Quote:"In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."

Quote:"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an 'openness to the world,' and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church."

Quote:

THE PONTIFFS vs. THE LODGE

"The papal condemnations of Freemasonry are so severe and sweeping in their tenor as to be quite unique in the history of Church legislation. During the last two centuries Freemasonry has been expressly anathematized by at least ten different Popes and condemned directly or indirectly by almost every Pontiff that sat on the Chair of St. Peter."

"The Popes charge the Freemasons with occult criminal activities, with 'shameful deeds', with worshipping satan himself (a charge which is hinted at in some Papal documents), with infamy, blasphemy, sacrilege and the most abominable heresies against the State, with anarchical and revolutionary principles and with favouring and promoting what is now called Bolshevism; with corrupting and perverting the minds of youth; with shameful hypocrisy and lying, by means of which Freemasons strive to hide their wickedness under a cloak of probity and respectability, while in reality they are the very 'synagogue of satan', whose direct aim and object is the complete destruction of Christianity."

Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement (1930), Fr E. Cahill, S.J

• There were time bombs in the Council. I believe there were three: collegiality, religious freedom, and ecumenism. Collegiality, which corresponds to the term Egalite of the French Revolution, has the same ideology. Collegiality means the destruction of personal authority; democracy is the destruction of the authority of God, of the authority of the pope, of the authority of the bishops. Collegiality corresponds to the equality of the Revolution of 1789. ... Every pope from the time of the French Revolution had set up an insurmountable barrier against the errors of the Revolution; the ideas of the Revolution never penetrated the Church. By these three terms-collegiality, religious liberty, and ecumenism-the modernists have got what they wanted. These, then, are the aims against which we have striven. The Church has indeed the words of eternal life, she will not perish, but who can say how small a remnant of her little flock will survive once these errors and ideologies have penetrated everywhere. (Archbishop Lefebvre, That the Church May Endure, 1972) [/url]thecatacombs.org/thread/841/arbishop-lefebvre-church-endure-1972
  

• I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity. The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution. (Archbishop Lefebvre, On the Similarities between the New Mass and Luther’s ‘Mass’, February 1975) thecatacombs.org/thread/236/examination-new-mass-luthers-1975
  

• Everything played into their hands in demanding the instant adaptation of the Church to modern man, in other words to man eager to be freed of all shackles, in their presenting the Church as out of touch and impotent, in their confessing to the sins of their predecessors. ... the Council Fathers feel guilty at being out of the world rather than of the world. They are already blushing for their episcopal insignia; soon they will be ashamed of their cassocks. This atmosphere of liberation will soon spread to all fields, and will show in the spirit of collegiality, which will veil the shame felt at exercising a personal authority so opposed to the spirit of modern man, let us say liberal man. The pope and bishops will exercise their authority collegially in Synods, Bishops’ Conferences, Priests’ Councils. Finally, the Church is opened wide to the principles of the modern world. The liturgy too will be liberalized, adapted, subjected to experiments by Bishops’ Conferences. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Liberalism at Work, 1975) thecatacombs.org/thread/877/archbishop-lefebvre-liberalism-work-1975
  

• Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre – Volume I
  Those who have met him [Archbishop Lefebvre] know that he is not a man who will fight for the sake of fighting - he has always been a realist. No one could have compelled him to resign as Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers - he had been elected for a term of twelve years. But he could see quite clearly that the Liberals dominated the General Chapter; that they were determined to get their way at all costs; that resistance on his part could only lead to unedifying division. "Je les ai laissés à leur collégialité," he has remarked. "I left them to their 'collegiality'." thecatacombs.org/post/6638
  

• I must confess that he [Pope John Paul II] appears to be basically in agreement with the Council and with the reforms – he just does not question them. And that is serious, because it means that he is for ecumenism, for collegiality, and for religious liberty. Those are the three capital ideas from the Council. It is they which make the spirit of the Council. They are what the progressives wanted and what in practice they obtained – watered down perhaps, but they got them, and they will not loosen their hold on them! Study those ideas, and see how serious they are! ... Collegiality: that means number against person, the law of number against the authority of the person. It is no longer the person who has authority, but number! It is democracy, or at least the democratic principle. It is no longer Our Lord Who commands through the authorities (it is Our Lord Who is the Authority, and in the Church all those who have authority – Pope, Bishops, Priests – share in the authority of Our Lord). By the very fact that number is put in the place of the person, that authority is given to number, authority is in the people, in the rank and file, in the group. That is absolutely contrary to what Our Lord wanted, to the personal authority which He always wanted to give: the Pope has a personal authority; the Bishop has a personal authority by his consecration; the Priest has a personal authority by his sacramental character, his ordination; in the Church authority is personal. The subject of authority (he who is going to exercise it) may be designated democratically, but the authority cannot be so given. That is an important principle. On a false principle Our Lord could lose His crown. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference to Seminarians, December 1978) thecatacombs.org/thread/2649/conference-ec-ne-december-1978
  

• Puzzlement, indignation, admiration: these are the sentiments that fluctuate within me at the end of this reading [of the New Catechism published in 1982] that I had wanted however, to be benevolent. Puzzlement because I did not find the dear answers to the great questions that we can ask the Church: What is God? What is the Church? What is grace? What is a sacrament? What is the Mass? What is the priest? I found many descriptions, qualifications, and many considerations - sometimes very beautiful and true ? on these things, but not even one of those good, precise, unambiguous definitions, which the Church has always loved in order to protect Her Faith. ... Here lies the mortal sin of this which takes up again and builds on the sins of Vatican II: doctrinal ecumenism, religious liberalism, collegiality and the promotion of the common priesthood of the faithful to the detriment of the ministerial priesthood of priests (#874-933), the disappearance of propitiation which defines the sacrifice of the Mass (#1356-1381), the Judaizing of the Church. (Archbishop Lefebvre, On the Catechism of a New Age of Man, 1982) thecatacombs.org/thread/2671/abp-lefebvre-catechism-new-1982
  

• This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal Cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church. Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the Bishops and Cardinals? Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 250 who favored the maintenance of Tradition and who were opposed to such major changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We were opposed to all these things. These 250 bishops clearly brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions forced texts to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat limited. But we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted… (Archbishop Lefebvre, Infiltration of Modernism in the Church, 1982) thecatacombs.org/thread/724/infiltration-modernism-church-1982
  

• This Declaration provoked the laicizing of Catholic States which is an insult to God and to His Church, reducing the Church to the status of equality with false religions. This is exactly the spirit of adultery for which the people of Israel were so often rebuked (see Note 1, the declaration of Pope Paul VI, L'Osservatore Romano, April 24, 1969). This spirit of adultery is also made clear in the ecumenism instituted by The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. This aberrant ecumenism has brought in its train all the reforms of the liturgy, of the Bible, of canon law, with the collegiality that destroys the personal authority of the Supreme Pontiff, of the episcopacy and of the parish priest (see Note 2 below*). This spirit is not Catholic; it is the fruit of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X. (Archbishop Lefebvre's Public Statement against False Ecumenism, written in October 1983, it was not actually made public until June 1988 in conjunction with the Episcopal Consecrations.) thecatacombs.org/thread/196/abl-on-false-ecumenism   *Note 2: Secretariat for the Unity of Christians at the Council. It is suitable to recall the important role played by the members of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians in the Council. ...  The harmfulness of all these Commissions is considerable. The Commissions are paralyzing all the normal activity of the Roman Curia. The Rome of the Commissions is the present active-day Rome, Modernist and Masonic. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have wanted these commissions and have become their slaves just as they are prisoners of the Roman Synods, fruits of the collegiality recognized by the new Canon Law.
  

