[font=Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web (West European), Segoe UI, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, Helvetica Neue, sans-serif]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3WUimC1P0BI[/font][/iurl]
Part B 1 of 2
Arch Lefevbre, Afternoon Conference, Oct. 1989, Avrille.

The Arch Marc Lefebvre Talk B, to the Dominicans, 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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ 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 Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ 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 Ecuмenism, 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 ecuмenism 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 ecuмenism.


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 Ecuмenism - 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 Ecuмenism 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?


Cont'd... 1 of 2

delete - didn't realize this was the library.