• the collegial authority of the Pope and the bishops (i.e. a “two-headed Church” by collegiality!);
  
• the authority of the present “magisterium” and the “Conciliar Church” with all their errors;
  
• the “progress” of Tradition according to the neo-modernists;
  
• the criteria for interpreting between Tradition and the texts of Vatican II, in general, i.e. the “hermeneutics of continuity” of Pope Benedict XVI; the “hermeneutics of continuity” used as the criteria for interpreting between Tradition and Vatican II, on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty;
  
• postponing the doctrinal discussions until later;
  
• accepting the “validity” and “legitimacy” of the New Mass and sacraments; and
  
• acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) with no distinctions.
  

• "So what are we supposed to think about this? Well, it’s that this [New] Canon Law is unacceptable.”  (Spiritual Conference given at Écône, 99B, March 14, 1983).
  

• “The New Code no longer asks a married Protestant / Catholic couple to sign a commitment to baptize the children Catholic. It is a serious violation of the Faith, a serious violation of the Faith!... In the New Code of Canon Law there are two supreme powers of the Church: there is the power of the Pope, who has the supreme power, and then the Pope with the bishops...that has never been seen in the Church...it is thus to limit the power of the Pope. So, the explanatory note [nota praevia] of the Council, practically, has no effect under the New Canon Law.” (Spiritual Conference given at Écône, 100A, May 20, 1983).
  

• “The Apostolic Constitution introducing the New Canon Law explicitly says on page 11 of the Vatican Edition: ‘The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this New Code can be conceived as an effort to expose this doctrine, i.e., Conciliar Ecclesiology, in canonical language.’ ...It is the authority of the Pope and the Bishops that is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic Faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 24, March 1983).
  

• “However, when one reads this New Code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new concept of the Church...This is the definition of the Church (New Code canon 204): ‘The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated into Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world.’...There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy?...It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church!...This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very grave...you know that the New Code of Canon Law [Canon 844] permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant . It is what they call ‘Eucharistic hospitality.’ These are [given to] Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert! This is directly opposed to the Faith!” (Conference at Turin, Italy March 24, 1984).
  

• “We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to which, the college of Bishops, together with the Pope, exercise supreme power in the Church in a habitual and constant manner. This is not a change for the better; this doctrine of double supremacy is contrary to the teaching and Magisterium of the Church. It is contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I and to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, 1985, ch.13, p.95).
  

• “Our cry of alarm was rendered more urgent by the errors in the New Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies...” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, 1985, ch. 21, p. 150).
  

• a Protestant concept of the Church defined now as “the People of God”;
  
• two supreme universal powers in the Church (Christ established a monarchical
  
• structure for His Church, not democratic);
  
• the error of Collegiality at all levels;
  
• a laicization of the Church (i.e. more and more “active participation” of the laity);
  
• Ecumenical practices, such as giving Holy Communion to heretics, called
  
• “Eucharistic hospitality.”
  
• new causes for nullity of marriages;
  
• easy granting of annulments in Marriage Tribunals;
  
• new regulations in contracting marriages;
  
• suppression of the Major Order of Subdiaconate, minor orders (Porter, Lector,
  
• Exorcist and Acolyte) and tonsure;
  
• new “canonizations”;
  
• relaxing of disciplinary laws;
  
• etc., etc.
  

• “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them. But it’s theChurch! And it’s the true Church!” (Bishop Fellay, Flavigny, 09/02/2012).
  

• “The Religious Liberty of the Council is limited, very limited.” (Bp. Fellay 5/11/12).
  

• “We are in the process of making the Council’s errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything,...this is serious, because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality” (Bp. Fellay 10/07/12).
  

• “The Priestly Society of St. Pius X rejoices to see the Church regain her liturgical tradition...the Priestly Society of St. Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit “ (Bp. Fellay 07/07/2007 On the occasion of “Summorum Pontificum”).
  

• “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline. An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic!” (Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10).
  

• “Unfortunately, in the present situation of the Society (i.e. the Society members’ resistance to the steps of making an Agreement with Modernist Rome) the new Declaration will not be accepted...I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications… May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and dearest desire to serve Holy Church.” (Bp. Fellay Letter to Pope Benedict XVI, 06/17/2012).
  

• “There was a questioning of authority [by priests in the Society loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre], a radical challenge, because it accused it of no longer leading the Society towards its end.” (Bp. Fellay, Cor Unum, November 2012).
  