• It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: "Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."
  Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Episcopal Consecration Sermon, June 1988) thecatacombs.org/thread/117/marcel-lefebvre-famous-consecration-sermon?q=Collegiality
  

• The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Two Years after the Consecrations, September 1990) thecatacombs.org/thread/540/final-conference-priests-september-consecrations
  

• 27 August 1976
  An Appeal by Twenty-eight French Priests to Pope Paul VI
  
  During a spiritual conference on 27 August 1976, a group of twenty-eight French priests, mostly parish clergy, in no way involved in the traditionalist movement, addressed a plea to His Holiness Pope Paul VI to take the appropriate measures to calm the emotion created in France by the affair of the Seminary at Econe. Protesting their total loyalty to the Holy See, these priests point out at length to the Holy Father the disorders which the exercise of their ministry has brought to their notice in France, particularly in catechetics, in the liturgy, and in the workings of the episcopal commissions for collegiality.
  

Quote:Most Holy Father,

In the midst of the drama which has caused such disquiet among French Catholics for nearly two months, it is towards Your Holiness that we turn with filial respect to present this plea on behalf of His Grace Monseigneur Lefebvre and the young men who have gone to him to ask him to form them and lead them to the priesthood.... It is as priests and fully cognizant of the responsibilities of our priestly ministry that we wish to address Your Holiness, protesting loudly our fidelity and our submission to the Holy See. … What other reaction can the faithful and the clergy themselves manifest when, while these events are taking place, they witness the freedom and impunity enjoyed by almost all the "assassins of the faith," as His Eminence Cardinal Danielou designated them? The brutal force of such an expression may shock, but it only reflects the truth of the situation. It is hardly necessary to recall the facts that lie at the basis of this situation. Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Wright have for years been in possession of many dossiers concerning the new catechism which the official commissions of episcopal collegiality impose on the dioceses of France. These obligatory courses contain neither the "truths" nor the "means" necessary for salvation and yet years have passed without any action being taken against the authors or the propagators of this catechesis. They thus pursue their work of destroying the faith under cover of the Bishops' authority which they have usurped. ... Where can we send them, these young men who ask where they can go to receive a priestly formation? There is not a single seminary in France (and voices more authoritative than ours can confirm this) where the norms of Catholic priestly formation, such as they have recently been formulated once again by the competent authority, are truly observed. There again, Most Holy Father, it seems that the cause of the malaise is not to be found among persons -you are aware of the difficulties of our Bishops -under the burden of the structures and orientations which have followed the Council. Is not Collegiality, as it is exercised in practice by the commissions in which its authority is invested, one of the prime causes of the present situation in the seminaries of France, as it is in catechetics and the liturgy? thecatacombs.org/post/6774

• “ … without meaning to, the modernists are confessing out of their own mouths the irreconcilability of their "novelties" with Tradition. Their behavior towards Archbishop Lefebvre is no surprise to anyone who knows the system followed by the modernists during the Council and perfectly illustrated by Msgr. Colombo, Paul VI's "theologian:" "Let us now change," he said, "episcopal collegiality. Afterwards we will find the theological reasons to justify it." With these modernist methods, Archbishop Lefebvre, simply because he made a doctrinal objection, found himself to be secretly "schismatic" from 1978 on… (In Defense of Archbishop Lefebvre, The Angelus, January 1990) thecatacombs.org/thread/2288/defense-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-articles
  

• M. Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume I
  In the Supplement-Voltigeur to ltineraires (No.40 of July 1976), Jean Madiran made it quite clear why these young priests had been treated in the manner described by Father Bruckberger. "During the days preceding the ordinations to the priesthood at Econe on 29 June, messages and envoys from the Vatican thronged about Mgr. Lefebvre, promising him that all would be well if he accepted the new missal, imposed it on his priests, and himself concelebrated the New Mass publicly with a representative of Paul VI. The promise was no doubt false, but it was significant -it showed that the assurance given to Mgr. Lefebvre all through 1975 by the official inquisitors, that in the proceedings against him liturgy was not in question, was a trick: the truth was that it was liturgy alone, or liturgy above all, that was in question -it was a question of the Mass of Article 7 which was to take the place of the traditional Mass.  A similar trickery had pretended in 1970 to correct Article 7 promulgated in 1969. The same trick, in the Council, had put forward the nota praevia explicativa on collegiality. In all these similar cases the sequel showed and the facts proved that it was an imposture designed to lull Catholic resistance with illusory, merely verbal, guarantees, destined to remain dead letters. The trick was used often enough for it to be exposed.  (M. Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume I) [url=http://thecatacombs.org/post/6774]thecatacombs.org/post/6774
  

• During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations." "It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil." (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds. The Angelus: June 1982)
  

• Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise. (ibid.)
  

• ... Catholics who [sic] realise they have been led astray by their shepherds from the true Catholic Faith, especially if one reflects that such Catholics are to be found all over the world, in Poland as elsewhere, thanks to the propaganda of the Pax Movement, supported by both government and clergy. Alas ! How many Catholics have already lost the Faith, how many have joined the sects now spawning all over parts of the world where they were unknown twenty years ago!... (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1981)
  

• Let us pray for him [Msgr. Thuc] so that he may recognize his part in the confusion and damage he has caused to the same cause, that he believed he served, and looked forward to the reward Providence had in store for him, that he may see the grave infractions he has made in the divinely inspired laws of the holy Catholic Church. The laws of the Church count for all her members. We must have confidence in Him Who declared before His Ascension: "I shall be with you all days, even till the end of time." (ibid.)
  

• “Many Catholics are seriously ignorant about the nature and scope of the pope’s infallibility. Very many think that every word that comes from his mouth is infallible.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
  

• “We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said:
  
  "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility."
  
