Anyone who fails to utterly reject Vatican II and the Novus Ordo simply doesn't understand. Period.

It is impossible to comprehend this profound crisis without taking into consideration the central event of this century: the Second Vatican Council.  My feelings with regard to that are well enough known, I believe, so that I can express from the outset the essence of my thoughts: without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church.  In this, I am doing nothing but judging it by its fruits, making use of the criterion that Our Lord gave us.

If we are to understand fully and to measure the harm done by Vatican II, we must study this Council in the light of the Pontifical docuмents which, for nearly two centuries, put bishops, clergy and faithful on their guard against the conspiracy of the enemies of the Church acting through Liberalism and Modernism.

It is also essential to know the docuмents of the opponents of the Church, and especially of the secret societies which had been preparing for this Council for more than a century.

Finally, it will be very instructive to follow the reactions of Protestants, Masons and Liberal1 Catholics during and after the Council.

Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.

We are left with only one solution: to abandon these dangerous examples and cling firmly to tradition, i .e., to the official Magisterium of the Church throughout 2,000 years.

...Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church!

But it is impossible to maintain it is only the later applications of the Council that are at fault.

“You will recognize the tree by its fruit.”  The fruits are before us, evident, clear.  The fruits which come from the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar reforms are bitter fruits, fruits that destroy the Church.  When someone tells me, “Do not touch the Council; speak, rather, of the postconciliar reforms,” I reply that those who made the reforms- it was not I who made the reforms – say themselves:  “We are making them in the name of the Council.  We made the liturgical reform in the name of the Council; we reformed the catechism in the name of the council.”  And these are the Church’s authorities.  It is they, consequently, who legitimately interpret the Council.

Fortunately this operation of exploding the erroneous ideas of the Council has already begun, and begun satisfactorily with the work of Professor Salet in the Courrier de Rome on The Declaration on Religious Liberty.  His conclusion is that this declaration is heretical.

Our Declaration of Faith


This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

The evil of the Council is the ignorance of Jesus Christ and of His Kingdom.  It is the evil of the bad angels, the evil which is the way to Hell.

More Archbishop Lefebvre quotes:

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: J.Paul

So the position of compromise was there from the beginning. Most of the pterp's quotes demonstrate clearly the Recognize and Resist philosophy.

Again, the Archbishop was not omniscient from birth. The situation developed within his own lifetime.

Peterp provided a lot of pre-1986 quotes, which really are only of historical interest.

Show me some quotes after then where the Archbishop "waffled" or "compromised".

There is no sin or fault in being optimistic. In the 70's, it was much more possible to be optimistic. Assisi? Isn't that where St. Francis was from? And so forth.

Mentally take yourself back in time to 1977. The New Mass was only promulgated 7 years ago -- many churches would still have the smell of incense from years past. Many innovations hadn't been implemented yet. Many wreckovations to church buildings hadn't happened yet. The priest scandal -- what's that? And so on.

It would have been reasonable to believe that the Official Conciliar Church would roll back the changes, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of all the damage it had caused.

I agree with you that situation as you have laid it out is true. But the Archbishop did sign some of the docuмents which proposed un-Catholic ideas and I would give that over to trust and optimism as you have said.

But as it evolved this giving the council a legitimacy which later proved to be undeserved was seized upon by those whose moderation became a attitude of compromise such as Michael Davies and other indult minded notables.

From all of this comes the "in the light of tradition", there are some errors, it is only the wrong interpretations, and  it is the ambiquities, ideas which have excused and validated this false council in the minds of Catholics.

All of this leads to the idea that we can have a valid legitimate Church Council which can teach and declare error and heresy and further that we can decide to reject these heterodox poisons, leaving the rest in tact.

Leading to the idea that we can declare the Conciliar sect as the ruling legitimate authority of the Church and yet be able to act as though they have no authority over us in those areas that we deem that they don't

In the beginning it was not a direct compromise, more of a posture which became the foundation of the so called Traditional resistance movement.
But back then who knew? And who could have imagined?

But as it evolved this giving the council a legitimacy which later proved to be undeserved was seized upon by those whose moderation became a attitude of compromise such as Michael Davies and other indult minded notables.

From all of this comes the "in the light of tradition", there are some errors, it is only the wrong interpretations, and  it is the ambiquities, ideas which have excused and validated this false council in the minds of Catholics.