The role of the
Priestly Society of St. Pius X in the heart of the Church
Conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre in Buenos Aires, Argentina on
August 31, 1981. Published in the January 1982 issue of The Angelus.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is always a great joy for me to return to
this beautiful Republic of Argentina. I'm already beginning to
know the country, but unfortunately, I am not yet able to speak to
you in Spanish and I will have to seek Fr. Faure's help to
translate for me.
We know that many questions are being asked
about my attitude in the Church, about my position in the Church.
What is the attitude of Mgr.* Lefebvre in the Catholic Church?
What is the situation of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X in the
heart of the Church?
*[Being French, throughout this conference,
Archbishop Lefebvre uses the title "Mgr." (abbreviated for "Monseigneur",
literally, "My Lord"), which in French is equivalent to the
American episcopal title of "His Excellency" or "Bishop", though
it is also sometimes used in reference cardinals. Being a
transcription of a spoken conference, we have retained the
I would like to be able to answer these
questions in the most exact and correct manner. To do this I think
we are obliged to consider briefly what the actual situation in
the Church is, and in this way explain the reasons for our
attitude and our position.
I think that finding myself before a select
audience—before a profoundly Catholic audience—it will not be
necessary for me to insist on what the situation in the Church was
until Vatican Council II. It can be said, in a general way, that
the Church, the men of the Church, such as they were during the
time of Pope Pius XII, whom I knew personally when I was Apostolic
Delegate for French Africa, were very different from what they are
today. I had the opportunity to meet frequently with Pius XII
every year for eleven years.
I can say that generally, in the Roman
Congregations and in the Vatican, there existed a very profound
sense of the Catholic Faith. They truly worked for the reign of
the Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the social reign of Our
Lord Jesus Christ—a reign over people, over families and over
Indeed, you know well that for four centuries
great efforts have been made to fight against that Catholic
doctrine, that Faith of the Church, but the truth is that when one
went to the Vatican, he would find that the Catholic Faith was
alive in all those Roman Congregations and there would be found
considerable support, above all for a missionary bishop such as I
At that time, if we needed to enlighten our
faith on some point of doctrine, it was sufficient to consult the
congregation of the Holy Office to obtain a precise and clear
answer, in conformity with the Faith of the Church and its
There was no hesitation!
In the same way, to know what kind of relations
the Vatican wanted to maintain between the Holy See and civil
societies, it sufficed to direct oneself to the Secretariat of
State which had then, very clear and very precise principles
before the states which were not Catholic regarding Catholic
For example, I remember well that in General
Franco's time, in Spain, Pope Pius XII used to tell me that never
had there been realized an agreement so conformed to Catholic
doctrine as the agreement reached with the Spanish government. To
make such a statement was a most extraordinary thing for the Holy
Father to do.
There was experienced then, in all these
dominions the secular knowledge of the Church, just as the
knowledge and protection of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary towards
her children can be felt. When the principles of the relations
between the Vatican and the states were facilitated by the
Catholic Faith there were no difficulties in anything having to do
with relations of the states with the Church. Regarding Her
mission of saving souls, when the states were Catholic, the Holy
See counted on the support of the chiefs of state, of whom She
asked that Our Lord Jesus Christ be the one to reign in society.
When the chiefs of state drew up a constitution they would provide
in the first article that "the Catholic religion is the only
one officially recognized by the state." In this way, what the
Holy See wanted was accomplished: the reign of Our Lord Jesus
Christ for the salvation of souls, not in order to have a temporal
influence in those states.
Concerning states that were not Catholic, for
example Senegal, where I spent fifteen years as Archbishop over
3,500,000 inhabitants. There were 3,000,000 Moslems and 500,000
Animists, of which, happily, 100,000 were converted to the Faith.