  So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly. Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)
  

• “But he, even if in certain respects he carries the infallibility within his being pope, nevertheless by his intentions and ideas he is opposed to it because he wants nothing more to do with infallibility. He does not believe in it and he makes no acts stamped with the stamp of infallibility. That is why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The Truth must live and must evolve. It may eventually change with time, with history, with knowledge, etc., ...whereas infallibility fixes a formula once and for all, it makes - stamps - a Truth as unchangeable. That is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility - that's for sure and certain. Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly!’ (“One Year After the Consecrations,” Archbishop Lefebvre, 1989)
  

• Question: But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun. He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question. Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false. Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible.” (Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978)
  

• “For the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI did not use the principle of dogmatic infallibility. He was satisfied with declaring it pastoral. The conciliar popes are unable to use their doctrinal infallibility because the very foundation of infallibility is to believe that a truth must be fixed forever and can no longer change: it must remain as it is. John Paul II, even more than Paul VI, does not believe in the immutability of truth.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
  

• "The principles governing obedience to the Pope's authority are the same as those governing relations between a delegated authority and its subjects. They do not apply to the Divine Authority which is always infallible and indefectible and hence incapable of failing. To the extent that God has communicated His infallibility to the Pope and to the extent that the Pope intends to use this infallibility, which involves four very precise conditions in its exercise, there can be no failure. Outside of these precisely fixed conditions, the authority of the Pope is fallible and so the criteria, which bind us to obedience, apply to his acts. Hence it is not inconceivable that there could be a duty of disobedience with regard to the Pope. The authority, which was granted him, was granted him for precise purposes and in the last resort for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the salvation of souls. Whatever would be carried out by the Pope in opposition to this purpose would have no legal value and no right to be obeyed, nay, rather, it would oblige us to disobey in order for us to remain obedient to God and faithful to the Church. (Statement, March 1988)
  

• “And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)
  

• “Another grave problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”
  
  We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down. These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
  

• ... when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code. ". . . It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code." Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law. (Archbishop Lefebvre, given at Turin, Italy, March 24, 1984)
  

• What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else ... (Ibid.)
  

• This is exactly the same thing as saying today that Bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious. (Ibid.)
  

• It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the Protestants who say that Eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought. (Ibid.)
  

• You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity. (Ibid.)
  
  

• It was, in fact, Pope John Paul II who recognized the centrality of the new theology of the Church in all the changes that have come about in the past 40 years. He states it very explicitly in the Apostolic Constitution that he wrote to introduce the 1983 Code of Canon Law, on January 25, 1983. He there states that: "the new Code can be conceived as a great effort to transfer into canonical language this doctrine itself [i.e., proposed by Vatican II], namely conciliar Ecclesiology." He goes on to state that: "the fundamental reason for the novelty which...is found in the Second Vatican Council, especially with respect to its ecclesiological teachings, is also the reason for the novelty contained in the new Code." It must be remembered that the laws contained in the Code of Canon Law are the practical guide for Catholics in living their Faith, and that any "novelty" contained therein must be of the greatest importance for them. (Fr. Peter Scott, "How Are Catholics to Respond to the Present Crisis in the Church?: April 2003)
  

• "... it was the mark of collegiality that eminently distinguished the origin of the new Code, and that this mark is full in agreement with the Magisterium and nature of the Second Vatican Council, bearing its spirit. In order to establish this point the Pope lists the chief novel teachings of Vatican II contained in the Code, namely that "the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation, is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head". This is effectively the definition of collegiality. (Ibid.)
  

• "...the shameless practice of Ecumenism and sacramental sharing with non-Catholics, [is] permitted in the entirely invalid Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." (Ibid.)
  

• “Firstly, [in the Oath of Fidelity] there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."
  
  "As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."
  
  "No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.
  
  "And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.
  
  "Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• Gradually one’s eyes are opened to behold an astounding conspiracy prepared long before hand [before Vatican II]. Such a discovery makes one wonder what part the Pope played in all this work and how responsible he was for what happened. In spite of the desire to find him innocent of this appalling betrayal of the Church, it would seem that his involvement was overwhelming. Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed. (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Note on the Title, I Accuse the Council, Paris, France August 27, 1976)
  

• “As long as I don’t have evidence that the Pope is not the Pope, well then the presumption is for him, the presumption is for the Pope. I am not saying that there can be no arguments that can put a doubt in certain cases, but there has to be evidence that is not only a valid doubt. And amongst people who defend these ideas and who have these ideas, they change arguments, first it is one argument, and then it is another; this argument is not sufficiently valid, we take another argument. If the argument was not valid, then it was doubtful. And if it is doubtful, we do not have the right to draw enormous consequences, considerable consequences...” (Archbishop Lefebvre, January 16, 1979)
  

• ... those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical. ... Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. ... Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians. The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope [November 8, 1979] Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre)
  

• We are nearing the end. Everyone will fall into heresy. Everyone will fall into error because wicked clergy, as St. Pius X predicted, have found their way into the Church and occupied it. They have spread errors from the positions of authority they occupy in the Church. Are we then required to follow error because it comes from someone in authority? No more than we should obey parents who are unworthy and ask us to do unworthy things, no more should we obey those who ask us to abandon our Faith and to abandon all Tradition. This is out of the question. Oh, of course, all this is a mystery, a great mystery, this union of the divine with the human.
  
  The Church is divine, and the Church is human. How far can human weakness how shall I say overshadow the divinity of the church? Only God knows. It is a great mystery. We see the facts; we must put ourselves in full view of the facts and never abandon the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, never abandon her, never abandon the successor of Peter, because through him we are united to Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. But if, by some misfortune, under the influence of some spirit or other, or some weakness or pressure, or through neglect, he abandons his duty and leads us along roads which make us lose our faith, well, we must not follow, although at the same time we recognize that he is Peter and if he speaks with the charism of infallibility, we must accept his teaching, but when he does not speak with the charism of infallibility, he may very well be mistaken alas! It is not the first time that something like this has happened in history. (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1982 Ordination Sermon)
  

• When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy!  Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984)
  

• So they keep this sense of faith, the sense that Providence gives to the good faithful and to today’s good priests, [this sense] to keep the faith, to stay put, to keep their attachment to Rome as well and to remain faithful to the apostolicity, to the visibility of the Church, which are essential things, even if they do not follow the Popes when they favour heresy, as Pope Honorius did. He's been convicted. Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards. So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority. (Ibid.)
  

• See, I think that's where our whole problem lies. We live in an exceptional time. We cannot judge everything that is done in the Church according to normal times. We find ourselves in an exceptional situation, it is also necessary to interpret the principles that should govern our ecclesiastical superiors. These principles, we must see them in the minds of those who live today, those principles that were so clear in the past, so simple, that no one was discussing them, that we did not have the opportunity to discuss them, they fail, I would say, in the minds of the Liberals, in the minds, as I explained to you, that have no clarity of vision... It changes the situation. We are in a situation of unbelievable confusion. So let's not draw mathematical conclusions like that, without considering these circumstances. Because then we make mistakes:
  Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, and we leave with the progressives. Or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles, how connected to the origins of the Church? Gone... and how long is this going to last? So if the last three conclaves should no longer be considered valid, as those in America say who have consecrated their own bishops, and if then there is no longer a Pope, and if are no more cardinals either.. ? We don't see how we could once more obtain a legitimate pope... No! That's a complete mess!
  

• So it seems to me that we must stay on this course of common sense, and of the direction which also agrees with the good sense of the faithful ... We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, [saying] "There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority, we don't know to whom we are attached, there is no more Rome, there is no more Catholic Church". That [solution] doesn’t work either. They are lost too, they feel lost, they are disoriented. (Ibid.)

