Conference given in broken English (preserved here).

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"... What is the principle, the first principle to know what we must do in this circuмstance, in this crisis of the Church?  What is the first principle?  What is my principle?  The principle of the Church is the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas.  And this is the principle--is not my choice.  Is not my idea.  Is not my desire.  I am nothing!  I follow the doctrine of the Church.  And doctrine of the Church is St. Thomas Aquinas.  And what said St. Thomas Aquinas about the authority in the Church?  When we can refuse something from authority of the Church?  Only when the Faith is in question.  Only in this case.  Not other case.  Only in this case: if the Faith is in question.  And that you have in IIa IIae, q. 33 art. 4 ad 2um.  Is a answer to somebody said that "but we cannot resist to the authority, we must obey".  And that said St. Thomas Aquinas, "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum Fidei," 'periculum Fidei': the danger for our Faith.  And so, "etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi".  The subject can be opposed to the authority, to the prelate, if the Faith is in question.  "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditis Petro, propter imminent periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit".  Paulus opposed to St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith.  And that is the principle.  I cannot have another motive to resist to the pope.  Is very serious to be opposed to the pope, to the church!  Very serious!  If we think that we must do that, we must do only to preserve our Faith, not for another motive.

And so we can now do the application of this principle.  For me, I think that the liturgical reform of John XXIII has nothing against the Faith.  You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Missal; what is in this book of John XXIII that is against our Faith?  Nothing!  And so I cannot refuse this book.  He's the pope!  He's the pope!  And the pope give me this book!  But is another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI.  In the book of the reform of Pope Paul VI is a very danger for my faith.  Is the 'periculum Fidei'.  And so I refuse because ecuмenism is the idea of this reform.  Ecuмenism is the motive of this reform.  And this ecuмenism, they said themself, the Pope Paul VI and the Bugnini and all these men, they say that the motive of this reform is ecuмenism.  And ecuмenism is take away all things which displease to the protestant.  That is incredible!  In our book of Catholic liturgy!  And not only the liturgy take away all displease to the protestant, but in the Canon Law, in the institution of the Church.  But what displease to the protestant?  The doctrine!  The Faith!  The Catholic Faith!  The Sacrifice of the Mass!  The propitiatory sacrifice!  That is that to the protestant cannot accept.  And if we ask to the protestant-- and the protestant, they were present to this reform!  And the definition of Article 7 of the Mass is protestant definition!  And so we cannot accept!  Is impossible!  But I have no the same reason, the same motive for the reform of Pope John XXIII.

And not only I have no reason, but I have reason, motive to accept this, because is the same principle that in bull Divino Afflatu of the Pope Pius X.  If you read this bull of St. Pius X to his liturgical reform you have the same principle that the Pope John XXIII use for his reform.  The first paragraph, the first consideration of the Pope Pius X is about the Psalter.  And he said that that is the essential thing in the Breviary, the Psalms.  "Accedit quod in Psalmist mirabilis quaedam vis invest ad excitanda in animis omnium studio virtutum".  He has a consideration for these Psalm very magnificent, magnificent.  He show that the heart of our Breviary is this Psalter.  And he has citation of St. Augustine.  And he said, "Iure igitur optimo provisum est antiquitus, et per decreta Romanorum Pontificuм, et per canones Conciliorum, et permonasticas leges, ut homines ex utroque clero integrum Psalterium per singulas hebdomadas concineret vel recitarent": "Rightly, therefore, and most excellently as it has been provided for from ancient times and through the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs and through the canons of the councils, through the monastic laws that men of both clergys should each week sing or recite the entire Psalter".  That is the tradition: say by week all Psalms.  That is the rule of the Church, antique rule: say all Psalm in the week.  And that is the rule of Pope John XXIII.  And so after he said the prayer is very magnificent prayer he said "But with the time we have many feast of holy man, many feast, they are so numerous that we cannot say all Psalm in the week.  And so many bishop and many cardinal ask to diminish the feast of the saint to--".  "It is hardly remarkable therefore that many bishops from various parts of the world referred their wishes in this matter to the Holy See, above all at the Vatican Council when they asked this, amongst other things, that as far as possible the old habit of reciting each week the whole Psalter should be brought back, in such a way however that for the clergy working in the vineyard of the Lord there shouldn't be imposed a heavier burden.  With these desires and wishes which predated Our own Pontificate, and which from then onwards by Our venerable brethren and by pious men were put forward, We indeed thought that it should be granted, carefully however, lest by the recitation of the entire Psalter included all in one week, anything should fall away from the worship of the saints, or lest, on the other side, the burden imposed on the clergy of the Divine Office should be wearisome".  So they try to conserve the rule to say all Psalm in the week, and to have some feast, but not so many that we say always the same Psalms in the Common of the Feast, you know?  And so is the same rule followed by John XXIII.  Perhaps in some details we can say that perhaps it should be better so and so, but you know we have no reason very important to refuse this reform.

And really this reform was done by Pius XII.  The Pope John XXIII in his decree said that, and I know that because when I was Apostolic Delegate I received from Rome the papers and letters from Rome and they said that they asked me to ask to all bishop of the delegation, in the episcopal conference in Madagascar, in Cameroon, in French Occidental Africa and in Central Africa...all...episcopal conference to ask the bishop about the reform of the Breviary.  And so I know that that was during the pontificate of Pius XII.

