The following conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Montreal, Canada in 1982. t de!

onstrates
by personal e"perience the tragic corr#ption of !odernis! right fro! the ti!e of $ope $i#s %. The
Archbishop describes the e"traordinary infl#ence of Monsignor Annibale &#gnini in the fra!ing of the 'ew
Mass and how his #nprecedented daring bro#ght abo#t the (approval( of this protestanti)ed lit#rgy. This
acco#nt of his personal e"periences is the very clear de!onstration of why Archbishop Lefebvre had to
disobey so as to not participate in the self*destr#ction of the Ch#rch. +e present it to o#r readers to allow
the! to share a !ore personal viewpoint of the Archbishop,s battle for the Ch#rch and for the -aith.

BRIEF HISTORY
I'm happy to remark that every where in the world, everywhere in the Catholic world, courageous people are
uniting together around priests who are faithful to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church, so as to
maintain Tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith. If there is a movement as general as this it is because
the situation in the Church is truly serious.
If Catholics and good priests, some of whom have served in parishes for thirty years to the great satisfaction
of their parishioners, have been able to beat the insult of being treated as disobedient rebels and dissidents, it
could have only have been so as to maintain the Catholic Faith. They do it knowingly, following the spirit of
the martyrs.
Whether one is persecuted by one's own brethren or by the enemies of the Church, it is still to suffer
martyrdom, provided it be for the maintaining of the Faith. These priests and faithful are witnesses of the
Catholic Faith. They prefer to be considered rebels and dissidents rather than lose their Faith.
Throughout the entire world we are in the presence of a tragic and unheard of situation, which seems never
to have happened before in the history of the Church. We must at least try to eplain this etraordinary
phenomenon. !ow has it come to pass that good faithful and priests are obliged to fight to maintain the
Catholic faith in a Catholic world, which is in the process of totally breaking up"
It was #ope #aul $I himself who spoke of self%destruction within the Church. What does this term self%
destruction mean, if it is not that the Church is destroying herself by herself, and hence by her own
members. This is already what #ope &t. #ius ' said in his first encyclical when he wrote(./enceforth the
ene!y of the ch#rch is no longer o#tside the ch#rch, he is now within.( )nd the #ope did not hesitate to
designate those places where he was to be found( (The ene!y is fo#nd in the se!inaries.( Conse*uently, the
holy #ope &t. #ius ' already denounced the presence of the enemies of the Church in the seminaries at the
beginning of the century.
+bviously the seminarians of the time, who where imbued with modernism, sillonism and progressivism,
later became priests. &ome of them even became ,ishops and among them were even some Cardinals. +ne
could *uote the names of those who were seminarians at the beginning of the century and who are now dead
but whose spirit was clearly modernist and progressivist.
Thus already #ope &t. #ius ' denounced this division in the Church, which was to be the beginning of a
very real rupture within the Church and within the clergy.
I am no longer young. -uring my whole life as a seminarian, as a priest and as a ,ishop I have seen this
division. I saw it already at the French seminary at .ome where by the grace of /od I was able to study. I
must admit that I was not very keen to do my studies in .ome. I would personally have preferred to study
with the seminarians of my diocese in the 0ille &eminary and to become an assistant vicar, and finally a
parish priest in a small country parish.
I longed simply to maintain the Faith in a parish. I saw myself somewhat as the spiritual father of a
population to which I was sent to teach the Catholic Faith and morals. ,ut it happened otherwise. )fter the
First World War my brother was already at .ome, for he had been separated from the family by the
circumstances of the war in the north of France. Conse*uently my parents insisted that I go to be with
him. (0ince yo#r brother is already at 1o!e, at the -rench se!inary, go and 2oin hi! so as to contin#e
yo#r st#dies with hi!.( Thus I left for .ome. I studied at the /regorian 1niversity from 2345 to 2356. I was
ordained in 2343 and I remained as a priest at the seminary during one year.
THE FIRST VICTIMS OF MODERNISM
-uring my &eminary years tragic events took place, which now remind me of eactly what I lived through
during the Council. I am now in practically the same situation as our &eminary .ector at the time. Fr. 0e
Floch. When I was there he had already been .ector of the French &eminary at .ome for thirty years. From
,rittany, he was a very outstanding man and as strong and firm in the Faith as ,rittany granite. !e taught us
the #apal encyclicals and the eact nature of the 7odernism condemned by &t. #ius ', the modern errors
condemned by 0eo 'III and the liberalism condemned by #ius I'. We liked our Fr. 0e Floch very much.
We were very attached to him.
,ut his firmness in doctrine and in Tradition obviously displeased the progressive wing. #rogressive
Catholics already eisted at that time. The #opes had to condemn them.
8ot only did Fr. 0e Floch displease the progressives, but he also displeased the French government. The
French government feared that by the intermediary of Fr. 0e Floch and by that formation, which was given
to the seminarians at the French &eminary in .ome traditional ,ishops, would come to France and would
give to the Church in France a traditional and clearly anti%liberal direction.
For the French government was 7asonic and conse*uently profoundly liberal and frightened at the thought
that non%liberal ,ishops could take over the most important posts. #ressure was conse*uently eerted on the
#ope so as to eliminate Fr. 0e Floch. It was Francis*ue /ay, the future leader of the 7...#., who was in
charge of this operation. !e came to .ome to eert pressure on #ope #ius 'I, denouncing Fr. 0e Floch as
being, so he said, a member of.9)ction Franaise: and a politician who taught his seminarians to also be
members of :)ction Franaise.9
This was all nothing but a lie. For three years I heard Fr. 0e Floch in his spiritual conferences. 8ever did he
speak to us of :)ction Franaise.: 0ikewise people now say to me( (3o# were for!erly a !e!ber of Action
-ranaise.45 I have never been a member of :)ction Franaise.:
Clearly we were accused of being members of :)ction Franaise,: 8a;is and fascists and every other
pe<orative label because we were anti%revolutionary and anti%liberal.
Thus an in*uiry was made. The Cardinal )rchbishop of 7ilan =Card. &chuster> was sent to the seminary.
!e wasn't the least of the Cardinals. !e was in fact a ,enedictine of great holiness and intelligence. !e had
been designated by #ope #ius 'I to make the in*uiry at the French &eminary so as to determine if the
accusations of Francis*ue /ay were true or not. The in*uiry took place. The result was( the French
&eminary functions perfectly well under the direction of Fr. 0e Floch. We have absolutely nothing to
reproach the &eminary .ector with. ,ut this did not suffice.