• ... the defenders of tradition are divided. Some say that the Decrees of Rome, signed or carried out by the Pope, are so bad that the Pope cannot be a legitimate Pope, he is a usurper. There is therefore no Pope, the See is vacant. Others affirm that the Pope cannot sign decrees which are destructive of the Faith and therefore these decrees are acceptable and one must submit to them. The Society [of St. Pius X] does not accept one or the other of these two solutions, but supported by the history of the Church and the doctrine of theologians, thinks that the Pope can favorize the ruin of the Church by choosing bad collaborators and allowing them to act, by signing decrees which do not engage his infallibility, sometimes even by his own admission, which cause considerable harm to the Church. Nothing is more dangerous to the Church than liberal Popes who are in a continual state of incoherence.  On the other hand, we think that God can allow the Church to be afflicted with this misfortune. Consequently we pray for the Pope but we refuse to follow him in his folly in regard to religious liberty, ecumenism, socialism and the application of reforms which are ruinous for the Church. Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain Tradition. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
  

• Q. - Implicitly, it seems that you are “sedevacantist”?
  
  A. - No, it's not because I say that the Pope is unfaithful to his task, that I say there isn’t a Pope anymore, or that I say he is a formal heretic. I think that it is necessary to judge the men of current Rome and those who are under their influence the same way the bishops, Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X considered liberals and modernists.
  
  Q. – How did they consider them ?
  
  A. - Pope Pius IX condemned liberal Catholics. He even said this terrible sentence: "Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.” What more could he say? However, he did not say: all liberal Catholics are excommunicated, are outside the Church and must be denied Communion. No, he considered these men as "the worst enemies of the Church," and yet, he did not excommunicate them.
  
  The holy pope, Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, also dealt as severe a judgment on modernism, calling it the "synthesis of all heresies." I do not know if it is possible to bring a more severe judgment to condemn a movement! But he did not say that all modernists would from now on be excommunicated, outside the Church, and that they had to be refused Communion. He condemned some.
  
  Also, I think that, like these two popes, we must judge them severely, but not necessarily considering them as being outside the Church. That is why I do not want to follow the “sedevacantists” who say: they are modernists; modernism is the crossroads of heresies; so modernists are heretics; so they are no longer in communion with the Church; so there isn’t a Pope anymore...
  
  We cannot make a judgment with such implacable logic. There is, in this way of judging, passion and a little pride. Let us judge these men and their errors in the same way as the popes themselves did.
  
  The pope is modernist, that’s certain, like Cardinal Ratzinger and many men of his entourage. But let us judge them like Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X judged them. And so this is why we continue to pray for the Pope and to ask God to give him the graces he needs to accomplish his task. (Interview given to Pacte, 1987)
  

• "So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.
  
  Us, we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful. Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make. But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.
  
  All those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition. We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.” (Conference, Flavigny, December 1988; Fideliter, March/April 1989)
  

• "Unlike sedevacantists, we act vis-a-vis the Pope as vis-a-vis the Successor of Peter. We address ourselves to him as such, and we pray as such. The majority of faithful and traditional priests also feel that it is the prudential and wise solution: to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads." ("Apres les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité," Fideliter 68, March 1989, p. 13).
  

• “I think, nevertheless, that we need a link with Rome. It is still there in Rome where we find the succession of Peter, the succession of the apostles, of the apostle Peter, of the primacy of Peter and of the Church. If we cut this link, we are really like a boat which is cast off to the mercy of the waves, without knowing anymore to which place we are attached and to whom we are attached. I think it is possible to see in the person who succeeds all the preceding popes, since if he occupies the see, he was accepted as Bishop of Rome at Saint John Lateran. Now it is the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter; he is recognized as the successor of Peter by all the bishops of the world. Good! What you want? We can think that he is really the successor of Peter, and in this sense, we attach ourselves to him and through him to all his predecessors, ontologically so to speak. And then, his actions, what he does, what he thinks and the ideas he spreads; that is another thing, of course. It is a great sorrow for the Catholic Church, for us, that we are forced to witness such a thing. But I think that this is the solution that corresponds to the reality.
  
  The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution: it poses a lot of problems, because if since Pope Paul VI there were no popes, then all the cardinals that were made by these popes are invalidly made; so the votes they made as cardinals, members of the Conclave, are void; and who will then re-establish the link with John XXIII?; and even if we think that John XXIII wasn’t pope either, then we have to go back to Pius XII. Who is going to re-establish the tie? Because if these cardinals were invalidly-made cardinals, they cannot elect the future Pope. Who is going to designate the new pope? We are completely lost! It is not surprising that in these circles there have been groups that have made a pope. It is logical. Let us keep a little the solution of common sense and the solution that the faithful inspire in us.
  
  Every time that there were stories of sedevacantism that caused a little trouble in the Society, I must say, well, on the whole, we can say that the faithful did not follow. These faithful followed us, followed the solution of the Society, And I think that if one day we all of a sudden took the decision - the authorities of the Society, the majority of priests – and said “it is clear now, we affirm that there is no Pope,” the faithful would not follow us. Most of the faithful would not follow us! With good reason. Look at Bordeaux for example, when Fr. Guepin left with Father Belmont, well they thought that they were going take two-thirds of the parish with them. They had two or three families, that’s all. No, no! The faithful have the sense of the faith. See how they reacted to the episcopal consecrations. The faithful have the sense of the faith. They have good sense and the sense of the faith. We can rely on the judgment of our good Christians, our good faithful.”( Conference, priests’ retreat, 1989)
  

• “And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed.
  "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."
  
  It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
  
  Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction" and "reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
  
  Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
  
  It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
  
  Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)
  

• “The issue concerning the Pope is obviously a great mystery. It is probably something that you think about often and that cannot be eliminated. It is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious of the current situation of the Church. So, the declarations of the Pope, his acts, the ecumenical acts that he did and that he redoes many times during his travels and during his receptions at the Vatican, his statements, everything throw us into anguish. Then, a certain number of traditionalists believe that they have to conclude that: “the Pope is not the Pope. This is not possible. He is heretical. He is schismatic. He cannot be the Pope, so there is no more Pope.” They consider the seat as vacant. This logic may be too simple, too mathematical. The complexity of things in reality is often much greater than we think.
  
  See for yourselves, in the reading that we are making you do on the semi-rationalists, semi-liberals. We are dealing with people who mix up truth and error, who live in a continual contradiction. If you read the book on liberalism of Cardinal Billot, you see that the Cardinal defines precisely what a liberal is: a man who is in contradiction all the time, a man who constantly contradicts himself and who lives in contradiction. He is always two-faced. And so, they are dangerous people. This is what Pope Pius IX said. Pope Pius IX considers them as the greatest danger in the church because they mislead the faithful. Sometimes, we believe that they are traditional and that they conform to the truth of the Church, and then, all of a sudden, they fall into error and lead people into error. It is very, very dangerous. They scandalize and lead millions of faithful into error.
  