We were, consequently, a small minority. And what did the Church
do in this case? She sent priests, bishops, religious men and
women, brothers of the Christian schools—brothers who were
dedicated to teaching the people, so that slowly, surely, those
who did not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, would be converted
to the Church, would be transformed into Christians, even at the
price of the blood of those preachers.
How many of these missionaries sent by the
Church during the course of centuries have been massacred,
massacred because they said that Our Lord Jesus Christ should be
the King of people, King of society?
These missionaries the Church has raised to Her
altars and has considered them martyrs.
In the same way the Church has raised to Her
altars many saints, holy popes, holy bishops, holy priests,
religious men and women, fathers of families, mothers of families,
kings, queens, the poor.
So did the Church show the example of these
persons who had worked—each one in Her midst, who had worked in
the course of their lives to sanctify themselves by the reign of
Our Lord Jesus Christ and to establish His reign in souls. All
these kings and queens who have been canonized give us an
extraordinary example which we would do well to adopt in our days.
How proud we could be to have in our day
examples of kings and queens who would live like saints! What
examples this would mean for the whole world! And that posture was
conserved by the Church until the times of Pius XII.
But, unfortunately, we must recognize that
something has changed in the Church. Of course, when I say the
Church I am conscious of the fact that the Church cannot change,
because the Church will always be eternal, holy, universal,
catholic and apostolic. So that, when I speak of the Church, it is
not realized or taken into account that I do not wish to attack
the Church. I have an immense veneration for the Church and I
think that I continue always working for the Church, as I did in
the times of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
But we cannot help recognizing that something
important has changed in the Church.
If we go back to the first causes of the actual
situation, if we look for the first author of these changes, we
will meet the first enemy, the great enemy of Our Lord Jesus
Christ, His sworn enemy—Satan himself. The devil always fought
against Our Lord Jesus Christ and he could have thought he
triumphed at the moment of the Crucifixion, at the moment of
Calvary but there he was also defeated, for which reason he went
on attacking the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic
Church, and then, from the beginning, and for three centuries,
there were thousands and thousands of martyred Christians who gave
testimony of the Faith—of their faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then came the heresies, the schisms, the
attacks against the Faith, the divisions brought to life by the
devil and so, disgracefully, millions of Christians separated
themselves from the Church.
Satan also invented false religions which made
the work of the missions difficult by making impossible the
conversion of entire nations. That was the work of the devil for
fifteen centuries, we can say, until the moment of the French
Until that time the devil worked as an enemy of
the Church, to destroy the Church from without and so he was able
to take entire nations away from the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus
Christ and bring them to the gates of hell. Afterwards, to be more
sure in his attacks on the Church, which was defended by her
children and governed by those who were called lieutenants of Our
Lord Jesus Christ by the Catholic princes, Satan attacked those
same governments of the Catholic states and unleashed a
persecution against those Catholic states which resulted in their
no longer being Catholic states.
The atheistic states, the states that did not
profess any religion, persecuted the Catholic Church, which was
then attacked by the same lay-states which had become
anti-Catholic states. This constituted a considerable success for
Satan within those states, those universities, those schools in
which he formed generations imbued with liberalism, modernism,
atheism, so that the moment arrived for Satan to take over those
states. In the end, all Catholic homes allowed themselves to be
penetrated by this climate.
Pope St. Pius X says in his first encyclical of
1904: "As of now the enemy is not outside of the Church but
within the Church itself," and St. Pius X designates the
places where the enemy is found: the enemy is in the seminaries,
the enemy has infiltrated the seminaries, among the professors of
the seminaries. This is clear! It is St. Pius X himself who says
Fifty years before this text from St. Pius X,
Pope Pius IX showed the bishops the plan of the secret society and
asked that the acts of the Italian secret societies be published.
In these documents can be read: "from now on we will penetrate
the parishes and into the episcopates, and into the seminaries and
so we will have parish priests, bishops and cardinals who will be
our disciples, and from these cardinals we hope one day to have a
pope, who will be imbued with our ideas and will not appear to
have been elected by the secret societies. Thus the Christian
people will think they are following the Chair of Peter and in its
place they will follow us."
Fifty years later this satanic plan is
realized, according to the same words of St. Pius X, and since
then, since fifty years ago, in the fifty years following, not
only secret societies revealed this plan and this activity, but
even the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima and at LaSalette predicted
that one day the enemy would mount to the highest positions in the
Church. This means something very grave: that perhaps there will
be no need to climb as high as the Holy Father but to the
positions in command in the Church.
And so we come to the Second Vatican Council, in which
those who were imbued with these modernist ideas would end up
triumphant. I was witness, in particular, during a last session of
the Advisory Council preparatory to the Council itself (I was a
member of the Central Commission in which there were seventy
cardinals and twenty bishops, among which I was counted as
President of the Episcopal Assembly of French Africa), to a
violent discussion between Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani
about the document on religious freedom. These two cardinals
confronted each other to such a point that Cardinal Ruffini (of
Palermo) had to intervene, saying he was sorry to assist at such a
serious discussion between two cardinals, members of the College
of Cardinals, and for this reason the only solution left was to
appeal to the higher authority, that is to say, the pope. In this
session, Cardinal Bea entitled his thesis, "De libertate
religiosa" ("About Religious Liberty"); on the contrary,
Cardinal Ottaviani entitled it "About Religious Tolerance." This
is how Cardinal Ottaviani defended the traditional thesis of the
Church and Cardinal Bea, the liberal thesis. These two theses were
submitted to a vote. The cardinals voted and we proved, according
to the results, that they were totally divided. Some were liberals
and supported Cardinal Bea, and others were conservative and
traditionalists and they supported Cardinal Ottaviani. The result
of this was, in agreement with what we have seen of the Council,
that the liberals won. This cannot be denied. They were the ones
who dominated in Vatican Council II, unfortunately,
(disgracefully), with the support of His Holiness Paul VI. This
was clearly appreciated when the names of the four moderators Pope
Paul VI named to the Council were made known. These moderators
were Cardinals Agagianiain, Suenens, Dopfner and Lercaro. Of
these, only one was conservative: Cardinal Agagianian. He did not
speak, but remained silent. He was a timid man, very discreet, who
spoke little, he did not allow his influence to be felt. Cardinal
Lercaro was the bishop of Florence. His Vicar General in Florence
was a member of the Communist Party. Cardinal Suenens, on his
part, God only knows what he has done before and after the Council
to extend his liberal ideas. For example: he gave conferences in
Canada in favor of the marriage of priests. Cardinal Dopfner, on
his part, kept his ecumenism very marked. He himself was saying
that first came common prayer between Catholics and Protestants
and then you could speak about doctrine. This made the majority of
bishops who formed part of the Council follow the liberal
minority, which, in fact, dominated in the Council. These were the
three moderators of the Council, three moderators named by the
Chair of Peter, and this shows what orientation the Chair of Peter
Several hours would be needed to be able to
show you how the liberals dominated during the course of Vatican
II. So that you can know this exactly, for yourselves, it seems
opportune for me to advise you read a book by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen,
The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, which was originally
written in English and was then translated into other languages,
and where it is impartially shown, because its author was not,
properly speaking, a traditionalist, the image of the battle which
developed in the Council between the liberals and some
conservatives who could still speak.
We cannot forget that Pope John XXIII expressly
asked the Cardinals of the Roman Curia, who were without doubt the
most traditional, not to intervene in the discussions of the
Council. In fact, even though the Roman Cardinals integrated the
commissions they no longer spoke. This was a very hard blow for
the conservative groups who were keeping themselves faithful to
the tradition of the Catholic Church, who were not innovators, who
were not modernists.
We met in a small group after the second year
of the Council: Mgr. Sigaud, Mgr. Corli (bishop of Gaeta), Mgr.
Castro Meyer (bishop of Campos), and I, and we began to work so
that we would be able to unite bishops who could oppose themselves
to this great danger which was presenting itself throughout the
Church. There were never more than two hundred and fifty of us.
I would like to give you just one example of
what the Council was: We did everything possible so that Vatican
Council II would condemn Communism. Being a pastoral council (we
should not forget that Vatican II was a pastoral council), that is
to say, a council which has as its principal preoccupation the
salvation of souls, which has as its object the destruction of the
errors that menace souls, it was necessary, without doubt that
this Council should be opposed to the greatest danger presenting
itself in this age, as is Communism—a danger which extends itself
throughout the world.
This Council, where 2,500 bishops responsible
for the Catholic Church were meeting was not capable of formally
We, on our part, made all the effort possible
to have Communism condemned. So we managed to get 450 signatures
to ask for this condemnation. Mgr. Siguad and I went to see Mgr.
Felici, the Secretary of the Council, carrying in our hands the
signatures we had gathered within the time specified by the
internal regulations, so that this condemnation of Communism could
be proposed to the Council Fathers. When Mgr. Garrone who was the
Postulator of the Council made reference to this document, he said
that only one bishop had presented the possibility of having
Communism condemned, even though we had gathered 450 signatures.
He said, "I haven't heard anyone speak of this." We know
that Mgr. Glorieux, who was one of the secretaries of the Council,
made this list of signatures disappear so that we could not look
for others to present to the Council Fathers. Confronted with this
situation we thought we would direct ourselves to the bishops from
behind the Iron Curtain: Cardinal Wyszynski, Cardinal Beran and
Cardinal Slypyi, who had been persecuted by Communism, who had
been imprisoned. We thought that if we could get the support of
these three Cardinals, we might be able to get close to a thousand
signatures. The two of us then went to see Cardinal Wyszynski,
Cardinal Beran and Cardinal Slypyi. We had prepared a project with
a very careful format in Mgr. Carli's charge, in which the Council
Fathers were asked to condemn Communism.
In the first place, we went to see Cardinal
Beran, who at that moment was Archbishop of Prague. Cardinal Beran
said, "I am totally in agreement with you, I want to sign the
document, but not alone. If I sign alone, the Communists will
attack my family in Czechoslovakia. I want to sign, but I want
other bishops, other cardinals, to support this position also
because if we are many it will be much more difficult for them to
attack me." He finally signed, and we promised him that if no
other bishop signed the declaration, we would return his
signature. Then we approached Cardinal Slypyi who lived in the
Vatican itself, behind the sacristy at St. Peter's. When we met
him and presented him with the document, he said, "I am totally
in agreement with you. If there is an error we should condemn, it
is Communism. You already know what my position is, but I am guest
of the Vatican, and I'm sure that up there (pointing to the
cupola of St. Peter's), they don't want Communism condemned. I
know this very well."
Lastly, we went to see Cardinal Wyszynski, and
not finding him in his rooms I spoke to him on the telephone.
Cardinal Wyszynski said to me, "Monseignor, you know what my
intervention was on that point at the Council. I asked at the
Council that a complete document be drawn up to condemn Communism
and nobody supported me; my proposition was rejected, and I no
longer want to do any intervening."
We saw ourselves obliged to return Cardinal
Beran's (Archbishop of Prague) signature. This is the true story
of this document on the condemnation of Communism which was never
approved by the Council. This example alone shows what Vatican II
was, a Council in which 2,500 Fathers were gathered together which
did not confront Communism, the major enemy of God, of the Church,
of all spiritual principles. A Council which acts in this manner
I'm not going to insist any more about all
those doings of the Council, of that pastoral Council which
produced fruits which were, without a doubt, disastrous. After the
Council, the liberals who had triumphed completely during it,
occupied all the commissions that were in charge of bringing forth
the proclaimed reforms. All the persons who directed these
commissions, which were those in charge of putting everything into
practice, all the congregations were in the hands of the
modernists and the liberals. Even now, we can say, generally, that
the Roman Congregations are in the hands of the modernists and the
liberals who have succeeded those who have died.
