Archbishop Lefebvre 1989: Conferences at Avrillé

[Stone]

A partial transcript into English of the above French conference, taken from here:


Talk A.  Morning Conference
Archbishop Lefebvre, Avrillé, Oct. 1989.

THE BEGINNING:

My dear friends, I wasn't expecting a public so numerous here, for this retreat, but I rejoice. I notice that your community is growing, so let's thank the Good God, and your confreres in the expansion of your dear Community. At the invitation, [he jokingly says]: not sure if we can call him 'prior'?, [chuckle from the audience] I accepted to give you some talks during this retreat of a few days. The fact that I started late and I will finish early...I should have been more generous but, for the reason that I am torn between demands here and there, and my schedule is very busy till the 19 November. Then after I will see - I will have time for prayer and reflection; also this will permit some writing, some means, trying to do good as best I can.

Therefore, during this retreat then, we must do the utmost good possible - confirm in your faith, confirm your vocation, confirm in your religious aspect - it is important. I want to discuss, in this instruction and perhaps the second one too, and expose the situation which we are in, because we are in this present history of the Church, we haven't chosen, but God has placed us in the here and now. We could have been living in the middle of the persecutions; or perhaps in an era when the Church was flourishing and at peace. For thirteen centuries, the Christian religion was really the Queen of this Christian Europe...we could have lived during those epochs. Oh! there were always many difficulties too, just as St. Dominic had some in his day, even if during his time it was considered an epoch of Christianity. Nevertheless, if we had trials in the course of the Church's history, combats, heresies, schisms, God has always raised up generous souls for those times, souls who make a constant effort to maintain, continue the Church that He founded, the Church which came forth from His Heart, wounded, truly, and so He will never abandon His Church.

We would not be wrong in saying these times in which we are living: 'the Church is in a grave situation'. Never the Church has experienced such trials that we presently have! I don't think so. Will it be the last one...the ultimate before the end of time?  I don't know at all - I am not a prophet. In any case, it is certain that we must be conscious about this crisis in which the Church finds itself, the gravity of the crisis, so as to take the proper means to combat, since God has wanted to resuscitate groups, as yours, who have decided not to allow themselves to be invaded - neither the intelligence nor the will, nor the heart, by the current idealisms: of heresy, of apostasy, by sensualism, by rationalism, by Liberalism, of these modern errors - by a particular grace of the Good God...which God has chosen...to be possessors of the truth to continue the work of the Holy Catholic Church.

So, it is difficult to do a very succinct summary of this crisis, starting from the Council evidently, but in fact, the error goes back much further. It can be traced back to the origin of all the heresies, and especially, not only the machinations of men, but of the ' Order of Satan ' also, evidently.  It is so clear that Satan labours without interruption, without respite, for the destruction of the Church.  In certain epochs, sinister...he acted differently when dealing with persons filled of the grace of Our Lord, filled of the Holy Spirit, but it looks as if, in special moments, God seemingly allows him to captivate - he invades the world in such ways that he has become the absolute master. Happening in our epoch, isn't it so? It certainly looks like God have given satan liberty to act; we said this of Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a revelation pertaining to a crisis, a fight when satan would buffet the Church. It is said that God gave satan a hundred years, to act as he desired.  We recognize that from Leo XIII's time till now, it is about one hundred years, and he has marvelously succeeded to settle his hand on the world,  it is admirable!, on Christianity, which is even more grave, even on the Church, actually, on the men of the Church not the Church itself.

You know the history of the Church sufficiently...I don't want to repeat indefinitely. For sure, talk after talk this year, has sufficiently shown what was the French Revolution, the time of the Revolution, how this Revolution was conceived, how it was realized, and eventually how it began the destruction of the Church by the destruction of the Faith. I think that there is an act that manifests the Revolution and that is especially the "Goddess Reason", which was, if we may so speak "adored" in Notre Dame of Paris! An incredible scandal! which shows the spirit of the ones who made the Revolution: to adore Reason! to adore Man! the intention: to put man in the place of God.  Place man instead of God - Put the rights of man instead of the rights of God. It is a radical revolt of man against God.

Just like the revolt of Satan against God, "Non serviam!", I will not serve!, well, this Revolution was nothing else than the application of this revolt of Satan...reason itself against the Faith! So, of course, they tried to massacre everything that supported the Faith in the past.

[TIME 9:34]
Beginning with the king; even if the king was not a perfect man, nevertheless he aided the Faith. The king was always  (a constant king ?), a Catholic king. Already, even at the moment when the king was anointed, the voices of those who objected were raised, demanding: 'Let's put an end, do away with the consecration (Footnote 1), that this consecration didn't signify anything, useless, regrettable for the chief of state himself...it's no good to consecrate the king; what's the use?...a ceremony, a ceremony so religious; the king need not be consecrated; we shouldn't make of the king a sort of god'.  Voices were raised to prevent [the leader Icseine? inaudible ]from performing the consecration....  [Icseine?] therefore decided on the contrary, (some wanted to make a scaled down ceremony at Notre Dame) and performed the consecration at Rheims and nowhere else. The King was consecrated, complete with all the ceremonies, with all the actions as the Church wanted.  Because he felt he was the lieutenant of Our Lord Jesus-Christ on earth, to propagate the Faith, and to defend it; a real mission that he had to keep forever. Of course this was very upsetting for the spirit of those who wanted to do away with the Reign of Jesus-Christ, to abolish the reign of a Christian king; therefore the first step they took was to make the king disappear. Then it was the attempt to have all the servants of Our Lord  disappear, as much as they could.

Then followed by the necessary step of replacing the Christian religion with new religion, a laïcité religion, a laicised religion - they replaced Christian feasts with profane feasts. There was a suffusion of this distinct spirit throughout all the nineteenth century; and the twentieth-century: laicism constantly making progress, progress, progress. At certain times, thanks to the pressure of faithful Catholics, of few men, such as Cardinal Pie stood up, who protested, struggled....faced with the resistance of the faithful population, the efforts of laïcisme diminished somewhat, but always the intention to return.