And when they say "but they are the same men they do this reform as men they do the reform of Pope Paul VI" and I said that is not true.  Perhaps in the commission is possible that you have some men.  Perhaps Bugnini was member of this commission.  But you know that during the pontificate of the Pope John XXIII, this pope removed Monsignor Bugnini from his teaching post in the University of the Lateran.  ...was against Bugnini.  And I know the president of the commission.  He done this reform during the Pope John XXIII.  It was Monsignor D'Amato.  Monsignor D'Amato, Abbott of St. Paul Outside the Walls.  He is alive now.  He is always in St. Paul.  Very old man, but I know him very well and I speak many times with him.  It was president of the commission of liturgy during the Pope John XXIII.  Very traditionalist!  Very traditionalist!  And after the council he was put outside because he was traditionalist and they replace him by Bugnini.  That is true.  That is a big change.  Big change.  Is not the same, is not true to say that this reform of Pope John XXIII is the beginning of the reform of Pope Paul VI.  That is not true.  And so I accept this reform... We must obey to the pope when we have no reason to refuse...

And I think that it is very important to obey to the pope, to have this obedience..."

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"... what is in this book of John XXIII that is against our Faith?  Nothing!  And so I cannot refuse this book.  He's the pope! He's the pope!  And the pope give me this book!

In general, I have no issues with his reasoning.  Many R&R think that the Church is a free-for-all and people can do what suits them.  If you were alive during the 1950s and your bishop told you to use the Pius XII Holy Week Rite, then you used the Pius XII Holy Week Rite, even if you respectfully raised your objections.

But the bold is where I have a problem.  Even assuming that John XXIII was an actual pope, it's false that HE IS THE POPE.  No, he WAS the Pope.  He stopped being pope (if he ever was) when he died.  Since then, a lot has happened.  Plus, Rome has permitted use of the pre-1950s Holy Week, so if you think they're legitimate popes, then what's the problem?  [I know this is more about the 1962 Mass, but still.]

And now that Bergoglio has banned the Tridentine Mass altogether, what's the difference if you used the 1962 or the pre-1962 Mass?  None.  In both case, you're disobeying the CURRENT "pope".

As an aside my family prays nightly for (+?) Vigano to call a conclave and everyone else should pray for this intention too. RnR, Sede etc could all rally around this, IMO there's a very tight window here for a VERY strong unity and it's going to take our prayers. God's will be done though.

Sure, even SeanJohnson, who's staunchly R&R, has written a fantasy along these lines.  Of course, God's ways are not our ways.  He'll decide when and how to bring an end to this crisis.  +Vigano calling for a conclave would be amazing, and then the conclave should unanimously elect him pope (and then of course conditionally consecrate him). He writes and speaks like a true pastor and many of his missives read like Encyclicals.

Naturally speaking, something like that would be one of our only hopes, since +Vigano has a large following even among the conservative NO Catholics, Motarians, etc.  So, basically, anyone who still has faith left could get behind a +Vigano.

Plus, Rome has permitted use of the pre-1950s Holy Week, so if you think they're legitimate popes, then what's the problem?

This is happy news to me.  Have you the ability to provide a citation?  I will accept your point with joy.

Even assuming that John XXIII was an actual pope, it's false that HE IS THE POPE.  No, he WAS the Pope.  He stopped being pope (if he ever was) when he died.  Since then, a lot has happened.

And now that Bergoglio has banned the Tridentine Mass altogether, what's the difference if you used the 1962 or the pre-1962 Mass?  None.  In both case, you're disobeying the CURRENT "pope".

It seems to my fallible sense of obedience that we must obey the most recent commands from Rome worthy of obedience.  I refuse each reform and illegitimate ban after 1962, but I sense I have the duty to act according to my last legitimate standing order.  I believe the archbishop held this idea.

Dogmatic pre-55 is like dogmatic non-una cuм...

Is there even such a thing as "dogmatic pre-55" or is this just another example of the exaggeration and histrionics typical of Traddieland?  

Comparing being in favor of pre-1955 and the una cuм issue is a dog that just won't hunt.  Utter nonsense, as no one is pretending mortal sin exists where there is no sin at all.

Who decides what is an illegitimate ban?  You?

+ABL, God rest his soul, is dead.  He has been for over THIRTY years.  It'd be incredibly refreshing if people acted like it and thought for themselves, incorporating "new" information and insights that he did not enjoy.

It may seem refreshing to think for oneself, and therefore to indeed decide what is an illegitimate ban.  I defer to the man of God for our age.  His reasons for refusing the illegitimate ban of the 1962 Missal remain applicable to this day.

 I think the trajectory he was on is underanalyzed with RnRs, his death being seen as a sort of "closed canon" on Catholic orthodoxy.

No sh*t!   ABL-cultists cannot analyze or embrace reality as it is in 2022, much less process that many of his pro-SV comments (1986) were not really that long before he died (1991), making them decades closer than we are to ANYTHING he said about ANYTHING.

Just as I defer my opinions about my clogged drain to my plumber, and my opinions about my tax return to my accountant, I defer my opinions about modern theological problems to the champion of Tradition, who supported his judgements with the doctrine of the Church.  Lord, spare me from becoming an armchair theologian!