Having shown what my attitude was, I return
then to the questions I asked at the beginning of this conference.
Are you amazed that someone condemns us? Are you amazed that the
authorities of the Church persecute us, me in particular, who
together with Mgr. Siguad and Mgr. Carli were, in a way, inside
the Council, the spear point, of Catholic tradition and to the
fidelity of the Church of always, of fidelity to the Church? Now
that the chiefs of the Roman Congregations are those liberals who
triumphed at the Council, it is evident that they will have as
their objective the persecution of all traditionalists.
Of me, for example, who have formed a seminary
which has been approved in the regular manner by the bishop of the
diocese of the place and which has been constituted in agreement
with all the canonical rules. The fact that the seminary should
have been developed has disquieted them and they have prepared a
kind of plot against it and against the Society which I have
founded; a plot, definitely against us, to accomplish the
suppression of the tradition of the Church. I don't think this can
surprise anyone. We can affirm that they don't have enemies on the
left, they only have enemies on the right. Time goes by and I
would not like to tire you.
If I was to give you all the details of this
plot and of the form in which the condemnation of my seminary and
of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was arrived at, you would be
astounded. I give you just one detail: after the visit which took
place at the Seminary at Econe, Switzerland, by two monsignors
sent from Rome, I was invited to that city by three Cardinals to
give some complementary information. This meeting to which I was
invited, did not constitute in any way an ecclesiastical court. It
can be said that it was simply a visit in courtesy.
At the beginning of the interview, present at
which were Cardinal Garrone, Cardinal Wright and the Spanish
Cardinal Tabera, Cardinal Garrone asked me, "Monseignor, will
you permit us to record this conversation?" I told him that
they could record it on the condition that they would afterwards
give me a copy of same. He said, "Yes, of course, we will give
it to you."
Nevertheless, having finished the conference,
when I asked them for the copy of the conversation, they denied it
to me. A second example that shows what this interview with the
Roman Cardinals was: wanting to know who had named those Cardinals
to interview me, if they constituted a commission, if it had to do
with a particular initiative or was something that the Pope had
ordered—and that I didn't know anything about, had no document,
no official note and never had anything like it been done at the
Vatican. I directed myself to Cardinal Staffa, who was the
President of the Apostolic Assignment of the Roman Tribunal, and
there I presented a recourse of complaint. I paid the rights which
are demanded in the Roman Tribunal, so that I could present a
complaint and I was given a receipt.
Once I did this, Cardinal Villot, who was at
that time the Secretary of State, wrote a letter by his hand and
in his own handwriting, to Cardinal Staffa, forbidding him to give
me any document and ordering him to close the process immediately.
In this way, we can see how the executive power injected itself
into the sphere of the judicial power. Something which had never
happened in the Church and it kept Cardinal Staffa from passing
judgment on my complaint. In such a way that the Society, my
seminaries and I, myself, were condemned without process, without
judgment, without documents and without being able to relate this
condemnation to the visit of the two monsignors to Econe.
I myself had the opportunity to tell Pope John
Paul II (I had already told Pope Paul VI) that the form in which I
had been condemned was worse than that used by the Soviets: at
least they establish the farce of a tribunal; in my case, even
that wasn't allowed. In fact, I should close my seminaries,
immediately expel my seminarians who were at their studies in the
middle of the year, and then dismiss all the teachers. You
understand that a situation like this one can only be attributed
to the occupation of the Church—the occupation of the Church by
modernism which persecutes the traditionalists.
