t see it. Having a lovely framed picture of the Supreme Pontiff hanging in their chapel vestibules does not make one loyal to the pope. I remember once, a very long time ago, someone telling me “We must be loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre.” My immediate thought at the time was “How about the pope?”

 

[otjm]

What is your answer to the specific charges levied by Bishop TdM? You have attacked him, but have you answered the specific items he mentions in the interview which you have posted here? Why post this interview if you are not going to respond in detail to what he has alleged.

My answer is pretty well contained in the letters ROFL. Ratzinger/Benedict is one of the brightest, if not the brightest theologians alive. Right up there at the top in the 20th century, and in the start of the 21st.

Ad the good bishop has some background in theology; but from his statements, I am not going to put him in the first ranking.

Or the second.

Or even in the third.

To start with, we have this little problem with the Holy Spirit protecting the Church. Either we believe it, or we don’t.

To go from some sort of rankly heretical professor to Pope - Yes, the Holy Spirit could do that. Without saying that his previous writings were heretical?

Um, about as likely as a cold day in a hot place.

To which I might add, the good bishop’s adamant stance on the Mass (that the Church could promulgate an invalid as well as illicit Mass? see the statement above starting with "To start with…). and of course his opposition to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has said concerning the hermeneutic of continuity, which the good bishop rejects.

ROFL… or sobbing uncontrollably, that someone who has been elevated to the office of bishop could say such things (and from all appearances, believe them) about the Pope and the Church.

I could understand it if the bishop would say that he is not well enough trained in theology to understand what (then) Ratzinger wrote. But to set himself up as judge of the orthodoxy of Ratzinger? That takes a hubris of gigantic proportions.

 

[Tomdstone]

My answer is pretty well contained in the letters ROFL. Ratzinger/Benedict is one of the brightest, if not the brightest theologians alive. Right up there at the top in the 20th century, and in the start of the 21st.

Ad the good bishop has some background in theology; but from his statements, I am not going to put him in the first ranking.

Or the second.

Or even in the third.

To start with, we have this little problem with the Holy Spirit protecting the Church. Either we believe it, or we don’t.

To go from some sort of rankly heretical professor to Pope - Yes, the Holy Spirit could do that. Without saying that his previous writings were heretical?

Um, about as likely as a cold day in a hot place.

To which I might add, the good bishop’s adamant stance on the Mass (that the Church could promulgate an invalid as well as illicit Mass? see the statement above starting with "To start with…). and of course his opposition to what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has said concerning the hermeneutic of continuity, which the good bishop rejects.

ROFL… or sobbing uncontrollably, that someone who has been elevated to the office of bishop could say such things (and from all appearances, believe them) about the Pope and the Church.

I could understand it if the bishop would say that he is not well enough trained in theology to understand what (then) Ratzinger wrote. But to set himself up as judge of the orthodoxy of Ratzinger? That takes a hubris of gigantic proportions.

I don’t consider ROFL or “sobbing uncontrollably” to be specific responses to his comments.
I was looking for something more concrete.

 

[Tomdstone]

As to the Bishop’s charges - I cannot answer them, because I have not read the book. However, even if his charges are true, they are not grounds to seperate from the Catholic Church. While the Pope was writing this book, he was not speaking “Ex Cathedra,” and therefore are not infallible. Meaning - that the Pope could have made an error.

Yes, that is true. I will have to check the book quoted to see what is being talked about.

 

[Dee_S]

What is your answer to the specific charges levied by Bishop TdM? You have attacked him, but have you answered the specific items he mentions in the interview which you have posted here? Why post this interview if you are not going to respond in detail to what he has alleged.

I posted the interview only in order to back up my thoughts on his opposition to any reconciliation or return to full communion with Rome. It was explored as one of the bigger reasons why Bishop Fellay was not successful in his attempt to regularize the Society with the help of Pope Benedict XVI. And yes, it is an old interview, but nothing has changed since then in his mind, so we cannot look to him for any future reconciliation, his is not flexible in his demands…

“Sorry to disappoint, but good man or not, he did mean what he said - and he is a ‘hard liner’. Not only has he accused Pope Benedict of heresy, he even published a booklet saying the same. I had forgotten quite how dangerous he is to the process of reconciliation, whereas BW has gone off on his own mission, this bishop is still right there to stop any further attempts.”(my original quote)

 

[Dee_S]

I don’t consider ROFL or “sobbing uncontrollably” to be specific responses to his comments.
I was looking for something more concrete.

Concrete-ly there are several articles that can show the position that Bishop TdeM takes, and how often his illogical or incorrect statements are refuted.

What is being examined here for the purposes of our discussion thread, is not why and how he is ‘wrong’ per se, but the standing that he has as a highly respected bishop of the SSPX who’s influence among them continues to prevent a reconciliation with Rome.

The following extracts show that he is not always right.

"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.” (www.remnantnewspaper.com)

He says that the concept of Church “communion” is an invention of the Second Vatican Council. This is completely wrong.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis* Cognitum* (# 10), June 29, 1896:
“For this reason, as the unity of faith is of necessity for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law (as the SSPX appear to reject the 1983 one) states the same.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff **or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

**

 

[Tomdstone]

Concrete-ly there are several articles that can show the position that Bishop TdeM takes, and how often his illogical or incorrect statements are refuted.