They succeeded at the beginning of this century, with the separation of Church and State and it must be noted that it was at that time when all the religious were chased from France. Not a trifling! It's enormous; when you consider the number of religious and nuns who found themselves in France at the beginning of this century. Actually, only four religious congregations were allowed: purely missionary congregations, like the Adem (?), the Holy Ghost Fathers were uniquely permitted only because they were missionary and the government worried that if these congregations would shrink, the influence of the Government in the Colonies would also diminish: so it was a purely political goal that allowed the four congregations...four congregations were maintained, but they were of the missionary kind. They realized that the missionaries wielded a great influence, what was taught, even politically, so they neither dared to oppress them, nor to chase them away.

All other Orders were chased away. A violent persecution, with an absolute and earnest will of laicising France more and more. And not only in France, but like this in all countries. Occupation of Cannes, occupation of Rome and so on...it was all of Europe, often aided by the Protestants, and by Freemasonary of course, succeeded, little by little, in laicising society in such a way that Our Lord has nothing to do, nothing! nothing to do with official society. I don't know if you can imagine... but, not so very long ago, one could see a crucifix in the tribunals -  they had kept the Christ in the tribunals, there was a crucifix in the tribunals.

In the army, there were chaplains everywhere....they still possessed a certain Christian influence, in various official services of the state; but after the separation of Church and State it was over; it ended. Rampant tearing down of the Christ. This just kept progressing, even if there were a few respites, because of reactions, for a short while a few reactions, and then because of the efforts of Satan, and his henchmen, remarkably organized, and with Freemasonry which was constantly developing, they eventually conquered all of the Christian world - totally, so that actually Satan reigns by the intermediary of socialism, a political system which is diabolical, purely diabolical. With this program of laïcisation they infiltrated everywhere. Some efforts were renewed, with Franco, Salazar, de Valera in Ireland and others; a few presidents of Republics who were men still profoundly Christian and who upheld Christianity: all this blew up! finished, completely finished!

After this came the Council. Until then the Church resisted. The Church encouraged all those who held fast to Our Lord's social reign. At the very least, one could rely on Rome, priests, and bishops to defend the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. No one could have possibly imagined that a time would come, where those who were charged with defending the Reign of Our Lord would turn against Him. This!...This is the utmost pinnacle of the triumph of Satan! The masterstroke of Satan is the achievement of using the clerics, and using Rome, to destroy the Reign of Our Lord. This is what we have nowadays...

[Time 18:15]
What did they begin, these enemies of the Church, by the revolution?.. MARTYRDOM.  Often there were  martyrs, and the martyrdom of women, women martyred by the revolution...religious martyrdom. There are some who died miserably in France. They were martyrs of the revolution. Then the religious were persecuted and chased. Priests and religious were hunted down and martyred. But now, this is finished! They [clerics] are now at the service of the enemies of the Church.  They shake hands with the enemies of the Church!  to destroy the Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.

How could this possibly be done?  Well, by the invention of compromise. The Catholics began to compromise with the ideas of the Revolution. This work of Liberalism, under the pretext of Liberty, the liberty of man. Then we began to admit that, well..possibly, there might be some men who are against Our Lord, opposed to Our Lord, who were atheists. Opposed to Our Lord. Ah...well, they have the liberty, after all they have liberty...they have their consciences.

The real point is this: the day Catholics became this lax in principle and handed over the "carte blanche" to these enemies of the Church, it was already a considerable defeat for the world,. The combat has ceased against the enemies of the Church, against the enemies of Our Lord.    The popes have denounced it throughout the XIX century, denounced this Liberalism, which transformed in Socialism, in Sillonism,  in progressism, till it had penetrated to a greater extent. St Pius X had predicted, in his first encyclical, and said that no longer are there enemies outside the Church, but also enemies within. [Footnote 2]  And where are those enemies? In the seminaries! In the seminaries...(inaudible)  ...expressed tacitly that the enemy is in the seminaries. He implored the bishops: 'Chase all the modernist professors. All those who compromise with error: laïcisme, the anti-Christian errors...we must chase them, evidently, it 's easy to understand. How can professors who have no idea of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, how can they teach priests to become militants, combatants for Our Lord?, for the Reign of Our Lord? How can they tell them when they say: 'I don't believe that anymore!'  It is not possible.

And because they haven't listened to the (encyclical ? inaudible), they will keep those professors who diffuse these errors inside the seminaries. Now we have priests who are completely Modernists. They have acquired the modern liberty, acquired the modern errors. Very gently, they are convinced that societies have nothing to do with religion. Nothing at all. The political society has nothing to do with it. Not to be occupied with religion. All religions must be allowed, so consequently, without distinctions, thereby an eventual loss of the faith in Our Lord Jesus-Christ. If all religions are on an equal status in society then Our Lord, Boudah, and mo hahamed, all that is the same thing.

It is an apostasy, apostasy! They no longer hold to this saying, which is absolutely certain, constantly professed by the Church: Extra Ecclesia nulla salus, outside the Church no salvation. No salvation outside the Church. If there is no salvation outside the Church, Christian societies must strive to provide salvation for their citizens! Ah!...it is normal. Nowadays: Oh!...no no no. we don't have anything to do with that. As if the society wasn't created by God. God created it just like He created the family, He created civil society, He created the Church...the three societies which must work towards the good of souls and for the salvation of souls! It's clear...it's clear.

Eventually we witnessed (that truth ?) was abandoned in the seminaries; we longer teach in the seminaries of the holiness of Our Lord; that the christian religion is one of many religions: the missionary spirit has vanished. This spirit, this spirit destroyed in the priest.  How is that possible?...to be a priest without being a missionary, is incomprehensible, incomprehensible, an enormous contradiction. Incredible isn't it?