  So, personally, I believed, during all these years, for twenty years, in having to act as if the Pope was Pope, in not asking myself deeper questions, in having to act, in practice, as if the Pope was the Pope. I would say: "I recognize the Pope as the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church.” This is why I have never refused to go to Rome when I was summoned there. The books edited by Madiran on The Savage Condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy Office well prove that [...] I have considered the authority of the Pope as if he was the Pope. And then, I often appealed to him, I wrote I do not know how many times to Pope Paul VI and to Pope John Paul II, and then to the offices and to the congregations and to the presidents of the congregations in charge of fixing these problems. I think that this is the wisest attitude and the most consistent with the spirit of the Church.” (Easter Retreat, Econe, April 11, 1990)
  

• “I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.” (Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991)
  

• Fr. Wickens, in an interview with New Jersey Family News, 1989:
  
  The Pope and the Archbishop
  
• Q. Does Archbishop Lefebvre reject the papacy?
  
• A. On the contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre upholds the papacy more than any other bishop in the United States. We say this without fear of contradiction. Can you make sure that his subjects teach authentic doctrine and morals as promulgated by all the popes and councils (from St. Peter to the present pontiff)? Name one! The American bishops pretend to obey the Pope, but disobey papal directives on a daily basis. Altar girls are prohibited; so are ministers for Communion (except in emergency situations), general absolution, sex ed in schools, heresy, denial of Faith and morals—these are all forbidden by the Pope. Every American bishop permits these things to go on week after week, year after year, in his parishes, schools and seminaries. These bishops are directly at fault and fully culpable. When these bishops try to hang the label "disobedient to the Pope" on a traditional bishop, it is so hypocritical as to make the Devil himself laugh! On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre, and the Society of St. Pius X, takes great pains to see that every priest in every chapel, school and seminary, upholds every revealed doctrine, every de fide pronouncement from every pope and every council. No American bishop can make that claim!
  

• Q. Has Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the present Pope?
  
• A. Never! He loves the Pope and the papacy. His heart weeps when he sees the present Pontiff make unwise administrative decisions and disarrange previous Church practices. For example, by speaking from the pulpits of various Protestant churches and synagogues, most non-Catholics (and Catholics) conclude that one religion is as good as another. This is called religious indifference—an error soundly condemned by the Magisterium.
  

• Q. Does he support this Pope?
  
• A. In the St. Pius X seminaries there is always a portrait of the present Pope, and the practice of daily prayers for him is mandated in every institution.
  

• Q. Why do we pray for the Pope? Is there something wrong? Does he need prayers?
  
• A. Catholics have always prayed for the Pope because he is tempted to sin like every other human being. St. Peter himself needed prayers, having evidenced his three-fold denial of Christ on the night of Our Savior's passion.
  

• Q. Besides the Pope needing our prayers, is there something wrong in the Vatican?
  
• A. One would be naive not to see that the Church is ravaged from within by heretical teachers who have corrupted a whole generation of young people. Yet few are excommunicated or suspended from the priestly office. Father Curran, Father McNulty, Father Matthew Fox, Archbishop Weakland... and hundreds of other heretics are all in good standing with Rome. And whom does the Vatican censure? The saintly, moral, orthodox Archbishop Lefebvre. Something very strange is going on.
  

• Q. What, precisely, is wrong in the Vatican?
  
• A. There are many theories:1) The Pope does not know what is the present state of the Church;2) The Pope's secretaries and aides screen all his mail and keep him conveniently ignorant. The bishops feed him falsely optimistic reports;3) A strongly Masonic element among the Vatican bureaucracy;4) The Pope is a virtual prisoner of this bureaucracy, which renders him relatively helpless;5) The Pope is too busy... in visiting foreign countries and receiving world dignitaries... to pay close attention to the heretical clergymen and bishops;6) The administrative work of the Pope, in effect, is done by Vatican officials. The Pope simply puts his signature, without close scrutiny, on the appointment of bishops and other such matters;7) The Pope is afraid of an American schism;**8) The Pope has been influenced by Modernist pressures, but he is doing his best.
  

• Q. What opinion do most conservative priests have?
  
• A. We simply do not know. But we cannot help but conclude that something is wrong.Q. We, as Roman Catholics, love and respect the Holy Father, do we not?A. Of course we do! He is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, and Successor of St. Peter, and St. Pius X and Pope Liberius, and Pope Honorius, and Pope Callistus. Some of these men were saints, others less than that. But, in every case, they were human beings, with grave responsibilities, who need prayers. Did not Christ say to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faith fail not..." (Luke 22,31)And again: "And [Jesus] turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me... because thou savourest not the things of God but the things that are of men" (Matthew 16,23). (Fr. Wickens, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: A Living Saint, Angelus: January 1989
  

• “Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. […] We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience. […] You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.” (October 13, 1974)
  

• “Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. […] Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.“ (October 13, 1974)
  

• “One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.” (Interview, July 1978)
  

• “How could we, by a blind and servile obedience, go along with these schismatics who ask us to collaborate in their enterprise of demolishing the Church?” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
  

• “Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).
  

• "What should I do? I am told: ‘You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.’ ” What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges one to obey? “A law,” Leo XIII says, “is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law.” Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” In other words, a law which is not for the common good is not a law and consequently, one is not obliged to obey it." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982).
  

• “Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch.29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey?” from the July 1988 edition of “The Angelus Magazine”, statement originally given March 29th, 1988)
  

• From the "Suppressed Interview of 1978"
  What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?
  Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith. At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics allover the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue. The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.
  

• "As soon as authority fails its mandate, it also loses its right to obedience. When the Pope by his policies leads us into contacts with Protestants and other religions, in such a way that we lose our faith, in that case the Pope forfeits the right to obedience by his subordinates." (Archbishop Lefebvre, as quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, statement originally quoted in The National Catholic Register, 7 August 1977)
  

• “Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)
  

• “… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism, this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)
  

• “Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church, because it is the principle of Religious Liberty, a principle which is in the constitution, in the Declaration of Human Rights.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
  

• "We want to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the 'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)
  

• “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is Religious Freedom, it is Ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• “In this world, there are forces opposed to Our Lord, and to his reign. Satan and all the auxiliaries of Satan, conscious or unconscious, refuse this reign, this way of salvation and fight for the destruction of the Church. Thus the Church is engaged by her Divine Founder in a gigantic combat. All means were and are employed by Satan to triumph. One of the last, extremely efficacious stratagems is to destroy the combative spirit of the Church by persuading her that there are no more enemies, and that we must put down our arms and enter into a dialogue of peace and cordiality. This fallacious truce will permit the enemy to penetrate everywhere and corrupt the forces of the Church. This truce is liberal ecumenism, a diabolical instrument of auto-destruction of the Church. This liberal ecumenism will result in the neutralisation of the arms which are the liturgy with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the breviary, the liturgical feasts, the neutralisation and ceasing of the seminaries…” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper)
  

• "The enemy of Ecône is not Such-and-Such, at the Vatican or elsewhere. The enemy of Ecône is Liberalism, the destroyer of the Church. And as to the men who serve this liberalism and who aim to cut us down, these are not our personal enemies – they are only pawns of liberalism. One must understand this: Our battle is not a confrontation between persons and characters. It goes well beyond: it is the battle of faith against error." (Vatican Encounter: Conversations with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by José Hanu)
  

• Jesus is not optional. “Qui non est mecum, contra me est—He that is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30). To deny this is the fundamental error of religious liberty and ecumenism. Lefebvre, Marcel, Spiritual Journey. Kansas City: Angelus Press, E-Book
  

• And by this very fact, this “Mystery of our Faith” [the traditional Mass] overwhelms all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Modernism, and materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. No error can withstand our holy Catholic Mass. The Mass is anti ecumenical, in the sense of ecumenism practiced since the Council: namely, the union of all religions in an amalgam of prayer without dogma, without morality, without specific laws, and agreement based on a few ambiguous slogans like “the rights of man,” “the dignity of man,” “religious liberty.”  On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false ecumenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 1982)
  

• Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy, an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false. The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church.
  