Remember the story of Cardinal Mindszenty? The
way in which that Cardinal was treated by the Vatican can be
considered ignoble. Cardinal Mindszenty, the hero of his people,
who wanted to remain for many years in the selfsame Hungary, shut
up in the United States Embassy to be near his people, was treated
worse by the Roman Congregations, the Roman Curia, than he had
been by the Soviets. Cardinal Slypyi is another example. He
himself told me, "I have been treated worse here, in Rome, than
I was in Ukrainia."
One more example: Cardinal Wysznski. When he
went into Rome he was watched, without being able to circulate
freely around the city. All of this shows an absolutely ignoble
persecution. Why? Because these three cardinals were
traditionalists. Then, when they tell us, "You should obey,"
we answer them, "We don't want to obey the enemies of the
Church. I do not want to obey those who destroy the Church. I do
not admit it."
What Pope Paul VI entitled the
"auto-destruction" of the Church is nothing else than what the
self-same bishops and priests are realizing within the Catholic
Church. I do not want to contribute to the destruction of the
What I have just finished telling you is sad,
but the Cardinals who are actually in Rome, whose names you
certainly know, continue in this new policy, this new attitude of
the Church, contrary to the tradition of Christ. Be it through the
liturgy, through teaching, through the catechism, through the
general policy of the Church before states and civil societies, a
completely new orientation has been imposed. Everything has
changed in the Church.
In the liturgy it is very clear. All our
sacraments have been overthrown and subverted, all the old books
have been suppressed and replaced by new books. This is not
treating of a reform like that of St. Pius V, which had as its
objective to remove from the Mass the additions made during the
years which were precisely not in agreement with Tradition. The
reform of St. Pius X had the same sense: elements were removed
which had been acquired in preceding years which were not very
conformed to Tradition, so as to return to that Tradition. But
here one treats of the suppression of Tradition, of a new concept
of the Mass, a concept which is more Protestant than Catholic,
which was accomplished through the presence of six Protestant
pastors who were called to transform our Mass.
It's a new thing in the treatment of the Mass,
of the Holy Mass of always: to call six pastors so that they came
to change it. What could these Protestants say when they were
asked: "What would you like us to change in the Mass?" but to
align our liturgy with the Protestant liturgy. This is the sense
of the dialogue which is so much spoken of, a very grave attitude
which responds to a general principle, to consider the religion of
others as true as ours. Consequently, to consider that the
Catholic religion is not the only religion through which one can
be saved, the only divine religion, founded by God, founded by Our
Lord Jesus Christ, with a perfectly different orientation from the
others—it is inconceivable!
The Church itself has asked the states to not
be Catholic states any more, to suppress the first articles of
their constitutions, which say: "The Catholic religion is the
only religion recognized by the State." It is the Holy See
itself which has asked this of the different states and it is
because of this that there are no more Catholic states. That is
finished. Because the Holy See desires that all religions be
recognized equally in all the states, that all religions be equal.
This is a completely new orientation for the Church. Never has the
Church accepted, never has the Church taken this stand. The Church
has never accepted that Our Lord Jesus Christ be put on an equal
footing with Buddha, Luther and all those founders of false
From the political point of view, you know
well, you know perfectly, in almost the whole world, the
episcopates positively favor the Communist revolution and
In France, the election of Mitterand was owed
to a large degree to the efforts of the bishops and priests who
asked the faithful to vote in socialism. Result: we have four
Communist ministers and this with the support of bishops and
clerics. It's unimaginable! Rome did not intervene to prevent this
socialist government from taking hold in France. A government,
that is, in its deeds, militantly atheistic and which will
monopolize all the teaching and which, consequently, will have all
the Catholic schools in its hands.