What good could come from one of these priests who doesn't have faith in the oneness of the Catholic Church? The faith in the Church, sole means of salvation. What good could he do in your parish? (To demonstrate: at the battle front, how can a paraplegic fight?) So very slowly, very slowly, very slowly this spirit completely ruined the combat of the Church.

The invasion of this laïcité, everywhere, everywhere in the schools, by every powerful agency, by the media, by the cinema as soon as it was invented, the radio (...), all this has completed destroyed in the population this idea: that there is salvation only in Our Lord Jesus-Christ and in the Holy Church. Everything, everything completely laicised. Furthermore, the priests do not know a profound faith in their religion, it is evident that it was felt in their proper religion, it is evident, we now understand a sort of...destruction, the auto-destruction in the interior of the Church before even the Council, for sure.

The discouragement of the priests. I, I have seen it, I lived it. I experienced it as a bishop. I have seen it in my diocese, I saw these priests, particularly when I was at Puy(?). I felt it in the priests of France, a special interior discouragement. Some were happy, I can assure you, if we could have retaken having this conviction. In the missions, I hadn't quit the missions just because I was in France ,then in the small diocese of Tulle, it is a small diocese, it isn't a large diocese, with 220 priests; I tried to enkindled the missionary spirit,and they were happy. They would come back to life. Some had a very hard life; the laïcisation had so penetrated the spirit of the populations that

Busing away all these children to lay schools. Rooting up, killing the Catholic apostolate. Gone were the subsidies for Catholic schools, the number of religious shrinking...With each passing year fewer Catholic schools  Fewer Catholic hospitals for lack of religious personnel. Catholic schools sold, yes. The priests realized that the religious spirit was vanishing, in spite of their best efforts. A young priest who is still in the diocese, shedding tears. He told me: 'Monseigneur, you entrusted three parishes to me, three or four faithful, senior faithful on Sundays in every church of my parishes. When I arrive, a group eight or nine children for catechism, that's all! I am dying of boredom. I am dying(...).  I am forced to take my meals in a tiny restaurant in my parish because no one is helping in the kitchen.  I am completely isolated. I can't keep going like this! It is a veritable desolation, common in all the dioceses of France. Priests lose hope, because of this laicisation, everything, everything...

What must be done in these dioceses when a bishop arrives in a diocese like this?  Open SCHOOLS! These priest should become teachers, to possess the impressionable youth. To establish Youth Movements. Gather the youth to give them the faith...that's right. And what will happen to these youth? In the diocese of Nantes and elsewhere - eventually there would be a teacher / priest in every village.  Administrating priests! Teaching priests in the catholic schools. Imagine a priest would be a school. A priest, teaching in a primary school. Immediately vocations are born. If they busy themselves with children, vocations will eventually come. Later, they might try their vocations...vocations are revived. Seminaries start anew, that's it. And Catholic life takes root.

(...)When I was at Tulle, I learned very early on the importance of catholic schools.  My successor, Msgr (Pearl?), (...)when he returned to the missions, (but has now resigned), the first thing he did was to close this catholic school! They are crazy! They have lost the faith. They don't believe in grace any more. They don't believe! 'Oh! well, they might as well go to a public school, we give them some catechism...Chaplains? Can't bother with that stuff.' They no longer beleive in the virtue of the priest. They no longer believe in the virtue of grace. They don't have the faith.

For them, all that is a human institution. (...) Another thing he did...There was a congregation which was the unique congregation that would send priests to the missions, a diocesan congregation just like we had and that was still in many villages; the first thing he did was to suppress this congregation and to unite it to the Sisters of the (...) the only congregation that we had.(...) So there you see the work of bishops! How can the Church be as before? How can the Church be as before?  Impossible! How so? Because he was imbued... there were some lay folk. He definitely didn't want any schools that would appear to oppose the state run schools, to divide, to cause division in the population; to have peace, to have peace, 'why fight? Why? To initiate a combat? That combat is over. That combat is terminated'. So now the school is public, they will all public.'We can enter the public schools and do good as best we can. Voila!'

...They don't believe in the grace of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.

There!...we have bishops like that. And the modernist cardinals at the Council. Inevitably, what happened happened. We had these bishops who were convinced, absolutely convinced of the necessity to liberalize everything. No combat, no combat; but the church is essentially combative. Our Lord led the combat, brought combat on earth. His cross brought a victory in the combat, in the first great combat against satan. And His apostles continued this combat and were all massacred, they were all killed because of their combat, because they proclaimed the divinity of our Lord, because they proclaimed the necessity to convert to Our Lord to be saved. It's clear!

...His cross brought a victory in the combat, in the first great combat against satan. And His apostles continued this combat and were all massacred, they were all killed because of their combat, because they proclaimed the divinity of our Lord, because they proclaimed the necessity to convert to Our Lord to be saved. It's clear!
TIME 34:05

Evidently the pagan religions they were addressing, the pagans practicing tenets of these religions, they were all massacred, they shed their blood - they didn't hesitate.  If they would have had preach pacifism, pacifism, pacifism, as we do nowadays, surely, there couldn't have been martyrs. Not possible.  We talk, we dialogue, your religion is as good as ours, and we adore the same god, then there are no difficulties. Do what you are doing, you will be saved like us. Ah! It's finished. there is no more combat. It is an open door for Satan with all the modern errors, the pagan errors. Finished. The work of the Church is terminated. The Church will disappear - she has no reason to exist.

She was a nuisance, but now, she doesn't want to be a nuisance. She doesn't want to annoy others. Our Lord was annoying, yes.  In the very least, very annoying...He came in our midst with His cross. 'His cross is a nuisance; we don't want it, don't want it,' immediately when they witnessed Our Lord Jesus-Christ hanging upon the cross.... Finally, the Church herself, from the Pope, to the bishops, to the priests.  Now the combat has evolved: peace, peace, peace, peace, dialogue. Dreadful, dreadful!  It is an apostasy.  They renounce what Our Lord had (...) the most intimate, since the Holy Virgin was a type of the most intimate, in Herself, that is, Her battle against Satan. The Holy Virgin was born of the enmity between God and Satan, She was born from this. She was born for this, to crush the head of Satan.