Three months later a new in*uiry was begun, this time with the order to do away with Fr. 0e Floch. The
new in*uiry was made by a member of a .oman Congregation. !e concluded, in effect, that Fr. 0e Floch
was a friend of :)ction Franaise,: that he was dangerous for the &eminary and that he had to be asked to
resign. This is <ust what happened.
In 234? the !oly &ee re*uested Fr. 0e Floch to kindly abandon his post as .ector of the French &eminary.
!e was overwhelmed with sorrow. Fr. 0e Floch had never been a politician. !e was traditional, attached to
the doctrines of the Church and the #opes. In addition he had been a great friend of #ope &t. #ius ', who
had had great confidence in him. It was precisely because he was a friend of &t. #ius ' that he was the
enemy of the progressive wing.
It was at the same time that I was at the French &eminary that Cardinal ,illot was also attacked. !e was a
first class theologian at the time and remains today well known and studied in our &eminaries. 7onseigneur
,illot, Cardinal of the !oly Church, was deposed. The purple was taken away from him and he was sent
away in penance to Castelgandolfo, *uite close to )lbano, where the @esuits have a house. !e was forbidden
to leave under pretet of having connections with :)ction Franaise.:
In fact Cardinal ,illot never belonged to :)ction Franaise.: !e did, however, hold 8aurras in high esteem
and had cited him in his theology books. In the second volume concerning the Church =-e Acclesia>, for
eample, Cardinal ,illot accomplished a magnificent study of liberalism where he took, in the form of
notes, several *uotations from 7aurras. This was a mortal sinB This was all they could find to depose
Cardinal ,illot. It is not a minor tragedy, for he was one of the great theologians of his time and yet he was
deposed as a Cardinal and reduced to the state of a simple priest, for he was not a ,ishop. =)t that time there
were still some Cardinal deacons.> It was already the persecution.
POPE PlUS XI UNDERWENT THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESSIVE WING
#ope #ius 'I himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in .ome. For we
see a distinct difference from the #opes before and after. ,ut nevertheless #ope #ius 'I at the same time
wrote some magnificent encyclicals. !e was not a liberal. (6ivini 1ede!ptoris,( his encyclical against
Communism was magnificent. &o also was his encyclical on Christ the Cing, which established the feast of
Christ The Cing and proclaimed the &ocial Cingship of +ur 0ord @esus Christ. !is encyclical on Christian
Aducation is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend
Catholic schools.
If on the level of doctrine #ope #ius 'I was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action.
!e was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the 7eican Civil
War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for
Christ the Cing, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. )s soon as they
had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in
7eico. #ope #ius 'I placed confidence in the government who deceived him. )fterwards, he was visibly
very upset. !e could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who
defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of 7eicans were killed on
account of their Faith.
)lready at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church.
&lowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite <ust before the council.
#ope #ius 'II was a great pope well in his writing as in his way of governing the Church. -uring the reign
of #ius 'II the Faith was firmly maintained. 8aturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to
mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth.
,ut then @ohn ''III came along. !e had a totally different temperament than #ius 'II. @ohn ''III was a
very simple and open man. !e did not see problems anywhere.
When he decided to hold a &ynod .ome they said to him, (&#t /oly -ather, a 0ynod has to be prepared. At
least one year is necessary andperhaps two so as to prepare s#ch a !eeting, in order that n#!ero#s fr#its
be gained and that refor!s be tr#ly st#died and then applied so that yo#r diocese of 1o!e !ight draw
profit fro! it. All this cannot be done straight away and in the space of two or three !onths followed by two
wee7s of !eetings and then all will be fine. t is not possible.(
(8h yes, yes 7now, 7now, b#t it going to be a s!all 0ynod. +e can prepare it in a few !onths and
everything will be 2#st fine.(
Thus the &ynod was rapidly prepared( a few commissions at .ome, everybody very busy and then two
weeks of meetings and all was over with. #ope @ohn ''III was happy his small &ynod had been held, but
the results were nil. 8othing had changed in the diocese of .ome. The situation was eactly the same as
before.
THE DRIFT BEGINS WITH THE COUNCIL
It was eactly the same thing for the Council. ( have the intention to hold a Co#ncil.( )lready #ope #ius
'II had been asked by certain Cardinals to hold a Council. ,ut he had refused, believing that it was
impossible. We cannot in our time hold a Council with 4,D66 bishops. The pressures that can eercised by
the mass media are too dangerous for us to dare hold a Council. We are liable to get out of depth. )nd there
was in fact no Council.
,ut #ope @ohn ''III said( (&#t it4s fine9 we don,t need to be pessi!istic. 3o# have to loo7 on things with
confidence. +e will co!e together for three !onths with all the &ishops of the entire world. +e will begin
on 8ctober 1:. Then everything will be over with between 6ece!ber E and ;an#ary 4D. <verybody will go
ho!e, and the Co#ncil will be over and done with.(
)nd so the #ope held the CouncilB 8evertheless it did have to be prepared. ) Council cannot be held off the
bat <ust like a &ynod. It was indeed prepared two years in advance. I was personally named as a member of
the Central #reparatory Commission as )rchbishop of -akar and president of the West )frican Apiscopal
Conference. I therefore came to .ome at least ten times during the two years so as to participate in the
meetings of the Central #reparatory Commission.
It was very important, for all the documents of the secondary commissions had to come through it so as to
be studied and submitted to the Council. There were in this commission seventy Cardinals and around
twenty )rchbishops and ,ishops, as well as the eperts. These eperts were not members of the
Commission, but were only present so they could eventually be consulted by the members.
THE APPEARANCE OF DIVISION
-uring these two years the meetings followed one another and it became clearly apparent for all the
members present that there was a profound division within the Church itself. This profound division was not
accidental or superficial but was even deeper amongst the Cardinals than amongst the )rchbishops and
,ishops. +n the occasion of the casting of votes the conservative Cardinals could be seen to vote in one way
and the progressive Cardinals in another. )nd all the votes were always more or less the same way. There
was obviously a real division amongst the Cardinals.
I describe the following incident in one of my books A &ishop 0pea7s. I often mention it because it truly
characteri;es the end of the Central Commission and the beginning of the Council. It was during the last
meeting, and we had received beforehand ten documents on the same sub<ect. Cardinal ,ea had prepared a
tet :-e 0ibertate .eligiosa,: :Concerning .eligious 0iberty.: Cardinal +ttaviani had prepared another,
:-e 'Tolerantia .eligiosa,: .'Concerning .eligious Tolerance.9
The simple fact the two different titles on the same sub<ect was significant of two different conceptions.
