• “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)
  

• "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)
  

• “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)
  

• “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)
  

• “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
  

• “I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)
  

• “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)
  

• “It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)
  

• “This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
  

• “It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
  

• “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here:
  "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,”
  
  and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
  

• "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)
  

• “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
  

• “Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)
  

• “The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)
  

• “We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• “…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
  

• “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)
  

• “The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)
  

• In many cases, Masses by their translation, by the intention (of the celebrant), for many reasons are probably no longer valid. But, nevertheless, personally, I have always said, in fact, that if the Mass was said according to the rite approved by Pope Paul VI, in Latin, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, and, obviously, with the (valid) matter also, by a priest who is a real Catholic priest, I think that the Mass is in effect valid, although it does not necessarily follow that because it is valid we must inevitably attend it. ...
  My judgment is, given that this [New] Mass, as I had occasion to remark when interrogated by the Holy Office, is that this Mass is a Mass which has been poisoned, and one cannot oblige a person in conscience to receive poison. Consequently, if these people do not wish to go to Mass on Sunday, for example, because they are aware that it is a poison for their souls, they are certainly not committing a mortal sin. ... 
  What we can say, objectively, as a general rule, is that it is a danger to the faith to attend such Masses. Subjectively, we must take into consideration the individual, and consequently we must know how to judge as a (good) pastor and not only purely in an objective manner, as if we had nothing to do with human beings who find themselves by consequences in diverse circumstances. ... Obviously, the orthodoxy of the priest does not change the quality or the situation of the New Mass. (Even if a priest is well intentioned, a doubtful Mass will remain doubtful.) This is what they tell me in Rome: "You say that the Mass of the Pope is not good; you say that the Mass of certain cardinals is not good." I must reply "yes," because this concerns an objective question, that this Mass was made with the help of Protestants, finalized in a spirit of ecumenical protestantism, and that the essential elements of the Mass are tainted more or less. Consequently, the faith is no longer expressed as it should be expressed, in such a way that the people finish by having an ecumenical spirit and a Protestant spirit, which is excessively dangerous. (Interview with the Houston Chronicle, May 1983)
  

• "... we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.
  
  This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion." (Ordination Sermon, July 29, 1976)
  

• [As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
  

• In April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:
  “Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by circumstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the Mass is not what it should be, and so as circumstances can change, can be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses like that, that's for sure!”
  

• By June 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said:
  “…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).
  

• Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:
  
• “The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”
  
  “…we cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an ecumenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass , which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy Mass.”
  
  “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."
  

• "This century of apostasy, without doubt in a different way from the centuries of faith, belongs to Jesus Christ. On the one hand, the apostasy of the great number manifests the heroic fidelity of the small number; it was like this at the time of the prophet Elias in Israel, when God preserved only seven thousand men, who did not bend the knee before Baal [3 Kings 19:18]. Let us therefore not bend the knee before the 'cult of man' [expression of Paul VI], 'established in the sanctuary and sitting as if it were God' [2 Thess. 2:4]. Let us remain Catholics, adorers of the only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Father and the Holy Ghost!" (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. xvii)
  

• "What then is the true direction of history? Is there even a direction to history? History is all ordered to a person, who is the center of history and who is Our Lord Jesus Christ, because as St. Paul reveals it:
  'In Him all things have been established in heaven and on earth, things visible and invisible, the thrones, the dominions, the principalities, the powers, all has been created by Him and in Him, and He Himself is before all, and all things have in Him their consistency. He is he head of the body which is the Church, He who is the principle... in order that in all things He hold the first place. For God willed that all the fullness abide in Him; He has willed to reconcile through Him all things with Himself, those which are on earth and those which are in the heavens, by making peace by the blood of His cross.' [Col. 1:17-21]
  
  "Jesus Christ is therefore the pole of History. History has only one sole law: 'He must reign; ' if He reigns, true progress and prosperity will also reign, which are goods more spiritual than material! If He does not reign, it is decadence, decay, slavery in all its forms, the reign of the Evil One. This is what Holy Scripture promises besides: '[i]The nation and the kingdom that will not serve Thee shall perish, those nations will be entirely destroyed.[/i]' [Isaias 60:12] {Italics in the original} (Archbishop Lefebvre, [i]They Have Uncrowned Him. [/i]Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 139)
  

• “The point of opposition and the reason why there is no possibility of an Agreement [with Modernist Rome] is this; the question is not so much about the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of them wanting to get closer to Protestantism, and so they changed the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is against the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! … 'Oportet Illum Regnare!' … St. Paul tells us 'Our Lord came to reign, He must reign!' They [the Modernists] say: 'NO!' We say: 'YES!' with all its consequences!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 70, 1993)
  

