...con'd +L to the MJCF, 1989
   But now, wait!  The confrontation had not yet arrived.  Take a look at all the consequences of the Council.  Everywhere the mass was changed.  They took hold of the altar, and sent the altar on a hike.  They replaced the altar with a table, a small table as this, no crucifix, not much left, you know, everybody all around, sitting on the floor, let's see... communion like this, like that, in the hand...  reports of It spreading everywhere, spreading everywhere.  My God, my God, my God!  How can we live in a place like that? We who want to keep tradition, who want, understandably, to keep respect for Our Lord, who want to keep the holy sacrifice of the Mass - absolutely, the heart of the Church.

    You rightly deduce that this could not go on, especially with the arrival of the seminarians. And the following year, eleven requests to come to the seminary.  So, I found a house in Fribourg, I found the house of Econe, and there we began.  We began in earnest, all is well.  Rumors are circulating...and the French bishops are wondering: 'What do we have here?  Rumor has it that in Switzerland there is a traditional seminary just opening, consisting mostly of French seminarians' and so forth.  'Oooooh... No no.!  And with Msgr Lefebvre!! Ooooooh! (laughter from the audience).  Ooooh ... ouch! ouch! ouch! How will this all end?  When they return here, what are we supposed to do with those clergyman? No no!'

    They could not think of anything better, through Bishop Marcus, the present bishop of Nantes, to stir things up, at the occasion of a Bishop's Conference at Lourdes, and declared: "Rebel Seminary of Econe!" Seminaire sauvage d'Econe! Rebel Seminary?... I had the authorization of Bishop Charriere of Fribourg; the authorization of Bishop Adam of Sion; I had the authorization of Rome; frankly I can't see anything "rebellious". Not rebel at all. It was "rebel" for them because it was against them: they had a real animosity, some fear.  As questions were being raised, the episcopate was agitated. 'What is this seminary?...what is this seminary?'...and complaints were sent to Rome, naturally.  Visit in '74.  'What is this seminary that is starting in Econe? What is this traditional seminary that is currently increasing, over there, in Econe?' Each year a growing wave of seminarians, always more, was troubling because, for them, no vocations...vocations were declining.

    Now, you can probably read my thought: to stay the course, continue with what was given to me at the French Seminary when I resided there. Remaining catholic, holding fast to the perennial teaching of the Church. Far from my intention to do anything new. Much to the contrary! Always moored and aligned according to what the Church has always given to its priests, aren't I?... always always; and in the tradition. Condemnation of Liberalism, condemnation of a false ecuмenism that has its origin in liberalism; condemnation of the separation of Church and state, of this secularization of the state which Rome was striving to apply everywhere. It is Rome that suppressed the Catholic countries. It wasn't the countries who asked to remove Our Lord...that He no longer reign over countries. It is Rome, after the Council and precisely using as their foundation religious liberty /  ecuмenism: all the cults equal, therefore, all the states coerced in welcoming the new cults. Exerting pressure on Franco, causing him to become really sickened because of this. He was forced by Opus Dei, by Opus Dei and those surrounding Franco, pressured to accept... to suppress in the Constitution: that the Catholic Church alone was publicly recognized in the Spanish State. This was in their tradition: always Spain is Catholic, very good. Then dawns the scenario where it is said that the Catholic Church is no longer the religion of the State allthewhile putting all religions on an equal footing....Franco was repulsed, sickened, sickened... But Rome was pushing him, his entourage was pushing him too: finally he accepted. Now look at the situation of Spain today...

    It happened in Italy. The last time was in Italy, the last state, not even two years ago, pressured by the Concordat with the Holy See, ...(inaudible)  this pressure, the affirmation that Italy has as the public religion the Catholic religion. Done. Doors were also opened to all the cults...all - invasion.

    In all of South America, same thing. All the countries had this in their constitutions. Even in Switzerland! For example, in the Valais. In the Constitution, Switzerland is composed of states, a Federation of States, isn't it so? Each state has its constitution. So, then, each Catholic state had in their respective constitutions the Catholic religion as the sole public religion: the State of Valais, the State of Fribourg, or whichever Catholic state. Exactly the same thing for the protestants: the State of Vaux , the State of Geneva, the State of Zurich, and so forth, the protestant religion is the only one publicly recognized by the state.  Again, same thing in Denmark, same thing in Norway, same in England, same in Holland...altogether protestant, protestant, protestant. The state publicly recognizes only the protestant religion.

    It was the bishop of Sion who wrote a letter to his faithful stating 'that this must be removed from the Constitution, abrogated in the Constitution, because we must give liberty to all religions wanting to establish in the Valais,' this! in a state that is 95 percent Catholic! Lamentable!