Cardinal ,ea spoke of freedom for all religions and Cardinal +ttaviani of freedom for the Catholic religion
along with tolerance of error and false religions. !ow could such a disagreement have been resolved by the
Commission"
From the beginning Cardinal +ttaviani pointed the finger at Cardinal ,ea and said, F3o#r <!inence, yo# do
not have the right to present this doc#!ent.(
Cardinal ,ea replied, F<"c#se !e b#t have perfectly the right to p#t together a doc#!ent as $resident of
the Co!!ission for =nity. Conse>#ently, have 7nowingly p#t together this doc#!ent. Moreover, a!
totally opposed to yo#r opinion.(
Thus two of the most eminent Cardinals, Cardinal +ttaviani, #refect of the !oly +ffice, and Cardinal ,ea,
former Confessor of #ope #ius 'II, a @esuit having a great deal of influence on all the Cardinals, who was
well known in the ,iblical Institute and responsible for advanced biblical studies, were opposed on a
fundamental thesis in the Church. 1nity for all religions is one thing, that is to say that liberty and error are
placed on the same footingG but liberty of the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error is something
*uite different. Traditionally the Church has always been for the opinion of Cardinal +ttaviani and not for
that of Cardinal ,ea, which is totally liberal.
Then Cardinal .uffini, from #alermo, stood up and saidG F+e are now in the presence of two confreres who
are opposed to one another on a >#estion which is very i!portant in the Ch#rch. +e are conse>#ently
obliged to refer to a higher a#thority.(
Huite often the #ope came to preside over our meetings. ,ut he was not there for this last meeting.
Conse*uently the Cardinals re*uested to vote( :+e cannot wait to go and see the /oly -ather. +e are going
to vote.( We voted. @ust about one half of the Cardinals voted for the opinion of Cardinal ,ea and the other
half for that of Cardinal +ttaviani. )ll those who voted for Cardinal ,ea's opinion were the -utch, /erman,
French and )ustrian Cardinals, and all those in general from Aurope and 8orth )merica. The traditional
Cardinals were those of the .oman Curia, from &outh )merica and in general those of &panish 0anguage.
It was a true rupture in the Church. From this moment I asked myself how the Council could proceed with
such opposition on such important points. Who would win" Would it be Cardinal +ttaviani with the
Cardinals of &panish or romance languages or would it be the Auropean Cardinals and those of 8orth
)merica"
In effect, the battle began immediately, from the very first days of the Council. Cardinal +ttaviani had
presented the list of members who had belonged to the preparatory commissions, leaving full freedom for
each to chose those that he wanted. It was obvious that we could not all know one another, since each one
came for his own diocese. !ow could one possibly know the 4,D66 ,ishops of the world" We were asked to
vote for members of the commissions of the Council. ,ut who could we chose" We did not know the
,ishops from &outh )merica nor from &outh )frica nor from India. ..
Cardinal +ttaviani thought that .ome's choices for the preparatory commissions could help as an indication
for the Council Fathers. It was in fact *uite normal to propose these.
Cardinal 0ienart arose and said, (+e do not accept this way of doing things. +e as7 for IE ho#rs to reflect,
that we !ight 7now better those who co#ld !a7e #p the different co!!issions. This is to e"ert press#re on
the 2#dge!ent of the -athers. +e do not accept it.(
The Council had begun only two days previously and already there was a violent opposition between the
Cardinals. What had happened"
-uring these IE hours the liberal Cardinals had already prepared lists made out from all the countries of the
world. They distributed these in the letterboes of all the Council Fathers. We had therefore all received a
list proposing the members of such and such a commissionG that is such a bishop and another etc. from
different countries. 7any said( (After all why not. do not 7now the!. 0ince the list is already ready we
have si!ply to !a7e #se of it.( Forty%eight hours later it was the liberals' list, which was in front. ,ut it did
not receive the two thirds of the votes, which were re*uired by the Council rules.
What then would the #ope do" Would #ope @ohn ''III make an eception to the rules of the Council or
would he apply them" Clearly the liberal Cardinals were afraid that he might apply them and so they ran to
the #ope and said to him( (Listen, we have !ore than half the votes, nearly ?6J.3o# cannot ref#se that. +e
cannot 7eep going li7e this and hold another election. +e will never be done with it. This is clearly the will
of the !a2ority of the Co#ncil and we have si!ply to accept it.( )nd #ope @ohn ''III accepted. From this
beginning all the members of the Council commissions were chosen by the liberal wing. It is easy to
imagine what an enormous influence this had on the Council.
I am sure #ope @ohn ''III died prematurely because of what he saw at the Council, although he had
thought that at the end of a few months everything would be done with. It was to be a council of three
months. Then all would say good%bye and go home happy for having met one another at .ome and for
having had a nice little meeting.
!e discovered that the Council was to be a world of itself, a world of continual clashes. 8o tet came from
the first session of the Council. #ope @ohn ''III was overwhelmed by this and I am persuaded that this
hastened his death. It has even been said that on his deathbed he said( F0top the Co#ncil? stop the Co#ncil.(
POPE PAUL VI GIVES HIS SUPPORT TO THE LIBERALS
#ope #aul $I came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that"
From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second &ession of the Council, he immediately named
four 7oderators. The four 7oderators were to direct the Council instead of the ten #residents who had
presided during the first &ession. The #residents, one of whom had presided over one meeting and then the
second and then the third, sat at a table higher than the others. ,ut they were to become honorary #residents.
The four 7oderators became the true #residents of the Council.
Who were these moderators" Cardinal -opfner of 7unich was one. !e was very progressive indeed and
very ecumenical. Cardinal &uenens, whom the entire world knows along with his charismatics and who has
given conferences in favor of the marriage of priests, was another. Cardinal 0ercaro who is known for his
philocommunism and whose $icar /eneral had been enrolled as a member of the Communist party was a
third. Finally there was Cardinal )gagianian, who represented somewhat the traditional wing, if I can say
so.
Cardinal )gagianian was a very discreet and self%effacing man. Conse*uently he had no real influence on
the Council. ,ut the three others accomplished their task with drums beating. They constantly brought
together the liberal Cardinals, which gave considerable authority to the liberal wing of the Council.
Clearly the traditional Cardinals and ,ishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.
When poor Cardinal +ttaviani, who was blind, started to speak, boos could be heard amongst the young
,ishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him
understand that they had had enough of listening to him. !e had to stopG it was frightful. This venerable
Cardinal, who was honored throughout .ome and who had had an enormous influence on the !oly Church,
who was #refect of the !oly +ffice, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to
see how the traditionalists were treated.