What is being examined here for the purposes of our discussion thread, is not why and how he is ‘wrong’ per se, but the standing that he has as a highly respected bishop of the SSPX who’s influence among them continues to prevent a reconciliation with Rome.

The following extracts show that he is not always right.

"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.” (www.remnantnewspaper.com)

He says that the concept of Church “communion” is an invention of the Second Vatican Council. This is completely wrong.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis* Cognitum* (# 10), June 29, 1896:
“For this reason, as the unity of faith is of necessity for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”

Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law (as the SSPX appear to reject the 1983 one) states the same.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

Bishop TdM may not be right on a whole lot of issues. My question concerned what he has said about the book: Introduction to Christianity, and whether anyone who had read it had an interpretation similar to his. Most of the reviews of the book I have read were very favorable toward the book, however there were a small number, from people saying they were Traditional Catholics, which were not overwhelmingly favorable but contained a few criticisms somewhat in line to what bishop TdM was referring to.

 

[Aramis]

:thankyou:that is very interesting to know , thanks. I recall that we were trying to pin-point a time or organization besides the SSPX that were using the Tridentine Rite after 1969, as it seemed that it only came into wider or more general usage after Pope John Paul II established *Ecclesia Dei.*e.g. The Institute of Christ the King

The Dominican missal is NOT the Trent Rite - it’s actually about 4 centuries older. Officially, the Dominicans never adopted the Trent Missal as the mass of the Dominican Order. And were explicitly exempted from its use.

The propers differ, the mass itself is slightly different. It is in latin, it is ad orientam, it is extremely similar.

Likewise, the use of the Mozarabic rite in Toledo was never dropped, tho its use has been as an extraordinary form since Trent. Same for the Bragan and Ambrosian Rites in their home ranges.

 

[ProVobis]

Quo Primum in 1570 AD saved all liturgies in existence prior to 1370 AD.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If someone doesn’t accept an Ecumenic Council then they simply aren’t Catholic!

How long does someone with that condition have to remain that way until they are excommunicated?

 

[otjm]

If someone doesn’t accept an Ecumenic Council then they simply aren’t Catholic!

How long does someone with that condition have to remain that way until they are excommunicated?

The Church has a great deal of patience. The goal of the
Church is not to be “right” as in an argument, but to seek the salvation of all. As such, Rome is far more reluctant to excommunicate than it is to seek reconciliation.

How long? Issues started with Paul 6; continued with John Paul 2 (John Paul 1 not being around long enough to get seriously involved in the matters); continued with Benedict 16 and is now up to Francis. It will be up to him as to how the CDF proceeds. And from the comments and postings in this thread, it does not appear that the SSPX are actively seeking to reconcile, at least on the terms that were on the table 6 months or so ago.

 

[Dee_S]

The Church has a great deal of patience. The goal of the
Church is not to be “right” as in an argument, but to seek the salvation of all. As such, Rome is far more reluctant to excommunicate than it is to seek reconciliation.

How long? Issues started with Paul 6; continued with John Paul 2 (John Paul 1 not being around long enough to get seriously involved in the matters); continued with Benedict 16 and is now up to Francis. It will be up to him as to how the CDF proceeds. And from the comments and postings in this thread, it does not appear that the SSPX are actively seeking to reconcile, at least on the terms that were on the table 6 months or so ago.

:sad_yes:…all very true.
Something that has been bothering me til now, was that Bishop Fellay claimed that he did not know until he received a personal letter from Pope Benedict (2012) that they would have to accept the authority of the Pope, the ‘New Mass’ and Vatican II in order for full communion to be achieved. After all those talks and almost 40 years later, I found it very hard to swallow - and for good reason!

Here is an extract from an interview given by Bishop Fellay shortly after he met with Pope Benedict XVI for the first time after he was elected Pope back in 2005

D.I.C.I.: How did the audience go?
Bishop Fellay: The audience took place in the Popes’ summer residence at Castel Gandolfo…
"There were four of us: the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Father Schmidberger and myself. The conversation took place in French – contrary to the announcement by some that it would take place in German. The Pope himself led the conversation in a benevolent ambiance.

**He spoke of three difficulties, in response to the note we had sent him **shortly before the audience. Benedict XVI had obviously read the note, and it was not necessary to go over the points brought up in it.

We had, in the note, given a description of the Church, quoting “silent apostasy” from John-Paul II, “the boat which is taking in water from every side” and “the dictatorship of relativism” from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and we had appended photos of certain very scandalous Masses."
(some note… hard to credit such rudeness towards the Holy Father and the Church)

D.I.C.I.: Is it possible for us to know the difficulties raised by Benedict XVI? **
Bishop Fellay: I can only evoke them. First of all, the Holy Father insisted on effective recognition of the Pope,** linking it to the necessity of consecrating bishops as pleaded by Archbishop Lefebvre, and our subsequent activities.
Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can be only one way of belonging to the Catholic Church: i.e. by having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is to say according to the intention of the Fathers of the Council and the letter of the text. This is a perspective that rather frightens us ….
Finally, **we would have to have, thinks the Sovereign Pontiff, a suitable structure for the traditional rite **and certain exterior practices – without, however, protecting us from the spirit of the Council that we would have to adopt.
fsspx.org/en/a_actualites/a_news-from-tradition/a_interview-with-bishop-fellay-concerning-his-meeting-with-pope-benedict-xvi/