• “When someone asks if we know when there will be an accord with Rome, my answer is simple: WHEN ROME RE-CROWNS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. We cannot be in accord with those who uncrown Our Lord! The day WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE ONCE AGAIN OUR LORD AS KING OF ALL PEOPLES AND NATIONS, it will not be us with whom they have rejoined but the Catholic Church, in which we dwell!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1988, Fideliter, No. 68 p. 16)
  

• “All those Conciliar Fathers who gave their vote to Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed Religious Liberty with Paul VI, did they realize that they had in fact uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ by tearing away the crown of His Social Royalty? Did they grasp that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of His Divinity? Did they understand that, making themselves the echo of the apostate nations, they were making those abominable blasphemies rise up towards His throne: We do not want Him to rule over us; We have no king but Caesar?” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2003, pp. 211-212)
  

• “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)
  

• “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)
  

• 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 [by] Rome aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome." (Interview with Fideliter Magazine 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)
  

• “We want to remain united 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)
  

• "We must build again the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this Christian world which is disappearing. You shall tell me: "But, Monseigneur, this is the fight of David against Goliath!" Yes, indeed, I know. But in his fight against Goliath, David won the victory! How did he win the victory? By a little pebble which he took from the torrent. What is this little stone which we have? Jesus Christ! Our Lord Jesus Christ! We shall say with our ancestors from Vendée:
  "We have no other honor than the honor of Jesus Christ. We have no other fear in the world than to offend Jesus Christ!" They went to their death to defend their God singing this! We also, let us sing with courage, wholeheartedly: "We have no other love than Our Lord Jesus Christ, no other fear than to offend Him!" (Archbishop Lefebvre, 60th Ordination Anniversary Sermon, 1989)
  
  

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

• “We want to remain united 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)
  

• "It had to take all the frenzy of the enemies of Jesus Christ to bring them to the point of tearing away His crown, when, in application of the Council of 1962, the innovators suppressed or truncated these three strophes of the hymn from the Vespers of Christ the King:
  
  The wicked mob screams out,
  "We don't want Christ as King,"
  While we, with shouts of joy, hail
  Thee as the world's supreme King.
  
  May the rulers of the world
  Publicly honor and extol Thee;
  May the teachers and judges reverence Thee.
  May the laws express Thy order and the arts reflect Thy beauty.
  
  May kings find renown
  In their submission and dedication to Thee.
  Bring under Thy gentle rule
  Our country and our homes.
  
  -(Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, pp. 96-97)
  

• "At the risk of repeating myself, I come back to the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that dogma of the Catholic faith, which no one can put into doubt without being a heretic: yes, exactly: a heretic!" [Italics in the original]  (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 99)
  

• "So it is essential for us to have the conviction of this truth of faith: everything, including civil society, has been devised to serve, directly or indirectly, the redeeming plan of Our Lord Jesus Christ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 101)
  

• It is with that that the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is King! He has the right to reign. . .He has the right! And it is an historical fact - His presence in history can no longer be ignored by men; no man can ignore that Our Lord came to save him. And those who know that Our Lord came and, consequently, that God came among men to save us, must accept His reign: the reign of Our Lord. Not only His reign in individuals, in all persons; not only His reign in each one of us: but His reign in the family, in the home. . . but His reign in the State! Ah, here it is something much more difficult: to admit that Our Lord ought to reign over the nations. He is the King of all nations! He it is who will judge - who will judge all princes and kings. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon of Pentecost Sunday 1975)
  

• What is this modern man? Who is he? What does he represent, if not often the man who does not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and who does not want to believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ. . .who refuses the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. . .who refuses His grace? Men no longer want to believe in the supernatural; they no longer want to believe in the grace of Our Lord. They now believe only in man - in man, who now by his science seems to want to govern the world in the place of God. As for us, we affirm the contrary: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We want Him to reign: and that is why we adore Him, and seek to adore Him in a manner worthy of Him, worthy of His presence in the Holy Eucharist. That is why we love our ceremonies, why we are attached to this Liturgy which truly expresses what we think in our hearts, what we think in the depths of our souls: that Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist and that we honour Him as God. He is our King: He has the right to our reverences, He has the right to our genuflections, He has the right to our bows; He has the right to songs worthy of Him, worthy of heaven, which recall the chant of the angels. (Ibid.)
  

• We are attacked because we want the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; because we affirm as much, because we do all that this reign might be established - that the reign of God, the reign of Our Lord might be established, the reign as well of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is why we are persecuted; we know it well. (Ibid.)
  

• We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition.Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... 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)
  

• His reign must be established on earth as it is in heaven. It is He himself who said so in the prayer that he taught us, the Our Father: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. And this must be the object of our prayers, the intention of our sufferings, and the purpose of our life. We must have no rest until Our Lord’s reign is established. A Catholic whose heart is not animated by this profound desire is not a Catholic. He is not one of the faithful of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It suffices to re-read these lines “Now at last in these times He has spoke to us, with a Son to speak for Him; a Son whom He has appointed to inherit all things, just as it was through Him that He created this world of time” (Heb, 1:2). (Archbishop Lefebvre, The Mass of All Time, Chapter 5: Angelus Press 2007, as quoted from here.)
  