7onseigneur &taffa =he has since been named Cardinal>, who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council
7oderators. These were unbelievable things.
REVOLUTION OF THE CHURCH
This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and tets were influenced
by the liberal Cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous tets,
which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church.
Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the ,ishops and Cardinals"
Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 4D6 who favored the maintenance of Tradition and who were
opposed to such ma<or changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We were
opposed to all these things. These 4D6 bishops clearly brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions
forced tets to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat limited.
,ut we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted, especially in the schema
on .eligious 0iberty, whose tet was redone five times. Five times the same opinion was brought forward.
We opposed it on each occasion. There were always 4D6 votes against. Conse*uently #ope #aul $I asked
that two small sentences be added to the tet, saying that there is nothing in this tet which is contrary to the
traditional teaching of the Church and that the Church remains always the true and the only Church of
Christ.
Then the &panish ,ishops in particular said( (0ince the $ope has !ade this state!ent there is no longer any
proble!. There is nothing against tradition.( If these things are contradictory then this little phrase
contradicts everything, which is in the tets. It is a contradictory schema. We could not accept it. Finally
there remained, if I remember well, only KI bishops against. It is the only schema, which met such
opposition, but KI of 4,D66 is little indeedB
Thus ended the Council. We should not be astonished at the reforms, which have been introduced since.
&ince then, everything is the history of 0iberalism. The liberals were victorious within the Council for they
demanded that #aul $I grant them places within the .oman Congregations. )nd in fact the important places
were given to the progressive clergy. )s soon as a Cardinal died or an occasion presented itself, #ope #aul
$I would put aside traditional Cardinals, immediately replacing them with liberal ones.
Thus it is that .ome was occupied by the liberals. This is a fact, which cannot be denied. 8or can it be
denied that the reforms of the Council were reforms which breathe the spirit of Acumenism and which are
*uite simply #rotestant, neither more nor less.
THE LITURGICAL REFORM
The most serious of the conse*uences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows,
by a well%known priest, ,ugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. )lready in 23DD Fr. ,ugnini had
asked 7sgr. #intonello, general Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in /ermany during
the occupation, to translate #rotestant liturgical tets. For Fr. ,ugnini did not know /erman.
It was 7sgr. #intonello himself who told me that he had translated the #rotestant liturgical books for Fr.
,ugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. !e was nothing.
)fterwards he became professor of liturgy at the 0ateran. #ope @ohn ''III made him leave on account of
his modernism and his progressivism. !ence surprise, surprise, and he is found again as #resident of the
Commission for, 0iturgical .eform. This is all the same, unbelievable.
I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. ,ugnini had. +ne wonders how such a thing as this
could have happened at .ome. )t that time immediately after the Council, I was &uperior /eneral of the
Congregation of the Fathers of the !oly /host and we had a meeting of the &uperiors /eneral at .ome. We
had asked Fr. ,ugnini eplain to us what his 8ew 7ass was, for this was not at all a small event.
Immediately after the Council was heard of the 8ormative 7ass, the 8ew 7ass, the 8ovus +rdo. What did
all this mean"
It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened" )nd so we asked Fr. ,ugnini to come and
eplain himself to the EI &uperiors /eneral who were united together, amongst whom I conse*uently was.
Fr. ,ugnini, with much confidence, eplained what the 8ormative 7ass would beG this will be changed, that
will be changed and we will put in place another +ffertory. We will be able to reduce the communion
prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of 7ass. We will be able to say
the 7ass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves( F&#t it,s not possible@(
!e spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a 7ass in the Church before him. !e spoke of his
8ormative 7ass as of a new invention.
#ersonally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a
*uestion of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. !ow could it be
possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic 0iturgy, the entire
reform of the !oly &acrifice of the 7ass, of the sacraments, of the ,reviary, and of all our prayers" Where
are we going" Where is the Church going"
Two &uperiors /eneral had the courage to speak out. +ne of them asked Fr. ,ugnini( Fs this an active
participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spirit#al
participationA n any case yo# have so !#ch spo7en of the participation of the faithf#l that it see!s yo# can
no longer 2#stify Mass celebrated witho#t the faithf#l. 3o#r entire Mass has been fabricated aro#nd the
participation of the faithf#l. +e &enedictines celebrate o#r Masses witho#t the assistance of the faithf#l.
6oes this !ean that we !#st discontin#e o#r private Masses, since we do not have faithf#l to participate in
the!A(
I repeat to you eactly that which Fr. ,ugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike
me( .To spea7 tr#thf#lly we didn,t thin7 of that,( he saidB
)fterwards another arose and said( (1everend -ather, yo# have said that we will s#ppress this and we will
s#ppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. have the i!pression
that yo#r new Mass co#ld be said in ten or twelve !in#tes or at the !ost a >#arter of an ho#r. This is not
reasonable. This is not respectf#l towards s#ch an act of the Ch#rch.( Well, this is what he replied( (+e
can always add so!ething.( Is this for real" I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would
perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it myself.
)fterwards, at the time at which this 8ormative 7ass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that
we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the F,rief Critical &tudy,L
which was taken to Cardinal +ttaviani. I presided that small meeting. We said to ourselves( .+e !#st go
and find the Cardinals. +e cannot allow this to happen witho#t reacting.(
&o I myself went to find the &ecretary of &tate, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him( .3o#r <!inence, yo#
are not going to allow this to get thro#gh, are yo#A t,s not possible. +hat is this 'ew MassA t is a
revol#tion in the Ch#rch, a revol#tion in the Lit#rgy.(
Cardinal Cicognani, who was the &ecretary of &tate of #ope #aul $I, placed his head between his hands and
said to me( (8h Monseigne#r, 7now well. a! in f#ll agree!ent with yo#? b#t what can doA -r. &#gnini
goes in to the office of the /oly -ather and !a7es hi! sign what he wants.( t was the Cardinal &ecretary of
&tate who told me thisB Therefore the &ecretary of &tate, the number two person in the Church after the
#ope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. ,ugnini. !e could enter into the
#ope's office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.
