Talk:Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Point of view on schism
There are clearly two points of view on whether Tissier de Mallerais is or is not a member of the Catholic Church, and whether he is or is not schismatic, and whether he is or is not excommunicated. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to decide on any of these matters.

The statement I wrote made it clear that there are two viewpoints: "Tissier de Mallerais claims to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church; the Holy See claims that he is excommunicated and schismatic." Both viewpoints were presented as claims. Neither was presented as definitely the reality.

An anonymous editor (82.72.148.85) changed this to: "Tissier de Mallerais is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though circles around the Holy See have claimed that he is excommunicated and schismatic." This definitely gives preference to one viewpoint; it's not Wiki NPOV.

The justification offered by 82.72.148.85 is "Ever read the declaration of Cardinal Hoyos of 5th November 2005?" Cardinal Hoyos gave an interview to a magazine on that date in which he talked about the status of the SSPX as not being in schism. This was an interview with one single cardinal (albeit a very important one connected with this matter). He was discussing the status of the Society, not of the individual bishops.

Pope John Paul II in "Ecclesia Dei" specifically describes the consecration of Tissier as a "schismatic act", and warns against formal adherence to the "schism".

I have accordingly reverted the changes of 82.72.148.85 to a more NPOV version. Noel S McFerran 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On Schism
If the church can't declare someone schismatic from THAT church, what would actually make that person schismatic? Peter coming from the dead to excommunicate them? If someone was declared Schismatic by the Anglican church, they would be schismatic from THAT church. --V. Joe 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150129194411/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412031202/http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm to http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807125504/http://www.sspx.org/1988%20Consecration%20articles/1988_consecrations_theological_I.htm to http://www.sspx.org/1988%20Consecration%20articles/1988_consecrations_theological_I.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807125532/http://www.sspx.org/1988%20Consecration%20articles/1988_consecrations_canonical_I.htm to http://www.sspx.org/1988%20Consecration%20articles/1988_consecrations_canonical_I.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV
There is clear consensus on calling SSPX traditionalist (at least here on Wikipedia): it's in the first paragraph of its article and there hasn't been any criticism of that (at least not in the discussion page of the article). Simmilarly the article about the consecrations does not argue the validity of the excommunications, only mentions that SSPX itself does so. And lastly the "praising" of him (in the last sentence of the introduction -- the one I removed): I don't think an unbiased source (i.e. not affiliated with SSPX) supporting it could be found. And even if it was found, this shouldn't be in the first paragraph. --Pan Někdo (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

neutrality and SSPX bishop
This seems very biased to me. It cites no sources, and seems to praise the bishop as ‘instrumental in maintaining the traditional priesthood’ Clement Robinson 11:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clement robinson369 (talk • contribs)