• Our Lord Jesus Christ is King now. All power has been given to Him in heaven and on earth. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” says Our Lord. If, then, Our Lord’s will must be done on earth , it means that His law, the Decalogue, must be applied on earth as it is in heaven. We must profess this even if churchmen want no more of it. This what is dividing the Church at present . As for us, we want Our Lord’s honour and the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which must be applied universally. We will fight for this, and we will do our utmost to crown Jesus Christ King. Because we speak of the social reign of Our Lord, we are accused of engaging in politics, then we want to do so, because we want Our Lord Jesus Christ to rule over us. We do not want to be governed by men who are not subject to Our Lord. If only all our rulers understood that they must be subject to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings, the Lord of lords! He is the King. He could have been the King on earth and continue to govern us. But He will be one day, when He descends upon the clouds in the heavens. Everyone will have to render and account to this King and Judge. (Ibid.)
  

• Meanwhile, today, we want authorities, leaders, who know that they will render an account to God for the exercise of their power and their government. For we love to be subject to persons who do not believe themselves to be the authors of all power. Even if they have been elected by the people, the people do not have power; the people are not God. The people can designate the one who will exercise authority, but it does not give the authority; authority comes from God: “there is no power but from God,” says St Paul (Rom.13:1). This is the greatness of authority. This is the true foundation of the power of authority, whether civil or paternal. Paternal authority comes from God. Children know that when they are subject to their parents, they are at the same time subject to God. How beautiful this is; how well God has made things! But how men destroy them! (Ibid.)
  

• We do not want to be subject uniquely to men who will do with us what they will. We would not be allowed to think except as these men think. We would not be allowed to act except as these men want us to act. No, we want to be subject to God, yes, we are willing to be subject. That is what we think and what we want. We want to belong to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our King. (Ibid.)
  

• "The heresy of our time is the rejection of the social reign of Jesus Christ. From all sides the cry of the Gospel parable resounds: "Nolumus hunc regnare super nos.–We will not have this man to reign over us." Not only are laws no longer made in His name or in conformity with His Gospel, they are made against Him. He is the enemy, and war is declared against Him from every side in the domains of doctrine and action..... (Buatier, Sacrifice in Catholic Dogma [French], p. 114)
  

• Meanwhile, He exercises over all nations the royal power, which he received, as Man, on the Day of his Ascension. He redeemed us all by his Blood; we are therefore his people, and he is our King. He is, and he calls himself, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (Apocalypse 19:16) The kings of the earth reign not either by their own prowess, or by the boasted social compact; they lawfully reign by Christ alone. Peoples and nations are not their own masters; they belong to Christ and are his subjects. His law requires no sanction from man; it is above all human laws, and should be their guide and controller. Why have the nations raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. They said: Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away their yoke from us. (Psalm 2:1-3) How vain all these efforts! for, as the Apostle says, he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet, (1 Corinthians 15:25) that is, until his second coming, when the pride of man and Satan’s power shall both be at an end.
  
  "Thus, then, the Son of Man, crowned at his Ascension, must reign over the world to the end of time. But, it will be objected: “How can he be said to reign in these our times, when Kings and Emperors and Presidents acknowledge that their authority comes from the people; and when the people themselves, carried away with the ideas of self-government and liberty and independence, have lost all idea of authority?” And yet, he reigns; he reigns in his justice, since men refused to be guided by his clemency. They expunged his law from their statutes; they gave the rights of citizenship to error and blasphemy: then did he deliver them up, both people and rulers, to their own follies and lies. Authority and power are become ephemeral: and as they scorn to receive the consecration of the Church, the hand that holds them to-day, may be empty tomorrow. Then anarchy, then a new ruler, and then a fresh revolution. This will be the future, as it is the present, history of Nations, until they once more acknowledge Jesus as their King, and resume the constitution of the ages of faith: “It is Christ that conquers! it is Christ that reigns! it is Christ that commands! May Christ preserve his people from all evil!” - Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension
  

• Were the Church’s plight a hundred times worse, a hundred times more cruel, it is still the Lord who is forever Master and King. It is to Him that all power has been given; it is before Him that every knee must bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, including those in this kind of hell, for the moment painless, which is the modernist sect. Its harmfulness cannot extend beyond the strict limits set by the Lord, and the Lord only grants it a certain power to obscure, to falsify, and to scandalize in thousands of ways, only for the good of the elect and to augment the gracious splendor of His Church. We ought not to be fearful, but rather persevere with confidence in the Church of always, the everlasting Church, the Church of all time. (Fr. Roger Calmel,  Apologia, Itinéraires, No. 151, March 1971, pp. 104-111.)
  

To Our Lady: