MOSIGNOR MARCEL LEFEBVRE: MARCH 25, 1991-2023

Those of us who knew him and listened to him miss him very much because, until now, no bishop has taken up his fight with the courage that only God gives to the saints and, in my opinion, he was a saint. For those who did not know or heard him here we bring you an extract of what he always defended until his death on a day like this of the ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INCARNATION OF THE DIVINE WORD.

excerpts from texts

From the Declaration of November 21, 1974

We adhere wholeheartedly, with all our souls, to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to maintain that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth.

On the contrary, we refuse and have always refused to follow the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant Rome trend that was clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that came out of it.

From the Easter Sunday Sermon of March 30, 1986

We truly find ourselves facing a very serious dilemma, which I believe has never been raised in the Church: that whoever is seated in the Seat of Peter participates in cults of false gods; I believe that this has never happened in the entire history of the Church. What conclusion should we perhaps draw in a few months from these repeated acts of communion with false cults? Don't know. I wonder. But it is possible that we are obliged to believe that this Pope is not Pope. I don't want to say it yet in a solemn and formal way, but it seems, yes, at first glance, that it is impossible for a Pope to be a public and formal heretic.

From the Conference of April 15, 1986

Dear friends, you were able, during the holidays, to reflect on the Easter Sunday sermon!…

So I would like, since there are different echoes, different reactions, I would like to clarify a bit, to the extent possible, because the situation of the Church is such a mysterious situation, that it is not so easy to clarify things...

Then the problem arises.

First problem: the communicatio in sacris.

Second problem: the question of heresy.

Third problem: ¿is the Pope still Pope when he is a heretic?

¡I don’t know, I don’t ditch! But you can ask the question yourself. I think that every sensible man should ask himself the question. I don't know. ¿So, now, ¿is it urgent to talk about this?…

It is possible not to talk, obviously... We can talk among ourselves, privately, in our offices, in our private conversations, between seminarians, between priests...

Is it necessary to speak to the faithful? Many say: — No, do not speak to the faithful. They are going to be shocked. That's going to be terrible, that's going to go far...

Good. I told the priests, in Paris, when I gathered them together, and then to yourselves, I had already spoken to you, I said: I think that, very gently, it is necessary, despite everything, to clarify a little for the faithful...

I am not saying that it is necessary to do it brutally and throw that as a condiment to the faithful to scare them... No.

But I think that, despite everything, it is precisely a matter of faith. It is necessary that the faithful do not lose faith. We are in charge of keeping the faith of the faithful, of protecting it.

They are going to lose faith… even our traditionalists. Even our traditionalists will no longer have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ. Since this faith is lost! It is lost in the priests, it is lost in the bishops.

So, here is the situation in which we find ourselves and it is necessary to always return to that: let us have faith, let us revive our faith, because it is due to the faith that is lost that the Council was what it was.

I think that's where the problem lies.

And it is said: ¿Monsignor is going to make a schism... But who makes a schism? … It's not me! To make a schism it is necessary to leave the Church. And leaving the Church is leaving the faith, in the first place.

Who leaves the faith of the Church? Authority is at the service of faith. If she abandons the faith, it is she who makes a schism. So it is not us who make schism.

What is going to come out of this?

It will take a good day for God to speak. It is not possible that God allows himself to be left aside by those who should defend him, by those who should be his supporters...

It is not possible for that to last indefinitely, that is not possible!

From the Letter to future Bishops, August 29, 1987

With the chair of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord continues rapidly even within his Mystical Body, especially due to the corruption of the Holy Mass, a splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord through the Cross, and source of extension of his Kingdom in souls and in societies. This is what the antichrist Rome persecution earned us. This Rome, modernist and liberal, continues its destructive work of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as proven by Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on religious freedom. I am forced by divine Providence to transmit the grace of the Catholic episcopate that I received, so that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to exist for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

I will confer this grace on you, trusting that without delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a perfectly Catholic successor of Peter, in the hands of whom you will be able to deposit the grace of your episcopate for confirmation.

From the Priestly Retreat of September 1987

And then, now, I'm going to touch on what you guys are probably most interested in. I say: Rome has lost faith, dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. They are not simple words, they are not words in the air that I say. It's the truth. Rome is in apostasy.

You can't trust this world; he left the Church, they left the Church, they left the Church. He is safe; Sure sure.

It is not possible to understand each other. I have briefly summarized it to Cardinal Ratzinger, in a few words, it is not easy to summarize this whole situation; but I told him: «Your Eminence, see, even if you give us a bishop, even if you give us a certain autonomy from the bishops, even if you give us the liturgy of 1962, if you allow us to continue with the seminaries and the Fraternity , as we do now, we cannot collaborate, it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you work in the de-Christianization of society, of the human person and of the Church; and we are working on Christianization.» We can't understand each other."

So I told him: “For us, Christ is everything; Our Lord Jesus Christ is everything, he is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ, his Mystical Spouse. The priest, he is another Christ; his Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the triumph of Jesus Christ on the Cross. In our seminar we teach to love Christ, and he is directed to the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our apostolate is the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what we are.

And you, you do the opposite. You have just told me that society should not be Christian, cannot be Christian; That goes against his nature!

You have just tried to prove to me that Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot and should not reign in society. And you want to prove to me that the human conscience is free with respect to Our Lord

“It is necessary to leave freedom and an autonomous social space”, as you say. This is de-Christianization. Well, we are for Christianization. This is. We can not

From the Priestly Retreat, September 9, 1988

Leave, therefore, the official church? To some extent, yes, of course.

Mr. Madiran's book, “The Heresy of the Twentieth Century” is the story of the heresy of the bishops.

If one does not want to lose his soul, it is necessary to get out of this milieu of the bishops.

But it is not enough, because it is in Rome that heresy is installed.

If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in the sense and with the canonical consequences), it is not without the influence of Rome.

If we get away from these people, it's absolutely like with people who have AIDS.

There is no desire to catch it.

Now, they have spiritual AIDS, communicable contagious diseases.

If one wants to maintain health, it is necessary not to go with them.

From the Interview granted to Fideliter, November-December 1988

We do not have the same way of conceiving reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it in the sense of reducing us, of bringing us to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We do not understand each other. It is a dialogue of the deaf. I can't talk much about the future, since mine is behind me. But if I still live a little and supposing that from now on a certain time Rome makes a call, that it wants to see us again, to resume the dialogue, at that moment I would be the one who would impose the conditions. I will no longer accept being in the situation we found ourselves in during the colloquia. This is over.

I would raise the question on a doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes that preceded you? ¿Do you agree with Pius IX’s Quanta Cura, Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei, Leo XIII’s Libertas, Pius X’s Pascendi, Pius XI’s Quas Primas, ¿Pius XII’s Humani Generis?

¿Are you in full communion with these popes and with their affirmations? ¿Do they still accept the anti-modernist oath? ¿Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

If they do not accept the doctrine of their predecessors, it is useless to speak. As long as they have not accepted to reform the Council considering the doctrine of these popes that preceded them, there are no positions that would thus be clearer.

It is not a small thing that opposes us. It is not enough to be told: they can pray the old mass, but it is necessary to accept this. No, it is not only that that opposes us, it is the doctrine. It is clear.

SOURCE: P. VERBOVEN