'AAAah! No! She won't crush the head of Satan, that's finished!' (...)The Virgin Mary is no longer, crucifix gone, no more Our Lord, no more combat...it is terminated. There is where we are at now my dear friends. We must understand the situation without which we will be unable to take the means to combat....otherwise we will be influenced by these compromises,  compromise, compromises  it's not worth it to be missionaries, not worth it to be Dominicans. The Dominicans are firstly combatants. St. Dominic was a combatant, and how! He didn't take up arms, the knights did that...with preaching; he never tired of proclaiming Our Lord  of heaven and earth. they promptly persecuted him. Voila! This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to explain to you how this operation was realized in and by the Council. How, presently we live under the sway of the Council, and therefore under this operation that was realized to deny the engagement of the priest, and to prevent him from fighting - preventing him from being a preacher of the Reign of Our Lord. Unimaginable! These are facts.

There has been a total change in the attitude in the episcopacy. Those who really wanted to effect change in the Council, and to do it in the sense that they intended in the Council...to make a revolution by means of the Council. A revolution which would totally rupture the true spirit of the Church, and the true spirit of Our Lord; the true missionary and apostolic spirit. Complete!! Radical!! And to apply this, absolutely to everyone. Everything that is done by Rome today, and the (offices) of Rome ...Everything is done with this goal. Whatever they do, whatever relations they might have, all the concessions they could do, all is accomplished with this idea to submit to the spirit of the Council, in such a way that whatever was revolutionary in the Council be put in practice in a perfect manner. Just as they wanted it, just as they prepared it, as they organized it, they organized all such services at Rome. It is like this...it is a fact.

Follows then 'what must I do to restore the Reign of Our Lord?' to talk about the Reign, really, But they object immediately: 'You have resuscitated this war of religion - you have resuscitated this war of religion.' Well, it must be known. Where do these wars of religion come from? They come from opposition to Our Lord! They desire to abandon the missionary spirit, because the so-called " our mission", this mission as it was made prior to Vatican II created religious wars, instigated a combat, a religious combat. Well surely. It was always like that in the Church. That is why there have been martyrs throughout the history of the Church. They made themselves martyrs, they were martyrs.  Because the opposed the lies of the world, the lies of Satan, of the horrors which lead to hell, and all these souls falling to hell, they wanted to save them. And wanting to save, they constantly opposed...they were massacred.

It a revolution, a revolution which was introduced in the Council -it is the spirit of revolution, but a revolution albeit with a religious character, in a certain way, because this is accomplished by men of the Church who want to break from the tradition of the Church. Try as they may to sugarcoat it, 'we continue tradition, we continue tradition, it is not true! They are not in continuity with tradition. So they presently want to inaugurate a new era, the Council has inaugurated a new era to which all must submit. Furthermore, this era has a name, a signifying name which we hear over and over again, is ecuмenism. The Council operated under the sign of ecuмenism, having necessarily for its foundation, both theoretical and theological, Religious Liberty. This is how it was done, with ecuмenism as the goal - to have relations, of a new kind, between all religions and the Church, and all the political ideologies, not only religions, but even political ideologies Another attitude of the Church: attitude of pacifism, an attitude of dialogue, an attitude of friendship, of understanding. It's over! Terminated. The ideal of the Church beginning with Our Lord, (...) completely annihilated, all finished, no longer the same.

Meanwhile we oppose the socialist, communist...The popes have always opposed this false ecuмenism. Just read the encyclical of Pius XI Mortalium Animos and note how the Pope is against this false ecuмenism. 'Oh! well. It is terminated, all what the popes have said, preceding Vatican II, it is over. Now we need a new style, a new style regarding the religions,' vis-a-vis the other religions, even if they are false, and of other ideologies. Not only the other religions mind you... Liberation Theology, relations with the communists, relations with the Freemasons - relations with THE sworn enemy of the Church, THE sworn enemy of Our Lord. Unreal!! Therefore ( Vat II says we cannot combat, we cannot combat.

Perhaps we can imagine what Pere Emmanuel thinks. Pere Emmanuel who lived a century...he sees this with a prophetic clarity. It's extraordinary. As soon as the ecclesiastical crisis dawned, as the Church found itself a century ago, because he felt the germs, from perceived it from the onset...it's marvelous. He made ecclesiastical ministry. (How did he die?) The priests had lost the Faith, and that is the most grave thing: the priests lose faith in their proper ministry, in their proper religion. It is the great ruin of the Church, not only a passing ruin, but a radical ruin, and from this the lack of religious vocations, the diminishing of the religious societies. It's normal, logical.

End of Part A, 2 of 2 Morning Conference

Footnote 1. Not sure if 'consecrate' is suitable or permitted.
Footnote 2. "For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church,..." Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept 8, 1907

[Stone]

A partial transcript into English of the above French conference, taken from here:


Part B
Archbishop Lefebvre, Afternoon Conference, Avrillé Oct. 1989

The Beginning:

Just to let you know that after this conference I will be at the disposition for those who would want to see me.

I continue with the reflections from this morning's topic of the situation of the Church - not easy, which is a difficult task, to determine, with the utmost precision possible, in light of the difficulties in which we find ourselves, to know, which means we must take in this gigantic combat that the devil leads with an evident success; what will be the means that one should take. I think that Dominicans, the Dominican spirit...we could turn to Dominic, we could ask him what he did - how did he act in circuмstances which were more or less similar to ours. But really, one cannot compare exactly, here in France, truly, more profound, more radical, a revolution especially concerning the clergy; but nevertheless he found himself facing heresy. Parts of the (country) plunged in heresy.  Therefore it will suffice to interrogate him, and to imitate him.

It happened at the epoch of the conciliar Church. We understand how the modernists had invaded the seminaries, invaded the clergy, penetrated in the spirit of the Church authorities, of the bishops, even some cardinals, consequentially setting the undertaking of the Council in an immense danger. Why was John XXIII advised not to hold a council? Already Pius XII considered holding a council, but after consultation, Pope Pius XII renounced, for motives that, so to speak, resulted in the failed council of Vatican II.

But Pope John XXIII, with his usual optimistic temperament, weak, not perceiving difficulties in anything, anywhere - one could make whatever propositions to him - No Problem! Some objected when Freemasonry was working behind the scenes, in the undercurrents which preceded the Council, no concern whatever. He had excellent friends who were Freemasons... not embarrassing at all for him, not at all. When it was remarked that the Synod  (du Roc?) which was held before the Council was insufficiently prepared...'it would have taken many years to prepare it.. ah no, we must continue'. Well, that Synod took place, but was null, completely null. That wasn't a problem for Pope John XXIII.

So to call a council, to hold a council... 'a reunion of bishops who meet for three of four months... they embrace, they leave...Voila! We had the council. Everyone will leave contented, (...we had a council) a fraternal gathering.  It will go well, don't worry, no problems there. It's not too necessary to tackle grave objections... The world media is actually influencing modernism amongst us, not important...(If you think about it, it will help us)'.

And personalities such as Cardinal Bea, then Monsignor Bugnini, lurking, surrounded by their retinues, their friends; well, THEY had very well prepared for the Council! They knew full well what had to be done, and what they could achieve. For sure, at the very least, in contact with Freemasonry if they weren't Freemasons themselves, and also contact with all the religions in one way or another, and even with different political groups too...with the communists, certainly; with socialists and others.

Therefore, which strategy are we (the Modernists, Ed.) going to employ for this battle, for the victory...the goal was precisely Ecumenism, the change of the vision vis-a-vis the Church, the change of attitude vis-a-vis the religions...What to do?  It's not that easy, not at all. There is a Tradition of the Church, there are also a certain number of traditionalists who will react, the Roman congregations don't appear eager or ready to operate this revolution, this abandonment of Tradition; so how to accomplish this? Because in order to penetrate inside the Council, the surest means was to target a congregation, either the Congregation for the Faith, the Holy Office, either of the Propagation of the Faith which deals with religions of the entire world, for the conversion of infidels; with relations even of Protestants, the conversion of Protestants. Or maybe another congregation could be penetrated, of seminaries comes to mind.

They preferred to make, they decided to do a "simile" congregation - much more rapid, more certain.  In the book 'Life of Cardinal Bea', which was recently published, an enormous book of 2000 pages, written by a friend of Cardinal Bea, and dedicated to Cardinal Willebrans. In this book of Cardinal Bea, we are given an explanation of how the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity [Footnote 1] was born, or Union of Christians, because they employed the two terms indiscriminately: union or unity, which is not the same thing. This really illustrates that for them, it is not a matter to seek in the Secretariat Unity in the Faith, simply because we cannot talk about union, as one doesn't reach a union of Faith in disunity or infidelity; we don't unite infidelity with fidelity to the Faith, otherwise... There is only one term, a point of contact for unity and that is the Faith. So they can indiscriminately use 'Unity/Union' for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, because their goal was UNION, yes, with all the religions and not a conversion of the false religions to the true religion. Evidently the goal of the Church is to convert souls to Jesus-Christ, convert souls for the Church, in order to make, give them salvation.

As Cardinal Bea was an intimate of Pope John XXIII, as we can presume because he was his confessor, at least for a certain time - he had been the confessor of Pope Pius XII - Cardinal Bea encouraged by Cardinal (Palerbaum?) in Germany, and according to certain theologians of his diocese, had this idea to establish this Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, for a communion of Christians, thereby permitting free reign - whereby chosen men would be sent to this secretariat, their own men whom they could trust, with the same ideology, same goal, and finally to possess a congregation that practically (the Pope / Gandolfo could honestly say):' We have a Congregation!'...which evidently sparked fears in different Congregations and certain missions, those people who were supported by Pope John XXIII.

Then in March 1960, two years before the opening of the Council, Cardinal Bea obtained an audience with Pope John XXIII, and obtained authorization to create a Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. He explicitly says on page 343 in this book about Cardinal Bea; this book written in Italian and would be very worthwhile to translate in diverse languages; on page 343 Cardinal Bea explains how, in the report that accompanied the foundation of the Secretariat, and for the publicity it was to have...it was an official thing, and he couldn't hide it;  it wasn't a secret thing, they had to define this Secretariat a little bit; he himself says explicitly! 'he avoided stating exactly the ends of this Secretariat because the Roman Congregations of Rome were not yet ready to welcome this sort of initiative.' There would have been too much reaction if he would have explicitly stated the ends of this Secretariat, admitting all the while a significant (shift), absolutely opposed to the spirit of Rome, of Rome in 1960, in 1960! Unbelievable thing! 'To refrain from clashing with the susceptibilities of the Roman authorities.' Avoiding to clarify the ends of this Secretariat.

Immediately, this Secretariat acquired a team. Naturally some Dutch; a consultant, Cardinal Alfrink...he was a Monsignor (...) at the time and not a cardinal yet, and evidently taking a post in the  Secretariat, archbishop (...) Equally, Monsignor De Smet in Belgium, bishop of Bruges, and Monsignor Bugnini,(...) noteworthy because Monsignor Bugnini will be well received and collaborated with Cardinal Bea in the application of ecuмenism in the liturgy. He would be basically entrusted as head of the council for the reform, in correspondence and in union with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, the Union of Christians, having the same ideas and the same goals, and again the reform, the liturgical reform would then become an ecuмenical reform encouraging dialogue, and especially an easier approach towards the Protestant adherents. There!

They therefore had as the goal to introduce the idea of Religious Liberty; plus the idea of ecumenism inside the Council. For them, the Council would be nothing else. The Council would eventually be the instrument of the Church, for the leaders, for their head, to adopt Religious Liberty which was till then always condemned; and ecuмenism as they themselves understood it, dialogue with all the religions; (the Church) set on the same level as all the other religions, and condemned equally in the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, and so many other texts, obviously. The preceding popes availed themselves of this encyclical particularly against this false ecumenism.

While the other congregations, and the commissions of the 'Preparatoire du Concile' were focused each working on their different subjects, different schema, preparing for the Council, they, too, committed to prepare a declaration on Religious Liberty and on Ecumensism- the first objective. That is how I am a witness, as I was a member of the Commission before the Council, and I knew about all the subjects of Preparatory Commission, the Central, of the Council...presided by the Pope himself, where you found about eighty cardinals and twenty archbishops, and I was ranked as President of the General Episcopal Assembly of the West African bishops. So we were twenty archbishops, four general superiors of religious congregations, so these were the members of the Commission - and experts too, about thirty experts, but had no voice... When there was a vote they did not vote, only the Cardinals, the archbishops, and the four generals of the Religious Congregations.

Everyone knew that this Secretariat could present such a Declaration; now Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Theological Commission, alongside the Pope naturally, and the Central Commission also, had himself a paper prepared by his Commission, a declaration and a project, on Religious Tolerance...we speak of the Church which does tolerate false religions, the manner in which one could tolerate the false religions, the Church's attitude regarding false religions, but not Liberty, and not give them a right, not even in civil society of course. Sometimes there is a tolerance which can be included in the laws, but the tolerance of error, so well explained by Cardinal Ottaviani, must have as a goal to constantly reduce it, reduce the error, reduce the possibility of diffusion of error, tend to diminish it, but not tend to augment it.

Cardinal Bea's group thought of everything. It was paramount to have Religious Liberty, this paramount right that all religions should subsist in civil society and that none among them should have any privileges in society. This was Cardinal Bea's opinion. Arriving on the last day of the session of the Central Commission - it was during this session that Cardinal Bea and by Cardinal Ottaviani presented these two small booklets - one of which is translated in "They Have Uncrowned Him". -but I would have liked, unfortunately,...the one responsible for the redaction did not include the booklet of Cardinal Bea. Missing out on an interesting comparison of the booklets.

Why, why? We are dealing with two small booklets, smallish booklets, couple of pages.  These two booklets really represent the special crucial moment where the Church stood between two ideologies -  either Liberal ideology or Traditional ideology, Catholic ideology. They confronted each other, publicly, at that moment, prior to the Council. Who would win, one might ask? Cardinal Ottaviani who represented the Catholic Church, (mistress of society) which alone has the truth, is the only true religion; or else the Liberals, who refuse to grant privileges, no privileges in society. 'It is one of the great religions, but she mustn't ask for any particular privileges'.

[TIME 21:20]

Therefore, when we received these two booklets a few days prior, clear-minded; radically opposed. The Relations between the Church and the State, the Relations between the Church and the Religions, seen through the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church; and the same Relations seen through completely different optics - modernist. How can we...? Who will surmount? What will happen? What is to become when these two different things are presented at the Council?...two contradictory things!

So the shock took place, for sure, (...) Cardinal Bea presented his booklet, to explain his booklet, to request a vote of the Assembly, and Cardinal Ottaviani stood up and said: "You do not have the right to do this schema, you have no right to draft this booklet on Religious Liberty". Cardinal Bea got angry, and how! the Secretariat of Christian Unity, it's got clout! Precisely, it naturally springs forth from Ecumenism and the unity of Christians...and we have the duty to do this proposition, this thesis. And Cardinal Bea then spoke to Cardinal Ottaviani,... he continued and said: "Honestly, I am basically opposed to what you said in your little booklet! I am radically opposed to what you have said in your presentation, in your schema."

We were wondering...What is going on? There is a traditional thesis, there is a traditional thesis, right? (...) These new sorts of ideas were certainly in the minds of many, but were never presented as official teaching of the Church...there's a limit! And now presenting this to a reunion of cardinals...a cardinal who definitely represents in the Council, just prior to the Council.

Consequently, confronted with this opposition between the two cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani stood up and said: 'Faced with this abusive opposition of my confrere, we are obliged to refer this matter to a superior authority'. And as the Pope wasn't there at the time, the Pope was absent at the time... '(Until we can discuss with the Pope, we are done for the time being) and because this burst of opposition is quite violent, we should try to present this to the Pope'. This proposed reunion never took place...there weren't any more.

To which Cardinal Bea said: 'No no no! Not at all! I ask for a vote, I demand a vote!  I want a vote for my thesis, or for the thesis of Cardinal Ottaviani, I want a vote. If he asked for this vote it was because he knew there would be many votes for him. There were eighty cardinals, and the outcome was practically divided in two. Half for Cardinal Bea; half for Cardinal Ottaviani. Most of the European episcopate, let's say, most of the Latin episcopates: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, these for Cardinal Ottaviani; but all the others: French, Swiss, German, Austrian, English, Dutch all for Cardinal Bea, there. Plus, those from South America, a majority of bishops too, because they generally have Latin roots, they, broadly speaking, for Cardinal Ottaviani. Add the complete North American continent, as you can guess, Canada included, for Cardinal Bea.
It simply split the Catholic world in two. The liberal group; the Catholic group, evidently! It's horrible! Terrifying situation!.

(...) who had voted for Cardinal Ottaviani, and there we were in this horrifying arena, horrifying! And just prior to the Council! Can you possibly imagine: the highest Central Commission, which truly represents the supreme, the highest movement possible of the Council, divided in two, regarding a question which will determine a novel orientation of the Church... or keep the true orientation, the true doctrine;...or else depart with a liberal doctrine...what's going to happen?

(...) who had voted for Cardinal Ottaviani, and there we were in this horrifying arena, horrifying! And just prior to the Council! Can you possibly imagine: the highest Central Commission, which truly represents the supreme, the highest movement possible of the Council, divided in two, regarding a question which will determine a novel orientation of the Church... or keep the true orientation, the true doctrine;...or else depart with a liberal doctrine...what's going to happen?

Truth must be told: Liberalism prevailed...because the Pope placed his authority on the side of the Liberals. What an undertaking! For the Council is exactly this: because it is the essential objective of the Council. All the other schema are NOTHING compared to this!! Just observe: of course, regarding, schema treating of the priesthood, the priests; these have no importance. The fundamental objective was Religious Liberty, and Ecumenism, that's it. Further on they will succeed in promoting this Liberal ideology.

The Council itself was to be split: (...) Religious Liberty, one part opposing, quite forcefully, this schema. Finally it took five attempts, five tries, submitting another schema, new schema; they kept altering some sentences, changing some expressions, but they never changed the foundation...never never, never, they absolutely refused. Msgr. de Smet acted in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity as the rapporteur of the Religious Liberty during the Council. It is clear as day, supported by Cardinal Bea of course...he had conference, conference, conference with all the cardinals, conferences with the bishops, conferences in the notable houses of Rome, to convince the bishops that they must absolutely absolutely vote for Religious Liberty...for quite some time.

Cardinal Bea during two years, 1960 - 62, traveled the world over, the entire world...he went everywhere everywhere everywhere, making conferences, promoting Religious Liberty. He had many contacts with B'nai B'riith of New York!. It's official! You can check the newspapers, not hidden; with the Ecumenical (World) Council of Churches with Msgr. Hildebrandt(?) ,with Russian Orthodox Communist, also with Cardinal Hildebrandt... official contacts with all these people! to ask them: 'What do you desire from the Council?' The B'nai Briith Jews, Freemasons, very numerous, powerful, at least 200,000, in lodges uniquely Jewish, truly. So the response from all these people was: 'Give us Religious Liberty'; that means the Church ceases to be Herself the only good religion...'that's all we ask! If you grant us this, there will no more be problems with the Catholic Church.'

And we see the Catholic Church would be in accord. If the Catholic Church is no longer the one true religion, relinquishing her right to claim She is the true religion ...it is the death of the Church. If the Church was strong, courageous, missionary, enterprising, and holy by her Founder, by God Himself, by Our Lord...the strength of the Church...If Religious Liberty places the Catholic Church on the same level as the false religions, it's finished, it's finished.

[TIME 30:20]

...Very evident. very evident...even dishonest...those whose comportment insulted Cardinal Ottaviani, especially during the Council...shameful comportment...the way he was treated at the Council. A veritable plot, a plot which was constantly becoming clearer and clearer, more and more in the open because they felt the support of the Pope, and they could foresee the victory. So they acted triumphantly. The wild applause when a liberal Cardinal had the floor...yes so much applause! Only murmurs though, when someone of Tradition would begin his address. This they have done. They actually interrupted Cardinal Ottaviani's presentation. What a shame...a veritable battle!

Amongst those 250 liberals ...and 250 conservative Catholics opposing, there was this mass of all these bishops of the Council who would neither read the schema nor work, showing a weak impression of being occupied, looking for the direction of the breeze - if the Pope was for an opinion, immediately they always voted with the Pope, the Pope.  They wouldn't inquire , to acquire knowledge. Evidently this was a heavy load for the (religious...) 200, 250 bishops, and the Pope, I noticed, the Pope did not want to pass these schema that would have 200, 250 opposed.

Then at the end, he would include contradictions within the schema, but saying that this declaration changes nothing vis-a-vis traditional teaching of the Church. Ha! Changes at the heart of the docuмents, but professing that traditional doctrine of the Church wasn't altered!? (...) See this contradiction! Unfortunately the Spanish and others, instead of focusing on the veritable contents of the declaration, and also of the intention of those who wrote this declaration to eventually use it to destroy everything in the Church, they would naively believe that now the Pope has added this and that in the docuмent, what's the problem, we might as well just sign this declaration. Lamentable. There remained 64 or 70 (...) bishops, approximately, that remained opposed against 2000...I don't know the exact numbers. Voila ! This is the true history responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today.

The liberals had won, and then began the expulsion and tracking all the conservatives who were in Rome, just like when a socialist government gains power, they capture the honest folk. (or the honest folk become socialists, reciprocating). So the same thing here. The Church's government has always been conservative, traditional of course...it was the life of the Church herself. The first liberal government of the Church and the conservatives are shown the door! Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinals (...ilier?), anyway, all those who were conservative were ostracized, pushed aside. In the archdioceses, same thing...in the great archdioceses, anyone who was traditionalist was persuaded to hand in their resignation. 'We are not conservative here (...)'.

Thus many bishops, traditionalists, Catholics, of their own accord, preferred to resign rather than live in disgust. Completely disgusted for the reforms emanating from Rome, disrupting their dioceses, the spirit that the reforms instilled in their clergy, of the shrinking of their clergy, shrinking of the religious congregations...finally, the liberal spirit breathing, the breath of death, a breath of ѕυιcιdє for the Church.  And they left, gave their resignations..gone. Too bad. If they would have fought courageously for the Church at the beginning, maybe, just maybe they could have prevented the reform from completing. Cardinal Siri for example, wielding the influence that he possessed, he could eventually have blocked the reform. Perhaps a good number of bishops could have refused the rebellious movement, the insults of Msgrs. Bugnini and Bea. Unfortunately they didn't have the courage to stand up. It is what it is.

They triumphed everywhere, everywhere; that is to say: they destroyed the Church completely! Its not over...they continue! they continue. They see that the Church is auto-destructing, as was stated at the beginning of the Council by Paul VI, and that the smoke of satan entered the Church. They saw all this, they saw it... they recognize this.

They recognize that Tradition is doing good, even right here, and elsewhere, noting that the works of Tradition are capable of reviving the Church, a rebirth.  'It's of no importance, we don't talk about it.' Plenty of compliments on the ground, but after, well, they do everything to have us disappear! Voila! That is the actual situation.