This can eplain why #ope #aul $I signed tets that he had not read. !e told Cardinal @ournet that he had
done this. Cardinal @ournet was a deep thinker, #rofessor at the 1niversity of Fribourg in &wit;erland, and a
great theologian. When Cardinal @ournet saw the definition of the 7ass in the instruction, which precedes
the 8ovus +rdo, he said( 5This definition of the Mass is #nacceptable? !#st go to 1o!e to see the
$ope.( !e went and he said(./oly -ather yo# cannot allow this definition. t is heretical. 3o# cannot leave
yo#r signat#re on a doc#!ent li7e this.( The !oly Father replied to him =Cardinal @ournet did not tell me
himself but he told someone who repeated it to me>( 5+ell, to spea7 tr#thf#lly did not read it. signed it
witho#t reading it.( Avidently, if Fr. ,ugnini had such an influence on him it's *uite possible. !e must have
said to the !oly Father( 53o# can sign it(. (&#t did yo# loo7 it over caref#lly(. 53es, yo# can go ahead and
sign it.( )nd he signed.
,ut this document did not go through the !oly +ffice. I know this because Cardinal &eper himself told me
that he was absent when the 8ovus +rdo was edited and that it did not pass by the !oly +ffice. !ence it is
indeed Fr. ,ugnini who obtained the #ope's signature and who perhaps constrained him. We do not know,
but he had without a doubt an etraordinary influence over the !oly Father.
) third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. ,ugnini is also astonishing. When
permission was about to be give for Communion in the hand =what a horrible thingB>, I said to myself that I
could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal /ut %a &wiss %who was #refect of the
Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to .ome, where Cardinal /ut received me in a very friendly
way and immediately said to me((,! going to !a7e !y second*in* charge, Archbishop Antonini, co!e that
he also !ight hear what yo# have to say.(
)s we spoke I said( (Listen, yo# who are responsible for the Congregation for +orship, are yo# going to
approve this decree which a#thori)es Co!!#nion in the handA ;#st thin7 of all the sacrileges, which it is
going to ca#se. ;#st thin7 of the lac7 of respect for the /oly <#charist, which is going to spread thro#gho#t
the entire Ch#rch. 3o# cannot possibly allow s#ch a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give
Co!!#nion in this !anner. t !#st be stopped i!!ediately. And with this 'ew Mass they always ta7e the
shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief(
)t this, Cardinal /ut said to )rchbishop )ntonini, (0ee, told yo# this wo#ld happen and that priests
wo#ld ta7e the shortest canon so as to go !ore >#ic7ly and finish the Mass !ore >#ic7ly.(
)fterwards Cardinal /ut said to me( (Monseigne#r, if one were to as7 !y opinion =when he said :one: he
was speaking of the #ope, since nobody was over him ecept the #ope>, b#t ,! not certain it is as7ed of
!e =don't forget that he was #refect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything
which was related to Worship and to the 0iturgyB>, b#t if the $ope were to as7 for it, wo#ld place !yself
on !y 7nees, Monseigne#r, before the $ope and wo#ld say to hi!9 ,/oly -ather do not do this? do not sign
this decree., wo#ld cast !yself on !y 7nees, Monseigne#r. &#t do not 7now that will be as7ed. -or it is
not who co!!and here.(
This I heard with my own ears. !e was making allusion to ,ugnini, who was the third in the Congregation
for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal /ut, then )rchbishop )ntonini and then Fr. ,ugnini, #resident
of the 0iturgical Commission. Mou ought to have heard thatB )las, you can now understand my attitude
when I am toldG you are a dissident and disobedient rebel.
INFILTRATORS IN THE CHURCH TO DESTROY IT
Mes, I am a rebel. Mes, I am a dissident. Mes, I am disobedient to people like those ,ugninis. For they have
infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other eplanation.
)re we then going to contribute to the destruction of the Church" Will we say( (3es, yes, a!en,? even if it is
the enemy who has penetrated right to the !oly Father and who is able to make the !oly Father sign what
he wants" We don't really know under what pressure he did it. There are hidden things, which clearly escape
us. &ome say that it is Freemasonry. It's possible. I do not know. In any case, there is a mystery.
!ow can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a ,ishop, who was still very young at the time and
who was elevated against the will of #ope @ohn ''III =who had chased him from the 0ateran 1niversity>,
how can such a priest go to the very top without taking any account of the Cardinal &ecretary of &tate, nor
of the Cardinal #refect of the Congregation for Worship" !ow can he go directly to the !oly Father and
make him sign what he wants" &uch a thing has never before been seen in the !oly Church. Averything
should go through the authorities. That is why there are Commissions. Files are studied. ,ut this man was
all powerfulB
It was he who brought in #rotestant pastors to change our 7ass. It was not Cardinal /ut. It was not the
Cardinal &ecretary of &tate. It was perhaps not even the #ope. It was him. Who is this man ,ugnini" +ne
day the former )bbot of &t. #aul +utside the Walls, a ,enedictine who had preceded Fr. ,ugnini as head of
the 0iturgical Commission, said to me( (Monseigne#r, do not spea7 to !e of -r. &#gnini. 7now too !#ch
abo#t hi!. 6o not as7 !e abo#t hi!.( I replied( (&#t tell !e. !#st 7now it. The tr#th !#st be
#ncovered.( It is probably he who asked @ohn ''III to send him away from the 0ateran 1niversity.
)ll of these things show us that the enemy has penetrated right within the Church, as &t. #ius ' already
said. !e is in the highest places, as +ur 0ady of 0a &alette announced, and as without a doubt the third
secret of Fatima tells us.
Well, if the enemy is truly within the Church, must we obey him" (3es, for he represents the $ope,( is a
fre*uent answer. First of all we do not know this at all, for we do not know eactly what the #ope thinks.
I have, all the same, some personal proofs that #ope #aul $I was very much influenced by Cardinal $illot.
It has been said that Cardinal $illot was a Freemason. I do not know. There are some strange facts. 0etters
of Freemasons addressed to Cardinal $illot have been photocopied. I do not have the proof of it. In any
case, Cardinal $illot had a considerable influence over the #ope. !e concentrated all power at .ome within
his own hands. !e became the master much more than the #ope. I do know that everything had to go
through him.
+ne day I went to see Cardinal Wright with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him( (Loo7 at this
catechis!. Are yo# aware of those little boo7s, which are entitled ,$#rt#re,A t,s abo!inable that children
are ta#ght to brea7 away. They !#st brea7 with their fa!ily, with society, with tradition. ..this is the
catechis!, which is ta#ght to the children of Canada with the !pri!at#r of Monseigne#r Co#derc. t,s yo#
who are responsible for catechis! in the entire world. Are yo# in agree!ent with this catechis!A: ('o,
no,( he said to me( (This catechis! is not Catholic( *(t is not Catholic@ Then i!!ediately tell the Canadian
&ishops, Conference. Tell the! to stop and to throw this catechis! in the fire and to ta7e #p the tr#e
catechis!.( !is answer was( (/ow can oppose !yself to a &ishops, ConferenceA(
I then said( (t,s over and done with. There is no !ore a#thority in the Ch#rch. t,s over and done with. f
1o!e can no longer say anything to a &ishops, Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying
children,s -aith, then it,s the end of the Ch#rch.(
That is where we are now. .ome is afraid of the ,ishops' Conferences. These conferences are abominable.