    It was to protect the Faith, protect the faith of the faithful! Because the Faith is a reason for unity in a state, owing to the principles emanating from the Catholic Church... principles of morality too. Is not as simple as saying: "The religion, the religion!..."  You don't just have the faith in a religion, you also have the morals. Lo and behold! all these religions bring with them morals. The protestants bring with them their morals: that means: contraception, the destruction of the family really, divorce, etc. , and all these religions provide for divorce, therefore the destruction of the family. This is serious!

    Well, it 's the Holy See that asked for this after the Second Vatican Council, basing themselves on the docuмents of Religious Liberty. Lamentable! Results? It is the bishops of S.A.L.A.M (?), of South America, after a reunion; some say 40, others say 60 million of South American Catholics have gone over to the sects since 1968. Since 1968. Note: this is 40 million! This is enormous! 40 million Catholics who joined the Jehovah Witness, various sects, what else?, all the sects which now abound everywhere in South America, because governments are limited...previously they were capable simply because their constitutions enshrined this power to protect the Catholic faith of their faithful. They interdicted the newspapers, schools, finally, the places of worship were limited, to prevent these from luring Catholics from their faith. So now, we have liberty. Present are centres of cults from North America who went there, en masse, flashing their money etc., all over South America, and these peoples, some not having a sufficient culture - maybe not too strong a faith -  joined these false cults, false sects. It is abhorrent! We are witnessing the destruction of the Catholic Church.  [Time 39:50]

    I related this to the Pope, John Paul II,- I spoke to him only once -  I said: "Most Holy Father, this destruction of the Catholic constitutions in Catholic countries is very serious, very very serious...because, if the Catholics are doing it for so-called  'Liberty of Religion',  the others aren't doing it.  Protestants, these protestants...not a single one removed from their constitutions that the state wasn't protestant to allow liberty to others. Not even one. When one of the sons of Xavier de Bourgon married the heiress of the Queen of Holland, who should have become the reigning queen, (queen in waiting,) immediately there was no question that she acquire the kingdom of Holland. End of discussion. (Her younger sister is now the Queen of Holland.) Because she had married a Catholic - period! In Denmark, the Frenchman who married the princess of Denmark, she who is currently reigning in Denmark, apostatized from the Catholic religion in order to marry this princess...apostatized!...from the Catholic religion. Absolutely, out of the question, that a Catholic sit on the throne of Denmark, no way! The list goes on. Ditto for communists, communist countries, they are all very similar... communists.  All, each communist state, only party members reign...unthinkable of placing a non-party person to reign over communists! For the moooslims -  go ahead and put a catholic at the head of a moooslim state and see what happens! (laughter from everyone in the audience).  Rucchi (?), as yet hasn't been decapitated, but this sorry leader who would desire to lead the moooslims.. .his head would have fallen a long time ago. So it is impossible.  Then I told the Pope: "All those states, they haven't changed at all, and you, you have suppressed this, allowing all the religions everywhere...it is the destruction of the Catholic states, it is the destruction of the Church." Horrible! 

  So we safeguarded that. We want to defend the reign of Jesus Christ, a bit like the Cité Catholique had done too in its good days, when the Cité Catholique was founded by Jean Gousset (?), and by Mr. Masson and others, Mr. Bette (?), and Mr. Pacentenio(?), all this team, and people possessing amenability, people determined to bring back the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in France. Wherefore, they developed the true doctrine, and wrote the famous book "Pour Qu'Il Règne" [Footnote 4.] It is a magnificent book, simply magnificent!...which was really a charter and ultimately the basis for the Cité Catholique.  Unfortunately, they lacked the spiritual support of the Fathers of the Cherdreuil (?), and it fell apart, it didn't survive. 

    I continued with my seminarians in that right line, in the traditional spirit, the spirit of the Catholic Church. We dislike being called 'Integrists', or whatever...even 'traditionalist', but then again, Pope Pius X said that a catholic is necessarily a traditionalist. So, it is clear, we are not afraid of the title of traditionalist, in this case we desire...we are Catholic, because we keep the Catholic faith, we keep the Catholic principles. Voila.  Whereas the others have abandoned them.  Because the liberalists are no longer keeping them. They are no longer Catholic. Liberalism is essentially anti-catholic and anti-christian, isn't it so?

    We continued like this, but wouldn't you know it, we received a visit in '74, of two Belgium prelates, sent by Rome, and visited us.  Well, apparently saying that what we were doing was good, admiring the Seminary of Econe, positive, no problems, but we never did receive the result; the report of the visit was not communicated to us.  We didn't know. So officially we know nothing.  Nevertheless the battle waged on, and I made in November of '74, a declaration, very formal...explaining the goal of Econe; regarding the spirit of our foundation.  I made this Declaration, remember? " WE SUBMIT ENTIRELY TO THE ETERNAL ROME, TO THE CATHOLIC ROME, TO THE ROME OF ALL THE POPES AND OF ALL THE SAINTS, but we refuse the Modernist Rome, the Liberal Rome, and the Rome which was regrettably expressed in the Second Vatican Council, expressed in all the consequences of the Second Vatican Council, in the reforms...  we absolutely refuse all that because it does not conform to the Faith of the Church, does not conform to Tradition, does not conform to the good of souls, for the salvation of souls! [Footnote 5.] Not surprisingly we heard : 'We can't do anything with Econe!  We must condemn Econe!' So, what must they do to condemn Econe?  They had to prevent me from making priests. That's it.  If I don't make priests, I don't have a seminary, and if I don't have a seminary, it will be the end.

    So I refused. I said: "NO, I can not.  You approved me.  I have the approbation of bishops.  I have the approbation of Rome ...  Why is it that now, when you formerly gave me your approval to make priests, I could surely make priests at that time, as bishop, I could make priests ...I can't understand.  I will continue, continue to make priests.  I will neither abandon my work, nor abandon my seminarians, and I can continue."  It was the 'Suspension'.  I was suspended.  Pshaw!  I disregarded it, because, in my estimation, before the Good God,  it was worthless...  This suspension had no foundation.  They could not reproach my faith, they couldn't say that I was a heretic, 'you do such and such, you do things that were never done, you invented this and that.'  They couldn't accuse me of such things, and they knew it.  Simply because I had taken a traditional orientation, but the Council had taken a liberal orientation. Also logically, I would have had to adopt a liberal orientation. For sure I wasn't contemplating that! I didn't study in Rome, where I was taught not to be liberal, although I was somewhat liberal then, well, for me I reject it till my last breath; ...I remain catholic, I remain with what I was taught in Rome, what the popes have taught.

    So we continued like that, in that spirit, always referring to the solid, fundamental studies, such as the Canon Law of 1917 of Pius X, Benedict XV, (Pius  X had prepared it, but published by Benedict XV), which stated and recommended that the studies in seminaries be done in the spirit of saint Thomas Aquinas; in the philosophy of saint Thomas Aquinas; and the theology of saint Thomas Aquinas. It was in that right line that we desired to form our priests.  Unimaginable! unimaginable, that the authorities of the Church, those occupying the Chairs of those who preached the doctrine, preached the truth, preached the true faith, suddenly! now... abandon what their predecessors have taught, and presently teach Liberalism.  It is unbelievable!  And this, this is a fact!  Cardinal Ratzinger does not hide it! In his book on 'Theologie...so and so' [Footnote 6.] I don't remember... a book he edited in 1982 in Rome: 'We can say of the Second Vatican Council that it is a counter-Syllabus', a counter-Syllabus, a counter-Syllabus...  How can he possibly say such things?

    So practically, he is saying : 'We can say that the Second Vatican Council is against what Pius IX has taught, (officially and publicly.)' [Footnote 7.]  So, who is right? Pope Pius IX or...? Pius IX was the guide of all the succeeding popes. This is paramount to condemning all the popes who succeeded Pope Pius IX till Pius XII, who repeated the same thing. It is not possible!  And this, coming from the Second-In-Command in Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, who dares utter such terrible things!  What are we expected to do? Are we with Cardinal Ratzinger? or with Pope Pius IX and all those who followed?  Personally, I didn't hesitate... didn't hesitate.  I am with those who have always taught the same doctrine, the doctrine of the Church, the sure doctrine, unchanging... and not with this change in orientation that was done during the Second Vatican Council.  They want to change Church doctrine for us: we balk, we are in disaccord!  With this doctrine they have changed the attitude vis-a-vis other religions: they changed the liturgy, they changed the priesthood, they changed...  Lamentable! lamentable...  encouraging the dis-aggregation of the Church... shocking, everywhere!

    Again, two or three days ago...yesterday! I think, in the newspaper of the Valais for example, there was a speech of Bishop Cheferrie (sp.?) which explicitly said: 'When I calculate the number of my clergy, I write more check marks beside the clergy that quit then for those that I ordain'.  Some observation!  Even nowadays, amid all the hype and noise: 'Everything is going well, there are plenty of vocations...blah blah,' ...look! it is himself who says it; it is not us forcing him to say it: 'I therefore lose more priests than priests that I ordain!' Lamentable!  Of the priests, one who just quit, amid a great scandal in the Valais... 20 years superior of the Grand Seminary, he recently left, maybe two or three months ago.  A real scandal!  Abominable! But this is normal. They lack doctrine! They don't really know what a priest is! They ignore the true sacrifice of the mass. The revolutionized the altar...the altar is an eucharist, there you have it, an eucharist, a communion, a partaking, it's this, it's that.  But this is not the mass! It is the real reproduction, or the reenactment of the sacrifice at Calvary!  It is not the same thing at all!  For the remission of our sins.  We participate with the Victim, we communicate of the Victim of the altar.  It is not a sort of meal, partaking, where, sooner or later, our Savior's divinity is not affirmed; or a souvenir meal, a souvenir communion...  All this is protestant, not at all catholic!  Not surprising when you consider that priests who hold these convictions abandon their priesthood.  Frightening!  [Time 53:05]