Therefore, facing this, we shouldn't hesitate for a moment. We must turn towards those who ere in similar situations and have resisted. So what did St. Dominic do? I think there are three things; if I am not mistaken...with equanimity; three fundamentals that St. Dominic asks in these circuмstances.

Firstly: Acquire wisdom, acquire wisdom through the contemplation of divine realities.  While Liberalism considers a sentimental religion, which in its finis is sentimental, and then denigrates at the level of the conscience...'each makes his own religion' practically speaking, 'each one is free to have his religion...' religion purely subjective, purely sentimental.

Contrariwise we contemplate objective realities, the REALITY OF GOD! Of God. Of what is God? All that God has made, what He is, what He has done, thereby always fixing our gaze, always - the contemplation of God - which must dominate our lives, must dominate our spirit, and constantly be the subject of our orisons, of our prayers. Firstly contemplate divine things as St. Thomas declares: "Contemplata aliis tradere". One must, through preaching, hand down to others the fruits of contemplation. So one must contemplate. Therefore we must strive to better know God, better know the Holy Trinity, better know Our Lord Jesus-Christ, deepen our knowledge. It follows that we will be enlightened by God, enlightened by God, and only then could we enlighten men too. Otherwise, if our spirits remain preoccupied with temporal matters, on secondary objectives of religion which wouldn't have all the sense which they have if they weren't from above, a light from above, of the light Our Lord Jesus-Christ, Who said: " I am the Light of the world", "Ego sum lux mundi"; and we must possess within ourselves this light from Our Lord Jesus-Christ so we can illuminate the entire work of Our Lord.

Secondly Preaching. St. Dominic preached. Preach the Truth. Preach God. Preach the Faith...the truths of the Faith; and to preach with this spirit of prayer, that united him with the Good God. Preaching is not just a "flatus vocis", not simply the expression of the voice, but an all-encompassing faith, a faith...and a conviction permeating the words.  This is was we hold; we must be thus persuaded. Therefore what we preach is a result of the contemplation in our prayers, during our orisons, from our studies! This is what we must pass on to the souls of others. And both are intimately united.

[TIME: 41:20]

And thirdly, the preacher must aim at Holiness...not only contemplate, not only preach; but must be himself an example of what he preaches and of what he contemplates, and eventually reap the consequences. And for St. Dominic it is very lucid. For St. Dominic the two elements on which he based this sanctification was the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, crystal-clear, for him, it was the heart of his life, it was the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...not just any sacrifice with these or those ceremonies; the true Sacrifice of the Mass, the Cross of Jesus-Christ, Jesus crucified. And additionally, the Holy Rosary. They are the great sources for our soul: Jesus and Mary. To Jesus through Mary. Jesus in the Sacrifice of the Mass represents all the Sacraments, which contain all the sources of salvation, and the transmission realized through them. Therefore Mary's intercession is necessary so all these graces come to us by the hands of Mary. The imitation of the Holy Rosary, the imitation of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, with Mary, inseparable pair you see, to convert souls.

We are prone to events. There is...there is...because this must foster characteristics of true Catholics.  It is immutability...immutability....God is immutable; God does not change...and all that He has accomplished, all that He says, all that He condemned does not change. These are eternal words, immutable words. Thus, for certain our faith, and of course revelation, is immutable; can not change, can not be modified because God is God, and God doesn't change. And the elements that Our Lord gave us for the source of grace, source of sanctification, source of salvation can not change! Can not change. Impossible! Our Lord is God, and if God has decided a thing, He doesn't change. It is not possible. Or He is no longer God!

Voila! I think these are the important elements revealed in the course of this retreat, to help you, and to encourage you in this great combat that we are fighting, so as not to be discouraged.  The others have lost the Faith, they have lost the Faith. They turned to man, they seek human means, they seek natural means, search for recipes...be it charismatism, be it anything, anything to move the masses, sentimentality, purely sentimental, plus they always have to present novelties to interest the people; that is why the liturgy is always in movement, always in changes; each does his liturgy and thinks that this will motivate the people. They are strangers to the true Religion, the unique religion which Jesus founded and that the apostles transmitted, and which the Church has transmitted.

We must be anchored to these immutable, solid fundamentals that have God Himself as their source, to have a certitude.. because what we do does not come from us, and consequently it has a strength which is not ours; it is not ours. It's not...it's not...the power of our preaching, it's not the subtlety of our arguments -  amounts to very little...it is God's grace, it is the Holy Spirit flowing through our speech, which works. It is not the preacher himself, he is nothing, it isn't him who gives grace. He transmits, he must transmit best as he can, allowing grace to flow...making an effort to best prepare his listeners to receive grace; it is the grace which sanctifies; and not say: 'It's because of me that faithful (are improving)...it's not true. The preacher is but a poor instrument, an instrument which is most subject to God, as very submissive towards God, more holy, more perfect, more united to God, well, grace becomes more abundant. Voila! This disposition, especially, is the one of all the great preachers. Blessed St. Louis de Montfort comes to mind, (absolutely), same thing, He was based on God, on God's grace, identical spirit, for the salvation of souls. And Fr. Emmanuel. Fr. Emmanuel too, really, a great missionary, and convinced (many, Ed.) by his faith and preaching.

Voila! We shall pray to St. Dominic for his aid during the course of these conferences, these instructions, to help us better know the Good God, in such a way that we may become zealous preachers of the revelation and of the Faith, and to sanctify us, in order to sanctify others.

THE END.

[TIME: 48:15]

Footnote 1. Pope John XXIII wanted the Catholic Church to engage in the contemporary ecuмenical movement. He established a Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity on 5 June 1960 as one of the preparatory commissions for the council, and appointed Cardinal Augustin Bea as its first president. (Google)

Footnote 2. Bernardus Johannes Alfrink (5 July 1900 “ 17 December 1987) was a Dutch Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Utrecht from 1955 to 1975, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1960. (Wikipedia)