In France the ,ishops' Conference has been involved in a campaign in favor of contraception. The &ocialist
/overnment, which is constantly advertising on the television the slogan( (Ta7e the pill so as to prevent
abortions,( got them involved, I think. They had nothing better to do than push cra;y propaganda in favor of
the pill. The cost of the pill is reimbursed for girls of only twelve years, so as to avoid abortionB )nd the
bishops approveB +fficial documents in favor of contraception can be found in the Tulle diocese bulletin,
which is my former diocese, and which bulletin I continue to receive This came from ,ishop ,runeau, a
former &uperior /eneral of the &ulpicians. !e is supposedly one of the best ,ishops of France. It's like thatB
WHY DO I NOT OBEY?
What should I do" I am told( (3o# !#st obey. 3o# are disobedient. 3o# do not have the right to contin#e
doing what yo# are doing, for yo# divide the Ch#rch.(
What is a law" What is a decree" What obliges to obedience" ) law, 0eo 'III 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. 0eo 'III said this eplicitly in his encyclical (Libertas.() law, which is
not for the common good, is not a law. Conse*uently one is not obliged to obey it.
7any canon lawyers at .ome say that ,ugnini's 7ass is not a law. There was no law for the 8ew 7ass. It
is simply an authori;ation, or a permit. 0et us accept, for argument's sake, that there was a law, which came
from .ome, an ordering of reason to the common good and not to the common evil. ,ut the 8ew 7ass is in
the process of destroying the Church, of destroying the Faith. It's obvious. The )rchbishop of 7ontreal,
)rchbishop /rgoire, in a letter, which was published, was very courageous. !e is one of the rare bishops
who dared write a letter in which he denounced the evils of which the Church of 7ontreal is suffering. (+e
are greatly saddened to see parishes abandoned by a great n#!ber of the faithf#l. +e attrib#te this, in
great part, to the lit#rgical refor!.( !e had the courage to say it.
We are in the presence of a true plot within the church on the part of the Cardinals themselves, such as
Cardinal Cno, who made that famous in*uiry concerning the Tridentine 0atin 7ass throughout the entire
world. It was a clear and obvious lie, so as to influence #ope @ohn #aul II that he might say( (f there are
s#ch a s!all n#!ber who want Tradition, it will fall away by itself. /is investigation was worth
nothing.( Met the #ope, at the time that he received me in audience in 8ovember of 23KE, was ready to sign
an agreement according to which priests could celebrate the mass they choose. !e was ready to sign that.
,ut there is at .ome a group of Cardinals bitterly opposed to Tradition. Cardinal Casaroli the Cardinal
#refect of the Congregation for .eligious and Cardinal ,aggio, #refect of the Congregation for ,ishops
who has the very important responsibility of nominating bishops, are amongst them. Then there is the
infamous $irgilio 8oe who is the second%in% charge for the Congregation for Worship and who is perhaps
worse even than ,ugnini. )nd then there is Cardinal !amer, the ,elgian )rchbishop who is second in
charge of the !oly +ffice, who comes from the region of 0ouvain and is imbued with all the modern ideas
of 0ouvain. They were bitterly opposed to Tradition. They did not want to hear us speak about it. I believe
that they would have strangled me if they could.
AT LEAST LEAVE US LIBERTY
They league together against me as soon as they know I am making an effort to obtain from the !oly Father
the freedom for Tradition. @ust leave us in peaceG <ust leave us to pray as Catholics have prayed for
centuriesG <ust leave us to continue what we learned in the seminaryG <ust leave us to continue that which you
yourselves learned when you were young, that is to say the best way to sanctify ourselves.
This is what we were taught at the &eminary. I taught this when I was a priest. When I became a bishop I
myself said this to my priests, to all my priests and to all my seminarians. This is what you need to do to
become a saint. 0ove the holy sacrifice of the 7ass, which is given to us by the Church. ,e devoted to her
sacraments and her catechism, and especially change nothing. Ceep Tradition. Ceep to the Tradition, which
has lasted for twenty centuries. It is that which sanctifies us. It is that which sanctified the saints. ,ut now
all has been changed. This cannot be. @ust leave us at least freedomB
+bviously, when they hear this they immediately go to the !oly Father and say to him( (Concede nothing
to Archbishop Lefebvre, grant nothing to Tradition. <specially do not bac7 down.(
&ince these are the most important Cardinals, such as Cardinal Casaroli the &ecretary of &tate the #ope does
not dare. There are some Cardinals who would be rather more in favor of an agreement, such as Cardinal
.at;inger. It is he who replaced Cardinal &eper who died at Christmas of 23E2. Cardinal .at;inger was
nevertheless very liberal at the time of the Council. !e was a friend of .ahner, of !ans Cung, and of
&chillebeeck. ,ut his nomination as )rchbishop of the diocese of 7unich seemed to open his eyes
somewhat. !e is now certainly much more aware of the danger of the reforms and more desirous of
returning to traditional rules, along with Cardinal #ala;;ini who is in charge of the Congregation for
,eatifications and Cardinal +ddi who is in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy. These three cardinals
would be in favor of allowing us freedom. ,ut the others have still a great deal of influence over the !oly
Father...
I was at .ome five weeks ago, so as to see Cardinal .at;inger who was named by the #ope to replace
Cardinal &eper as a personal intermediary for relations with the &ociety and myself. Cardinal &eper had
been named on the occasion of the audience, which #ope @ohn #aul II granted me. The #ope had made
Cardinal &eper come and had said to him( (3o#r <!inence, yo# will have the 2ob of !aintaining relations
between Archbishop Lefebvre and !yself. 3o# will be !y inter!ediary.( 8ow he has named Cardinal
.at;inger.
I went to see him and I spoke with him during an hour and three *uarters. Certainly Cardinal .at;inger
seems more positive and more willing to come to a good solution. The only difficulty, which remains rather
troublesome, is the 7ass. 1ltimately it has always been a *uestion of the 7ass, right from the beginning.
