Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Bishop Richard Williamson all agree: Vatican II is not Catholic

I often say that when I sat down to do my interview with Bishop Tissier in 2006 I could never have guessed what would happen next.  Eight years later, and on the day that we release Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1976 American conference (in English) to a public that mostly has never heard the Archbishop speak, much less in English, I remember that all I have done since the Bishop Tissier interview is follow the consequences of His Excellency’s assertions.
Bishop Tissier called Joseph Ratzinger a heretic.  How could someone be a heretic and be pope, I wondered?  More importantly, what was the role of Vatican II, which far superseded in importance the role of one particular papal claimant or another? 
Bishop Tissier (2006):  “You cannot read Vatican II as a Catholic work…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…as a blank – tabula rasa.”
Bishop Williamson (2009): “The documents of Vatican II are much too subtly and deeply poisoned to be reinterpreted.  The whole of a partly poisoned cake goes to the trash can.”
Archbishop Lefebvre (1976):  “I never…I don’t accept the Council!  Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council!  It is sure!  It is evident!...This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth!  That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion.  It is a protestant religion.  That is a fact!  How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change?  How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)?  It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.”
Here are three Catholic bishops, all of whom have studied these matters far more than the average layman  has – and certainly more than Bishop Fellay and some other leaders within the SSPX.  The problem is that none of these three bishops – including the Archbishop in his lifetime – have followed the logic behind their very strong assertions.  And the best the Archbishop could come up with?  Saying that the contradiction was a "mystery."  It may have been a fair answer not even 7 years after the Novus Ordo was promulgated, but it doesn't cut it in 2014.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the statements of these three bishops:
How can the Catholic Church – the spotless bride of Christ – promulgate error?
Answer: It cannot.  It is protected from doing so!
Then from whence does Vatican II come?
Answer:  Not from the Catholic Church.
Then who are the people who are in charge of this “new religion”?

Answer: Usurpers and Corrupters of the Catholic Faith.

Stephen Heiner

Stephen lives in Paris, France. He founded True Restoration in 2006.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. dan says:

    Then who are the people who are in charge of this “new religion”?

    Answer: antichrists

  2. Crusader says:

    But how do we get out of it? That's where the argument falls apart. How do we suddenly find the real Pope, the real Church, how do we untangle who is and who is not validly ordained? How does this end?

  3. dan says:

    Then who are the people who are in charge of this “new religion”?

    Answer: antichrists

  4. The end only God knows… Crusader
    We know what it is now, that is, a general apostasy from the faith in the Novus Ordo hierarchy. That is to call things by their names, a fact that everyone sees, and contra factum, says the Latin proverb, non fit argumentum.
    This is something unheard of but possible, and in fact has happened. Yes, it is a terrible catastrophe permitted by God.
    But if we deny this fact and say that those heretics still have the Authority of Christ to rule his Church & are his representatives, the problem then is more terrible, because it is to admit that the Church of Christ is defected, which is evidently against the faith. Absit!
    Therefore, let us use our reason guided by our faith and admit reality in order to remain faithful Catholics for now, and the rest will be done by God.
    Crusader, don't be so afraid of what you cannot fix. Just do your home work, and that will help.
    Happy New Year!

  5. @Crusader: Nope. Catholics don't use the end to prove the beginning. That's like saying, "But how does the Last Judgement actually happen?" And then using a non-answer to say, "See, it won't happen." Bad logic.

    Sedevacantism may lead you into mystery, but it doesn't lead you into contradiction.

    The Church doesn't need a Pope in order to exist, it has gone for various periods 260 times in her history without one. There is no "time limit" we can go without a Pope. At one point in our history, a conclave lasted 3 years. If it can go 3, why not 4. If 4, why not 54? Do you see where YOU are leading US? Point out to me a Catholic teaching that time-delimits the Papacy.

    As for who is validly ordained, that's simple. The Orthodox, Old Catholics, and anyone ordained in the Traditional Rite of ordination by a bishop consecrated in the Old Rite, or in any of the unchanged Eastern Rites of the Church.

    And anyway, anyone who posits a solution is a fool, anyway. This will only be sorted out by God, not be some religious congregation who thinks they have been ordained by God to "save the Church."

    Sedevacantism is not a solution. It is simply the only *Catholic* way to respond to the horror that is Vatican II.

    May I ask you, Crusader, what is your answer to the problem of Vatican II, which is much larger than the question of this or that papal claimant? Was it Catholic or not? If it was, then are you at the Novus Ordo or the Indult, as logic dictates? If it isn't, you're sedevacantist, you just may not know it yet 🙂

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.