  But, there exists a consequence of which one does not often enough ponder on. It is the destruction of the Catholic nations which no longer find in the Holy Mass, the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, the Catholic nation hereafter must, in like manner, convert itself to an ecumenical state – pluralistic, very soon finding itself securalized and neutral, if not atheistic. The ecumencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. It is falsehood that flatters our evil inclinations which will prevail over truth which is more austere and more demanding. One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen. Whether this poisoned ecumenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and catechism. ... Each one, at his time in the Church, must endeavour to remain Catholic and to maintain the Catholic Church. It is upon this resolution and its realisation that we will be judged by Our Divine Lord. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1978)
  

• Because we are surrounded by the ruins caused by the corruption of minds and hearts, the evidence of the vitality of the Church of all time takes on a priceless value. We are permitted to hope that we can restore destroyed altars, that we can offer again the true Sacrifice of the Mass. By contrast, when one lives with an ecumenical Eucharist, democratic and liberal, the auto-destruction continues, despite all the calls to order, the statements most worthy of respect and the most spectacular of ceremonies. “Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam – If the Lord does not construct the building, the builders work in vain.” Therefore, the altar of sacrifice of propitiation, the heritage of the new and eternal testament; the Body and Blood of Jesus are the foundation stone of the Church from whence gush the waters of eternal life. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, October 1979)
  

• Through Religious Liberty we’ve ended up with Ecumenism, and through that all the ‘reforms’ which have been carried out in the Church, the introduction of Collegiality to please the Protestants and the democratic spirit of our age. Everything came through this acceptance of Religious Liberty and the principles of the modern world. It’s clear, and if we don’t keep that in mind, we cannot understand what took place behind the scenes at the Council, nor what happens today behind the scenes in the Vatican. ... Our Lord came to earth to institute the true religion. There is only one religion. Those who have not converted to it will not be able to enter heaven. Our Lord said to His Apostles: “Go, teach all nations.” He didn’t say: leave the Buddhists alone, the Muslims, the pagans, leave them be. They each have their own religion, no need to bother them. The missionaries went out, they were killed, they shed their blood, they became martyrs. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Madrid, 1986)
  

• “We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)
  

• “If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)
  

• "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. ... This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)
  

• “So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)
  

• “We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
  

• “A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento, reaching out to the world, ecumenism.” (Le Figaro, August 2, 1976)
  

• “There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world. Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.” Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the “rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made against the authority of God.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)
  

• “Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic mafia is active, without whose “placet” [approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being celebrated.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)
  

• “But, of course, I have no illusions: even if the pope wanted to make those corrections, he could not do so. That “liberal-Masonic mafia” to which I have already alluded cannot tolerate it…all the American newspapers wrote that, before the Council, Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for ecumenism, met the leaders of the most influential Jewish-Masonic lodge at the Hotel Astoria in New York and asked them what they expected of the Council. “A statement on religious liberty,” they told him.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)
  

• “It's very difficult to say, "This man is a Freemason," "This man is a Freemason," or "This man is a Freemason." We don't know. It's very difficult. It is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and bishops. It is certain that there are some cardinals and many monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State—and his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence and he is probably a Freemason.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
  

• “The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas - "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• “Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church! (I Accuse the Council)
  
  “We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a ‘diabolical hand’ which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience... I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals... “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?” (1978 Ordination sermon at Écône)
  

• “Had we found ourselves in the times of St. Francis of Assisi, the pope would have been in agreement with us. There was not an occupation by Freemasonry of the Vatican in its happier days.” (Albano, October 19, 1983)
  

• “ I would say that the first sensational event which manifested this opposition even within the Church and within the Roman Curia, between the liberal program - masonic, it must be said - and the program of the Church, of the faith of the Church and of Tradition, is the opposition between Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
  

• “The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral Council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually discover to the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
  

• "The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution. The Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Luther’s Mass”, February 15th, 1975)
  

• “If one tries to give a definition, or at least a clear idea of these modernist and liberal ideas, of what do they consist? “The Church is no longer the only true religion.” Here you have one of the truths denied by all these modernists and liberals now. “The Church is no longer the only way of salvation.” This is very grievous, because for twenty centuries the Church has affirmed this: “I am the only way of salvation.” The Church was saying:
  “Our Lord Jesus Christ gave me all means of salvation; He did not give them to any other group. He gave His Sacrifice of the Mass, His Sacraments, His teaching and all the care of the salvation of souls to His Apostles, to the Church, and to no other group. Therefore, one cannot be saved outside the Church, at least through Baptism of Desire; one must be baptized, baptized by water or at least by desire; this is necessary to go to Heaven.”
  
  This is what the Church has always preached. Why did She send missionaries throughout the world? To preach: “you must be converted to our Lord Jesus Christ, you must become Christian, you must be baptized and become Catholic if you want to be baptized!” Many missionaries have been killed, slaughtered, all the Apostles have been martyred because they have preached this Gospel, because they have preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now they say: “No! All religions are ways of salvation.” My dear brethren, this is false, absolutely false! And it is precisely this which changes everything inside the Church. This influence comes from Protestantism and from Freemasonry; one must say it, these are Masonic ideas that the Church must not claim to be the only way of salvation. If the Church wants to be friend with Protestants and Freemasons, She must give up saying that She is the only way of salvation. She must accept to say that all religions are ways of salvation. But this is contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said! Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; he who shall believe shall be saved, he who shall not believe shall be condemned.” No other choice!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference at Campbell, California, January 5th, 1986)
  

• Liberalism has its own priesthood, in the person of the Freemasons, a priesthood which is secret, organised and extremely effective. There exist thousands and thousands of Freemasons. The exclusively Jewish sect B’nai B’rith, which has contacts in Rome and is frequently in contact with them and was present at the Assisi meeting, they alone have five hundred thousand members worldwide. The Grand Orient too has spread everywhere. ... Liberalism has its own economics, directed by a group of international financiers. To the extent that countries put into practice liberal morals, liberal education, liberal laws, even if they run up enormous debts, they are supported by the International Monetary Fund. ... The Vatican itself has not escaped: it was ruined by international finance. In the time of Cardinal Villot and - alas! - under the protection of John XXIII and thanks to his naivety, the Freemasons penetrated the Pontifical finances through the channel of Mgr. Marcinkus of Banco Ambrosio and the famous P2 lodge. They advised the transfer of Vatican assets to Canada. A banking institution was created with this money. But it was not long before it went bankrupt and the Vatican fortune disappeared. Cardinal Villot did not hide the fact: “We are bankrupt. We have lost everything. We have been forced to fire employees and cut wages.”The Vatican found itself financially on the brink of annihilation. Obviously the Freemasons were pressing and international finance intervened. “Don't worry, we're here. If you need money, here is as much as you want. We will support you.” Even if the Vatican still notes publicly the very poor state of its finances, this support explains the pressure that can be put on Rome for the nomination of new bishops, for the appointment of this or that Cardinal and for imposing everything which the Pope does. It [the Vatican] is now in the service of Masonic liberalism. We have to tell it like it is. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Madrid, 1986)
  

• [The Archbishop then talked about the role played by Cardinal Bea at the request of B’nai B’rith, and who received a gold medal from them in recognition of the insertion and approval he had obtained for Religious Liberty which they had demanded in the texts of the Council.] As Leo XIII said in Humanum Genus, the goal of Freemasonry is to destroy all Christian institutions, everything which Christendom has given to society, the family, the school, Christian justice and Christian peace. All that has to be destroyed. That’s the devil’s goal: non serviam. I will not serve. I don’t want to obey the law of God. I want Liberty. (ibid.)
  

• “For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
  

• “When they say they [Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter] don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything anymore. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
  

• “The bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms, of ecumenism and of the charismatic movement. Apparently, they are being a little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we submit to the principles of the Council.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• “For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• “I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.” (Letter to Andre Cagnon, January 6, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p.331)
  

• “There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... They must give us back everything. They must give up their liberalism, they must come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests of the District of France. Dec. 13, 1984)
  
• The cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated [weekly] at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. (Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of negotiations,” June 19, 1988)
  

• “That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)
  

• “For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
  

• “These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
  

• “It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional. That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
  

• “And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
  

• “It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)
  

• “I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• “Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)
  

• “It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present Conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)
  

• “Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of religious liberty, of human rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference December 21, 1984)
  

• “We cannot place ourselves under an authority which has liberal ideas, which will necessarily lead us, little by little, by force of circumstances, to accept liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, the changes in the liturgy, the changes in the Bible, the changes in the catechism – all the changes… We say: But they fought against the catechism!... This is simply ‘putting on the brakes’ because it goes so far that it was necessary to ‘put on the brakes’ a bit. And the same for the theology of liberation, the same for all that is happening now in the Church and which, of course, frightens them a bit. The consequences of their own principles frighten them. So they ‘put on the brakes’ on the right and on the left, but they are determined to keep liberal ideas. There is no question of changing the liberal ideas.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
  

• “Although Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will take the bait.” (Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)
  

• “Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)
  

• Fideliter: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?
  Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)
  

• Fideliter: But there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
  Archbishop Lefebvre: "That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions Roma aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome." (Fideliter No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991)
  

• “… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1988)
  

• “No, I shall not give the Church’s destroyers an easy conscience by handing over the them what belongs only to God, to the Faithful, to the Church of all time. This is what makes our situation with the Vatican appear deadlocked. The time will come when the Church will triumph as she has always done. What are a few years, or a few tens of years, compared with eternity? As I said to you a little while ago, all we need do is wait.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, Paris)
  

• The Enduring Dilemma – Archbishop Lefebvre perceived the dilemma: either capitulate to tyranny under pretext of obedience, or else resist tyranny by rejecting false obedience. “If this government [the Conciliar Church] abandons its duty and turns against the Faith, what ought we to do? Remain attached to the government, or attached to the Faith? We have a choice. Does the Faith take precedence? Or is it the government that takes precedence? We are faced with a dilemma and we are indeed obliged to make a choice.” The choice was made and the defense of the Faith prevailed over false obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Econe for the Chrismal Mass of Holy Thursday, March 27, 1986)
  

• “Let us keep the Faith above all else it is for this that our Lord died, because He affirmed His divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, from his book Spiritual Journey)
  

• “We are told, ‘You are alone and isolated.’ Not at all! We have on our side all the Church’s past, hundreds of Popes, all the saints and all those who did what we are doing… We should have no fear, we are built on a rock which does not depend on us. If it depended on us, we might be afraid: then it would be me and my ideas. I would have invented something; I would have given rise to something new. But that is not so. That is not the case with us… If we ever abandoned the Faith, we would abandon them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre. September 1988)
  

• “And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (pg. 549, Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais)
  

• “When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: “That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.” (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)
  

• Q&A – Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991:
  Fideliter: Since the coronations there is no more contact with Rome; however, Cardinal Oddi who phoned you and said, “You must work it out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you” So why not try the ultimate approach and why do you think it impossible?
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. Principles who now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.”
  
  Fideliter: Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had – before the consecrations – engaged in conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocal of May 5, 1988?
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “Oh yes! For example the fact that the profession of faith which is now [pushed] by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do, to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and the post-Conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible. For my part, I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not see opportunities to Rome to redress the current.”
  
  Fideliter: You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: “They betrayed us. They now give a hand to those who demolish the Church, the liberals, the modernists.” Is not that a bit harsh?
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “But no! […] It is with a heavy heart that we have trouble with Rome. It’s not with pleasure that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic Faith. And they were to agree with us. They cooperated with us. And then suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable. They have virtually abandoned the fight of the faith. They cannot attack Rome.”
  
  Fideliter: What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “Our true believers, those who have understood the problem and that we have just worked to continue straight and firm on tradition and faith, feared the efforts I made to Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute Rome [would show] a little bit of loyalty to what we testify. You cannot blame me for not having done the maximum. So now, [there are] those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I think I can say that I went even further that I should have.”
  

• “Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make the truth. Even if I am alone, and even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, my credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in Heaven. What matters is fidelity to our Faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon)
  

• “We want to remain untied to Jesus Christ, as the Vatican has dethroned the Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord King, Prince and Ruler of the world. We cannot change anything in this line of conduct.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Flavigny, conference, Dec. 1988)
  

• “So, when we raise the question of when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: When Rome again crowns our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who dethrone the Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but they who will come back to the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 68, March 1989)
  

• "Rome is in Apostasy! We cannot have any confidence in them! They have lost the faith!" (Archbishop Lefebvre)
  

• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him” Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
  

• “Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, chapter 23)
  

• "Do not be surprised if we do not understand with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We crashed at a point of the Catholic faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)
  

• “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He [the pope] has left the Church; they have left the Church; they are leaving the Church; It is sure, sure, sure! I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope”. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)
  

• “Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).
  

• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. ch. 31, p. 230).
  

