As has been the case on the day of November 29th each year since 2012, in honor of Archbishop Lefebvre’s birthday, I am posting a collection of some of his greatest quotes. This will be the third and final installment. Here are parts 1 and 2, in case you missed them:
And now for part three:
“The Church is destroying herself by the path of obedience… The masterstroke of Satan is thus to spread the principles of revolution from within the Church, and under the authority of the Church itself… he has succeeded in getting those whose duty it is to defend and propagate the Church, to condemn those who are defending the Catholic Faith…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Problem of Obedience”)
“Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch.29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey?” from the July 1988 edition of “The Angelus Magazine”, statement originally given March 29th, 1988)
“We cannot work together with these enemies of Our Lord’s reign.
“We cannot follow these 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 .”(Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 548-549)
“A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”
We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism.
Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.
These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to friends and benefactors, March 1983)
“The ceremony at Lille was obviously very enthusiastic and very beautiful. The sung chants were truly very beautiful. But because I denounced the marriage that took place during the Council between the Church and the Revolution – and I said that, clearly, the offspring of this marriage were illegitimate priests, an illegitimate Mass, and an illegitimate liturgy – and then I spoke about ecumenism and then Communism, and of the warmer relations with the Communists and the repudiation of the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ-all that clearly provoked stupefaction in the press corps. And they characterized my speech as “political”: I was engaging in “politics.”
Clearly, it is now no longer possible to speak of anti-communism; one can no longer speak of the social reign of our Lord without immediately being accused of “engaging in politics.” And, especially, I had the misfortune to take Argentina as an example. That was the last straw! I simply wanted to give an example of a country that is adopting Christian principles, the principles of the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that once those principles are put into practice, order is restored immediately: with peace and a little justice, people resume their work and live in security. Whereas two months before there were kidnappings, blood flowing in the streets, assassinations, looting, and disorder: anarchy gripped the entire country, and the economy was at its lowest ebb. Then finally, you had a typical example of the benefits conferred by Christian principles and the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. What did I say amiss in that?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe, September 18th, 1976)
“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)
“How did the union, against nature, between the Church and the Revolution give birth to the monster, whose incoherencies now fill with fright even its most ardent supporters?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him”, 1988)
“Two centuries ago, this liberalism has spread everywhere in our society, in our families, in our schools. Everywhere extends this poison that destroys the commandments of God, which destroys all that is the beauty, the greatness of Christian civilization. So good is somehow fence it, as I also said Pope Leo XIII about Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanus Genus “. He said: We must wrest his mask and display them as they are so that we avoid the mistakes. Well, I think that liberalism, which is a fruit of Freemasonry, also needs to be unmasked and be submitted as it is, so as to understand their risk and danger to follow. This is what I would do tonight in short, not to abuse your patience, but I will try to clarify something the situation where the Church is today because of the problem of liberalism.
Liberalism has its goddess. Goddess What is liberalism? Freedom. You will recall worship, adoration made during the French Revolution in the cathedral of Notre Dame to the goddess of reason, ie, freedom, freedom of man. And it is this freedom that has his statue at the entrance to New York, which they celebrated in an incredible way a few months ago. The free man. The man freed at last from every law and mainly the Law of God. Finally free to think whatever you want, to do what I want, to do as you like. This is the goddess of the religion of liberalism.
Liberalism has its priesthood, the priesthood are Masons. Secretly organized priesthood, priesthood extremely effective. Masons are thousands and thousands. The Masonic sect B’nai B’rith, which is so much talk now, having her ticket to Rome frequently and who was present at yesterday’s meeting in Assisi, she alone has 160,000 members worldwide and is an exclusively Jewish Masonic sect. And if you read to Leon de Poncins in the Russian revolution described by him, shows very well, with specific facts, that was the sect of the B’nai B’rith in 1917 which provided the money for the Russian Revolution and resulted in the murder of the imperial family of Russia. It also tells who met in New York to decide whether the money would allow to wipe out the imperial family. Consequently, its influence is extremely serious, and considering that this is only one of the Masonic sects. The Big East, I know that you know it as well or better than I, is spread throughout the world. This is the priesthood of Liberalism.
Liberalism has its dogmas. Wants no dogmas, rejected the dogmas, but they are dogmas. These tenets, these principles are the declaration of the rights of man. And these are the rights of liberalism. The popes have instructed us on what is the Declaration of Human Rights: is the instrument invented by Freemasonry against God, precisely to liberate man from the law of God.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Liberalism is Not Only A Sin, It Is A Religion”, conference given in Madrid on October 28th, 1986)
“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!”
[…]“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)
“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 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)
“What should I do? I am told: “You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.”
What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church”, conference given at Montreal, 1982)
“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)
“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 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)
“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).
“We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put 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 XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these 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 these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988)
“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)