• “The entire Tradition of the Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of the Vatican Council II which Council in turn clarifies— i.e., deepens and make more explicit over time— certain aspects of the life of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet conceptually formulated” (Doctrinal Declaration April 15, 2012).
  

• “We declare that we acknowledge the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments when celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II” (Doctrinal Declaration 04/15/12).
  

Quote:At that time, all too often aggressive and polemical points-of-view were being expressed both on the part of the Catholics attached to Tradition, as well as on that of those who claim to follow the spirit of the Council. These were not contributing to bring about the climate of peace and mutual confidence which is necessary in the search for a true reconciliation. The Society of St. Pius X must understand that, even if it has much to bring to the Church of Rome, it also has much to receive from it. Therefore it must stop rejecting Vatican II in its entirety. 

Quote:We ask the leaders of the Society to cease declarations and polemical articles which criticize the Holy See.

Quote:When they say that they (i.e. those joining Conciliar Rome) have lost nothing, it is false. They have lost the possibility of refuting Rome. They can no longer say anything! Having been given the favors that have been accorded to them, they must keep quiet. It is now impossible for them to denounce the errors of the Conciliar Church (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, no. 79, p. 3).

Quote:Having been given the favors that have been accorded to them, they must keep quiet! (ibid.)

Quote:Neither God nor truth changes. What the Church has defined or solemnly condemned for centuries cannot change. That is why we absolutely reject this new doctrine which demands an agnostic civil society as if it were a liberty of man in religious matters when, at the most, it should be a tolerance on the part of civil authorities and can never be a natural right. (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe, May 22, 1987).

Quote:...That’s what makes our opposition [ to current Rome ], and that’s why we cannot get along. This is not primarily the issue of the Mass , because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! “Oportet Illum regnare,” St. Paul tells us, “He must Reign!” They say: “No!” We say: “Yes!” with all the Popes! ( Abp. Lefebvre, “Fideliter” p. 70, 1993).

Quote:It is not surprising that we have not come to an understanding with Rome. That will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to the Faith in the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ! [...] We are in opposition on a point of the Catholic Faith! (Abp. Lefebvre, Conference at Sierre, Nov., 27, 1988, Fideliter, no. 68, p. 12).

Quote:We are not saying that the New Mass is heretical, nor that it is invalid, but we refuse to say that it is legitimate, that it is perfectly orthodox (Communicantes, August, 1985).

Quote:If we move into canonical language, as is the case here, we see that there is no difference in the meanings of “legitimate” and “licit” because the liceity of a sacramental act is based on the “legitimacy” of the liturgical law which promulgates it. Thus, one time admitting, as Bishop Fellay has done, that the New Rites have been “legitimately promulgated,” thereby implies that the laws which have “promulgated” them are good, because in Canon Law, for a law to be legitimate, it must be good! And if their promulgation is “legitimate,” nothing prevents their celebration from being licit and good as well [...] All the traditional communities who have rejoined Modernist Rome have passed that way...They began by recognizing the “legitimacy” of the promulgation of the New Rites, then their superiors did not hesitate to concelebrate the New Mass with the Pope, as Dom Gerard, Bishop Rifan, Fr. Wach (Institute of Christ the King), and other have done publicly!.... So, when will Bp. Fellay concelebrate the New Rite with the Pope, if he asks him to do so? (p. 57, no. 7).

• Abolish the ambiguities.
  

• Condemn the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012 and the “Six Conditions” & return to the principle of the General Chapter Decision of 2006 ( No practical/canonical agreement without first the Doctrinal agreement!).
  

• Hold the position of Abp. Lefebvre, our Founder: No discussions with Rome until Rome returns to Tradition (in accord with the Papal condemnations of Modernism & Liberalism) and proclaims the Kingship of Christ.
  

• No deals with Rome “until we have a perfectly Catholic Pope.”
  

Quote:Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted all that he had received; all the heritage of Fr. LeFloch, from the French Seminary in Rome, all his experience - he left all that to the Society, and it still works, but on condition that we continue the same spirit of combat! It is out of the question of laying down our arms in the middle of the battle. We are not going to look for a treaty while the war is raging, with Assisi III or IV, with the beatification of a false “Blessed” Pope John Paul II; and with Benedict XVI’s continuous demand to accept the Council and the Reforms and the Magisterium after the Council ( Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, Conference at the Gastines Priory in France, September 16, 2012).