For they know very well that I am not against the Council. There are some things, which I cannot accept in
the Council. I did not sign the schema on .eligious 0iberty. I did not sign the schema on the Church in the
modern world. ,ut it cannot be said that I am against the Council. These are things, which cannot be
accepted because they are contrary to Tradition. This ought not to upset them too much, since the #ope
himself said( (The Co#ncil !#st be loo7ed at in the light of Tradition.( If the Council is to be accepted in
the light of Tradition I am not at all upset.
I will readily sign this, because everything, which is contrary to Tradition, is clearly to be re<ected. -uring
the audience, which the #ope granted me =%on 8ovember 2E, 23KE % Ad.>,, he asked me( (Are yo# ready to
sign this for!#laA5 I replied( (3o# yo#rself #sed it and a! ready to sign it.( Then he said( (Then there are
no doctrinal differences between #sA : I replied( ( hope not.( * ('ow what proble!s re!ainA 6o yo#
accept the $opeA( * (8f co#rse we recogni)e the $ope and we pray for the $ope in o#r 0e!inaries. 8#rs
are perhaps the only se!inaries in the world where the $ope is prayed for. +e have a great deal of respect
for the $ope. <ach ti!e the $ope has as7ed !e to co!e have always co!e. &#t there is a diffic#lty
concerning the lit#rgy,5 I said to him, .which is tr#ly very i!portant. The new lit#rgy is in the process of
destroying the Ch#rch and the 0e!inaries. This is a very i!portant >#estion.5 B .&#t not at all. This is b#t
a disciplinary >#estion. t is not very serio#s at all. f this is the only proble!. believe that it can be fi"ed
#p.5
)nd the #ope called Cardinal &eper, who came immediately. If he had not come I believe that the #ope
would have been ready to sign an agreement. Cardinal &eper came, and the #ope said to him( . believe that
it sho#ld not be so diffic#lt to !a7e an agree!ent with Archbishop Lefebvre. believe that we can co!e to
an agree!ent. There is 2#st the >#estion of the lit#rgy which is a little thorny.5 B .&#t, concede nothing to
Archbishop Lefebvre,5 cried out the Cardinal. .They !a7e of the Tridentine Mass a flag.5 B .A flagA5 I
said. .&#t of co#rse the holy !ass is the flag of o#r -aith, the Cmysterium fidei.4 t is the great !ystery of
o#r -aith. t is obvio#s that it is o#r flag, for it is the e"pression of o#r -aith.5
This made a profound impression on the !oly Father, who appeared to change almost immediately. In my
opinion this showed that the #ope is not a strong man. If he had been a strong man he would have said( (t
is who a! going to decide this !atter. +e are going to fi" things #p.( ,ut no. Immediately he became as if
were afraid. !e became fearful, and when he left his office he said to Cardinal &eper( (3o# can spea7
together right now. 3o# can try to !a7e an arrange!ent with Arch* bishop Lefebvre. 3o# can stay here. &#t
a! obliged to go and see Cardinal &aggio. /e has very !any files to show !e concerning &ishops. !#st
leave.( )s he left he said to me( (0top, Monseigne#r, stop.( !e was transformed. In a few minutes he had
completely changed.
It was during this audience that I had shown him a letter that I had received from a #olish ,ishop. !e had
written to me a year beforehand in order to congratulate me for the &eminary I had founded at Acone and for
the priests that I was forming. !e wished that I maintain the old 7ass with all its Tradition. !e added that
he was not the only one. We are several ,ishops who admire you, who admire your &eminary, the formation
that you give to your priests and the Tradition that you maintain within the Church. For we are obliged to
use the new liturgy, which makes our faithful lose the Faith.
That is what the #olish ,ishop said. I took this letter with me when I went to see the !oly Father, saying to
myself( (/e will s#rely spea7 to !e of $oland.( I was not wrong. !e said to me( (&#t yo# 7now, in $oland
all is going very well. +hy do yo# not accept the refor!sA n $oland there are no proble!s. $eople are
si!ply sorry to have lost the Latin. +e were very attached to Latin, beca#se it bo#nd #s to 1o!e and we are
very 1o!an. t is a pity, b#t what can doA There is no longer any Latin in the 0e!inaries nor in the
&reviary nor in the Mass. There is no !ore Latin. t,s >#ite #nfort#nate, b#t it,s 2#st li7e that. 3o# see, in
$oland these refor!s were !ade and they did not create any diffic#lty. 8#r se!inaries are f#ll, and o#r
Ch#rches are f#ll.(
I said to the !oly Father( 5Allow !e to show yo# a letter received fro! $oland.( I showed it to him. When
he saw the name of the ,ishop he said((8h, this is the greatest of the co!!#nists, ene!ies.( *(t,s a good
reference,( I said. The #ope read the letter carefully. I watched his face in order to see how he would react
to those words which were twice repeated in the letter( (+e are obliged to #se the lit#rgical refor! which
!a7es o#r faithf#l lose the -aith.( +bviously the #ope could not accept this. )t the end he said to me( (6id
yo# receive this letter 2#st li7e thatA : B .3es, this is a photocopy that bring to yo#.( * (t !#st be a
fa7e,( he replied.
What could I say" I could no longer say anything. The #ope said to me( (3o# 7now, the Co!!#nists are
very c#nning in their efforts to provo7e divisions a!ong the &ishops.( &o according to him this was a letter
fabricated by the Communists and then sent to me. I am very doubtful about this. This letter was posted in
)ustria, for I imagine that the author was afraid that the Communists would intercept it and that it would not
arrive. That is why he posted it in )ustria. I replied to the ,ishop but I heard nothing more from him.
)ll this is to say that I think that there are even in #oland profound divisions. 7oreover, there have always
been divisions between the peace priests and those who wish to hold fast to Tradition. This has been tragic
behind the iron curtain.
THE COMMUNIST INFLUENCE ON ROME
Mou ought to read the book (Moscow and the Datican,( by the @esuit, Father 0epidi. It is etraordinary. It
shows the influence that the Communists had in .ome, and how they were responsible for the nomination
of ,ishops and even of two Cardinals( Cardinal 0ekai and Cardinal Tomaseck. Cardinal 0ekai, was the
successor of Cardinal 7inds;enty, and Cardinal Tomaseck was the successor of Cardinal ,eran. ,oth
Cardinal 7inds;enty and Cardinal ,eran were heroes and martyrs for the Faith. They were replaced by
peace priests who were determined above everything else to come to an understanding with the Communist
government who persecuted traditional priests. These traditional priests went secretly to bapti;e in the
countryside or to secretly catechi;e so as to continue their work as pastors in the Catholic Church, and yet
they were persecuted by their ,ishops, who said to them( (3o# do not have the right not to respect the r#les
of the Co!!#nist govern!ent. 3o# do #s a disfavor by acting against its laws.5
,ut these priests were ready to give their life so as to keep the Faith of children, so as to keep Faith in
families, and so as to give sacraments to those who had need of them. +bviously in these countries one had
always to ask for authori;ations, if one wanted to carry the ,lessed &acrament to a hospital or to do
anything at all. )s soon as they left their sacristy these priests were obliged to ask the Communist party if it
authori;ed them to do this or that. This was impossible. #eople died without the sacraments. Children were
no longer educated in a Christian way. &o the priests had to do these things in secret. If they were caught it
was often because the ,ishops themselves persecuted them. It's frightening.