When I had the opportunity to travel to Mexico
last January, the Mexican Episcopate published a document which
expressly approved of the revolution in El Salvador, to the point
of asking that the Mexican Catholics contribute—be it with arms
to go and fight against the government, be it with money to help
the revolution. Where are we going? What Church is this? They tell
us: "You disobey!" But, should we obey? Could it be that
these bishops represent the Church? Without a doubt, there are
still good bishops and these bishops are persecuted. You have an
example in your homeland—Mgr. Tortolo, who never became cardinal
and who could well have been the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The
case of Mgr. Morcillo, archbishop of Madrid, whom I know very
well, constitutes another example. Mgr. Morcillo was never a
cardinal. They used to tell him, "You can't be a cardinal
because the primary diocese in Spain is the diocese of Toledo,
therefore being a cardinal corresponds only to the bishop of
Toledo." Immediately after the death of Mgr. Morcillo, Mgr.
Tarancon who was the Archbishop of Madrid, was raised to the
cardinalate. All the secretaries of the Council were named
cardinal, but Mgr. Morcillo, also a secretary, never was.
Cardinal Siri, who was President of the Italian
Episcopal Conference was stripped of his office only one month
after the election of Paul VI. We have to say that there are
enemies of the Church who have occupied the Church. The Church is
You know Cardinal Pironio very well. A cardinal
who, having the ideas and attitudes he does, was named President
of the Congregation for Religious. Another example, Cardinal Knox.
A cardinal who is, in fact, sacrilegious. During the Eucharistic
Congress at Melbourne (at that moment I was in Australia, although
I did not assist at the Congress), the so-called "Kamburu Mass"
took place. What is a "Kamburu Mass"? He made the primitive
population who live in the interior in Australia come. Men dressed
in a manner you can just imagine, who danced on the platform which
had been prepared for the Mass, next to the altar; they danced
their primitive dances while the words of Consecration were being
pronounced. What this man did is a sacrilege, and this man was
named Prefect of the Congregation of Rites. What can this man do
before such a Congregation?
Cardinal Baggio, for example, who was apostolic
nuncio in Chile, and had to abandon the country for reasons not
very favorable to him (you have only to ask the government of
Chile what those reasons were), it's he who is now in charge of
the naming of bishops!
Cardinal Casaroli, actual Secretary of State,
can be found on the list of the Masonic Lodge P2 which is
published by the newspapers. I'm not the one who says so, it's the
How can it be conceived that the Church
continue its work of sanctification by means of those men? While
they are at the head of the Church, we traditionalists will always
be persecuted, and the Church will continue its auto-destruction.
I conclude. On our part, we have already chosen
and we will not change that choice. We want to follow the Church
that has always been. We want to remain faithful to the 250 popes
who have defended Tradition and the Catholic Faith. We want to
continue the priesthood in the Church and it is for that reason
that we will continue to ordain priests in spite of the
prohibition from Rome. We want to ordain true priests so that they
can continue praying the true Mass, throughout the world and the
length of history. This is in dispensable.
All those liturgical reforms have been made by
that evil spirit of ecumenism, of false ecumenism. It is because
of this that the Faith has disappeared and that there are no
longer any vocations. I have had the joy of already ordaining more
than one hundred young priests, members of the Priestly Society of
St. Pius X.
In October, we will have 270 seminarians,
seminarians who belong to the five seminaries which have been
founded in only ten years. You know that we have actually begun
the work of a seminary here, in the Argentine Republic, forty
kilometers from Buenos Aires, the La Reja neighborhood, where we
already have twenty vocations, without counting the seminarians
who, having completed their year of spirituality in the Argentine
seminary, are now continuing their studies at Econe, at Albano, or
those having a monastic vocation are following it at Bedoin and
St. Michel-en-Brenne, France.
This [Argentine] seminary is under the
particular care of Reverend Fr. Michel Faure and its director
is Father Morello. We want to build a seminary capable of
sheltering 120 seminarians, who will come from all the countries
of Spanish America, to continue that priesthood of which I am
speaking to you, to continue the Catholic Faith in these lands.
Where will your children go if they no longer have Catholic
schools? Because in the Catholic schools that actually exist, they
are taught principles contrary to the Faith.
We have made our choice. We will not change it
because we want to be Catholic. We want to die Catholics.