• “It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. Principles which now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
  

• “And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Marcel Lefebvre. Kansas City: Angelus Press. p. 549)
  

• “Let us keep the Faith above all else. It is for this that Our Lord died, because He affirmed His Divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, Kansas City: Angelus Press. p.68)
  

• “It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present Conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)
  

• “Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of Religious Liberty, of Human Rights and of Ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
  

• "This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  

• “To be publicly associated with this sanction [of excommunication] 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.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)
  

• “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.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)
  

• "It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)
  

• “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
  

• “John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)
  

• “What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)
  

•  “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)
  

• “Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• “This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• “That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)
  

• “Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
  

• “But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)
  

• “How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)
  

• “I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)
  

• “The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical. The permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decision necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls. Our Lady of Fatima, I am sure, blesses this final appeal in this 70th anniversary of her apparitions and messages. May you not be for a second time deaf to her appeal.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, July 8, 1987, Excerpt from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger)
  

• “Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)
  

• “…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980)
  

• “It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)
  

• “Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
  

• “The Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false church is in a ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting on theses principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church. … This is how the succession of the bishops came about in the early Church in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not modernist Rome.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon)
  

• “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
  

• “The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: “Why are there no more vocations? Because the [Conciliar] Church no longer knows what a priest is.” How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The adulterous union of the Church with the Revolution is consolidated with dialogue. When the Church entered into dialogue it was to convert. Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, convert them.” But He did not say to hold dialogue with them so as not to convert them, so as to try to put us on the same footing with them. Error and truth are not compatible. We must see if we have charity towards others, as the Gospel says: he who has charity is one who serves others. But those who have charity should give Our Lord, they should give the riches they possess to others and not just converse with them and enter into dialogue on an equal footing. Truth and error are not on the same footing. That would be putting God and the Devil on the same footing, for the Devil is the father of lies, the father of error. We must therefore be missionaries. We must preach the Gospel, convert souls to Jesus Christ and not engage in dialogue with them in an effort to adopt their principles. That is what this bastard Mass and these bastard rites are doing to us, for we wanted dialogue with the Protestants and the Protestants said to us: “We will not have your Mass; we will not have it because it contains things incompatible with our Protestant faith. So change the Mass and we shall be able to pray with you. We can have intercommunion. We can receive your sacraments. You can come to our churches and we can come to yours; then it will be all finished and we shall have unity.” We shall have unity in confusion, in bastardy. That we do not want. The Church has never wanted it. We love the Protestants; we want to convert them. But it is not loving them to let them think they have the same religion as the Catholic religion.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon at Lille, France, August 1976)
  

• “We are now faced with a grave choice: either we agree with the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, and thus oppose the teachings of the Popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes, and thus disagree with Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both. I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity. The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: Liberty is Religious Freedom; Fraternity is Ecumenism; Equality is Collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution. The [Conciliar] Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Luther’s Mass”, February 15th, 1975)
  

• Sadly recognising that the consequences of the conciliar revolution seems to be intent on becoming institutionalised and supplant the true Catholic institutions with the risk of arriving at the same results as in political society, which is sinking into a state of permanent revolution, our resolution to maintain and develop the divine institutions of the Church should be more firm than ever, for if political institutions can disappear, this can never happen to the Church. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1981)
  

• It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)
  

• “Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  

• “Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  

• “There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain within the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly: "Indeed we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  

• “I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right - did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)
  

• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548)
  

• “I waited until June 5th to write to the Pope: I regret, but we cannot go along with this. You do not have the same goal as us. In making an accord, your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine, on the other hand, is to keep us outside the Council and your influence.” (Flavigny, France, December 1988, Fideliter No. 68, p.15)
  

• “But however it may be, we are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• “We are not up against a little thing. It is not enough for them to tell us: “You may say the old Mass, but you have to accept it [the Council].” No, it is not only that [the Mass] which divides us, it’s doctrine. That’s clear. That is what is so serious about Dom Gerard’s [choice], and that’s what did him in. Dom Gerard never saw anything but the liturgy and monastic life. He does not see clearly the theological problems with the Council, with religious freedom. He does not see the malice of these errors.” (Fideliter No.66, September-October 1988, pp. 12-14)
  

• “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 is it possible that the Pope can sign this constitution [on liturgical change]? It is a deep mystery.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
  

• “My dear friends, you continue to represent the true Church, the Catholic Church. I think you need to he convinced of this: You really represent the Catholic church! I don’t say there is no Church outside of us, it’s not about that. But recently, we are told that it was necessary that the Tradition enter into the visible Church. I think a very, very serious mistake is committed here. Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognized by the marks that have always been given to visibility: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more evident in the official Church (this is not the visible church, it is the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are? Clearly we are the ones who preserve the Unity of the Faith which disappeared from the official church. One bishop believes in this, the other not, faith is different, their catechisms contain abominable heresies. Where is the unity of the Faith in Rome?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, Sept. 9, 1988)
  

• “We tremble at the thought that the infiltration of modernism, that is to say naturalism, may continue in the Church. The consequences of this veritable cancer are the most serious that the Church has had to undergo during the course of her history; that is, the corruption of the Faith of numerous bishops and a great number of priests, monks and nuns. These clerics reason like the modernists and the protestants: witness the newly published book “Bishops Speak of the Faith of the Catholic Church.” The ideas of sanctifying grace, original sin, mortal sin and its consequences, of the expiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord which continues on our altars, are all spoiled. In their place one finds all the errors of liberalism, of Americanism, of Sillonism, and of modernism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Add to that the theology of liberation which is a marxist interpretation of the Gospel—a sacriligious and outrageous misinterpretation of Our Lord. Therefore, let us not be amazed that the patience of God is exhausted!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 15)
  

• The Catholic Church will not be occupied forever by the Modernists and progressives who are taking advantage of their authority to push through all these innovations destroying the Faith. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1981)
  

• “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  

• “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
  

• “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  

• “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• “Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
  

• “This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
  

• “We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)
  

• “We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
  

• “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle
  

• “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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)
  

• We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecumenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. Ordination Sermon 1988
  

• And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger], "What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ... And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms." I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecumenism." Changes in the Sacraments...We are like Protestants 1985
  

• “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• The Church has always dreaded novelties, even in her vocabulary and that is why she has held on so strongly to the Latin language in the principal form of Tradition, viz. the Roman Church. For it is by a tendency to novelty that heresies, schisms, and errors have come about. This spirit of novelty, mutation, and change has succeeded in entering into the Church. It necessarily tends to destroy Tradition. The Second Vatican Council, which wished to be the Council of "up-dating," opened the door to this spirit of change and novelty. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
  

• The Council should have been the occasion of the reaffirmation of the Truth of the Church and the necessity of the social reign of Jesus and Mary against the errors of Protestantism and Teilhardian naturalism and against socialism and communism. Ordinary Protestants would have been converted en masse. They were disposed to it and their debacle was profound on the eve of the Council. But the Modernists, traitors to the Church, used the Council to favor their compromise with all the modern errors, profiting from a weak pope and a pope disposed to radical changes. All of the commentators on the Council recognize the triumph of the liberals who did not hide their satisfaction and who neutralized or drove from the Roman Curia all of the conservatives and who took the reins of government, centralizing power in the Secretariat of State in order to be certain of managing the ecumenical revolution so much desired by the enemies of the Church. The work was quickly carried out in all fields. Destruction also followed quickly. In this pastoral Council the spirit of error and lies was able to work at its ease, placing time-bombs everywhere which, in due course, would destroy the institutions. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)