8either Cardinal Wys;ynski nor Cardinal &lipyi nor Cardinal 7inds;enty nor Cardinal ,eran would have
done such things as these. They, to the contrary, encouraged good priests, saying to them( (Eo ahead, go
ahead. f yo# are p#t into prison yo# will have done yo#r d#ty as a priest. f yo# !#st die !artyrs then yo#
will be !artyrs.5
This shows how much influence they had on .ome. We have great difficulty in imagining it. We cannot
even believe it.
I have never been against the #ope. I have never said that the #ope is not the #ope. I am absolutely for the
#ope, for the successor of #eter. I do not want to separate myself from .ome. ,ut I am against modernism,
progressivism, and all the bad and destructive influences, which #rotestantism has had via the reforms. I am
against all those reforms, which poison us and poison the life of the faithful.
Thus I am told( (3o# are against the $ope.( 8o, I am not against the #ope To the contrary, I come to help
the #ope. For the #ope cannot be modernistG he cannot be progressivist. Aven if he allows himself to be
pushed around, it is by weakness. This can happen. &t. #eter also was weak with respect to the @ews. )nd
&t. #aul severely reproached him for( F3o# do not wal7 according to the Eospel,( he said to &t. #eter. &t.
#eter was the #ope and &t. #aul reproached him. )nd he did it vigorously( F reproached the head of the
Ch#rch beca#se he was not wal7ing according to the law of the Eospel.( It was a grave thing to say this to
the #ope.
&t. Catherine of &iena also vehemently reproached several #opes. We must have the same attitude. We say(
F/oly -ather, yo# are not doing yo#r d#ty. 3o# !#st ret#rn to Tradition to be persec#ted by all those
Cardinals and &ishops who are !odernists yo# are going to bring abo#t the r#in of the Ch#rch.(
I am sure that in his heart the #ope is profoundly concerned and that he seeks for a means to renew the
Church. I hope that by our prayers and sacrifices and the prayers of those who love the !oly Church and
who love the #ope we will succeed.
This will be especially by devotion to the ,lessed $irgin 7ary. If we pray to +ur 0ady, she who cannot
abandon her &on, she who cannot abandon the Church that her &on founded, the mystical &pouse of her
&on, we will be answered. It will be difficult and a miracle, but we will succeed.
)s for myself, I do not want people to make me say that the 8ew 7ass is good, but that it is simply less
good than the Traditional 7ass. I cannot say that. I cannot say that these modern sacraments are good. They
were made by #rotestants. They were made by ,ugnini. )nd ,ugnini himself said on 7arch 23, 23?D, as
can still be read in the F8sservatore 1o!ano( and in F6oc#!entation Catholi>#e,( which maga;ines
published a translation of ,ugnini's discourse(
.+e !#st strip fro! o#r Catholic prayers and fro! the Catholic lit#rgy everything which can be the
shadow of a st#!bling bloc7 for o#r separated brethren, that is for the $rotestants.(
This was on 7arch 23, 23?D, <ust before all the reforms. Can we go to the #rotestants and ask them
concerning the !oly &acrifice of the 7ass, concerning our catechism" In what are you not in agreement"
-o you not like this or do you not like that" ...Well we will suppress it. This is not possible. It would
perhaps not be heretical to do so, but the Catholic Faith would be diminished. Thus it is that people no
longer believe in 0imbo, in #urgatory and in !ell. +riginal sin is no longer believed in, neither are the
angels. /race is not believed in. #eople no longer speak of that which is supernatural. +ur Faith is being
destroyed.
&o we must absolutely maintain our Faith and pray to the most ,lessed $irgin 7ary. We desire to undertake
a giant task, and without the help of the good 0ord we will never be able to accomplish it. I am certainly
aware of my weakness and of my isolation. What can I do by myself compared to the #ope or the Cardinals"
I do not know. I go as a pilgrim, with my pilgrim's staff. I am going to say (7eep the -aith.( Ceep the Faith.
,e rather a martyr then abandon your Faith. Mou must keep the sacraments and the !oly &acrifice of the
7ass.
Mou cannot say( (&#t it is all different now. t is not too bad after all. As for !e, have a solid -aith and ,!
not li7ely to lose it.( For it is clear that those who habitually attend the 8ew 7ass and the new sacraments
undergo a gradual change of mentality. )fter a few years it will become apparent in *uestioning somebody
who goes regularly to this new ecumenical 7ass that he has adopted its ecumenical spirit. This means that
he ends up by placing all religions on the same footing. If he is asked whether one can save oneself through
#rotestantism, through ,uddhism, or through Islam he will reply((&#t of co#rse. All religions are
good.( )nd there you have it. !e has become liberal and #rotestant and is no longer Catholic.
There is only one religion. There are not two of them. If +ur 0ord is /od and founded a religion, the
Catholic .eligion, there can be no other religion. It is not possible. The other religions are false. That is why
Cardinal +ttaviani used the title( (Concerning 1eligio#s Tolerance.5
Arrors can be tolerated when they cannot be prevented. ,ut they cannot be placed on the same footing as the
truth. There could then be no missionary spirit. The missionary spirit could not then be possible. If all the
false religions save souls then why go out on mission" What is one going to do there" We have only to leave
them in their religion and they are going to all save themselves. This is not possible. What, then, has the
Church done for twenty centuries" Why all the martyrs" Why were they all massacred on the mission" -id
the missionaries waste their time" -id the martyrs waste their blood and their lives" We cannot accept that.
We must remain Catholic. The slide into ecumenism is very dangerous. Aasily one falls into a religion,
which is no longer the Catholic religion.
I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of +ur 0ord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of
Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the
churches. What does it matter" We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the
Catholic Church and true sons of the ,lessed $irgin 7ary.
N )rchbishop 7arcel 0efebvre
=Translated from Fideliter, @anvier%Fevrier 2334,
and published in parts in various issues of the )ngelus .>