    This is why we, we always remain very firm in this right line of behavior...and this is the spirit of the Society.  We shouldn't be surprised that, in this ongoing struggle, we face difficulties in each era..and this is normal. Because of this permeating ambience in the Church now-a-days, surely you notice disorder, the abandonment of the truth, the abandonment of the true Faith - which eventually puts us in a perpetual state of combat,...we must always pay attention to what is said here and there, by the priests , and, in any case, that we don't have in our Fraternity, members who don't share our beliefs. Inevitably, after some time you see, there will be some that after three years, four years, five years of combat, some get fatigued. 'There's a limit!' They harbor the impression that we are against Rome, the impression that we are against the bishops, the impression that we are against the Pope. Again: 'Please! it is not possible! We can't live like that...it isn't Catholic 'etc. So, little by little, inch by inch, they get tired of the combat...and: 'So long!..we are leaving.' They abandon. And you see their descent is rapid, vertiginous...incredible! ...incredible.  Again, now, you see. It's incredible! The moment someone strays from the rock of Tradition, the rock of the Faith of all time, the Magisterium of all time, it is the destruction. Similar to someone who leaves a team of skiers, or a group of mountain climbers, who wants to make his own path...oops, he will fall in some precipice, never to be found again.  Pretty much the same thing. Now take Fr P*****o  that I love. I really love Fr. P. I was the one who ordained him...I know his family well, we met often...Well, he wants to leave us. He is leaving. I wrote to him. I did everything to retain him. No possibility to retain him. So yesterday, I am informed, that for his pilgrimage to Chartres, he is inviting "Le Lion de Juda".  That is too much! Too much! I don't understand! This is where he is at, already. He left us about a month and a half ago, two months!! and he is sympathetic to "Le Lion de Juda". Do you realize what is "Le Lion de Juda"? It is a mixture of J*ws, Protestants, and Catholics, isn't it so?! Yes! Impossible, unbelievable, unreal...unreal!!! So they will attract these types to the Chartres pilgrimage! It is impossible, they lose their minds. Impossible! I can't possibly imagine it, that Fr. P., in a very short span of time, could initiate such a thing...he leaves us and already is derailing and skidding...It's over! Incredible!

    Then you find that some have fallen in charismatism. Charismatism is beyond doubt very dangerous, springing forth from Liberalism. For the simple reason - liberty. 'We don't want to receive graces through those very channels established by Our Lord Jesus Christ!'  Our Lord died, leaving us seven sacraments - not six, not eight, but seven sacraments. These are the sacraments instituted by Himself, by HIMSELF !, and are the channels of grace, which give us the Holy Ghost. We are baptized in the Spirit, and it is these seven sacraments which give us the Holy Ghost. We mustn't look anywhere else!

   This is an insult to Our Lord when they say:  'The sacraments, well, you know...oh, I've received them for such a long time, and you understand, I don't feel that I receive the Holy Spirit, therefore I receive the Holy Spirit in other ways.'  Then they receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands of a charismatic.  What nonsense! What follows the reception of the Holy Spirit is sometimes gesticulating, shouting, speaking of tongues, on and on...(laughter from the audience). Really, that is charismatism, and the bishops wholeheartedly encourage it. Their reasoning is: 'Ah! Voilà ! this is it!.  We have found a way to attract some faithful - our churches are empty - for sure this will lure people to come, this will be effective, just wait and see; with charistimatism, it is bound to work.' That sort of charismatic experience produces some groups, who have been with the movement for a while,  who come to us, who ask and beg us, priests of the Tradition. ... [Footnote 8.]  Our Lord made seven sacraments, for a good reason. Each sacrament: communion, penance, and the sacraments as they were given to us by Our Lord, these give us the Spirit, the Holy Ghost.

    This is the spirit of the Society. Voila! Furthermore, we must remain always vigilant, glancing to the right, to the left. then you find some who think of leaving us, saying: ' For me, there is no pope, there is no pope, no no!' Concerning Rome: 'Let's cut ties with Rome. We no longer have a pope, we don't pray for the pope' etc.

    In my opinion, I think this is an error. We should preserve, or how can I express myself... keep our ties with Rome, refrain from cutting the anchor of Rome, it is not possible, even if the Pope is a bad pope, even if the Pope is not leading us to good pastures. We don't understand. It is a mystery...I don't understand...things are what they are: it is a fact. So I don't want to eat in poisoned pastures, nevertheless, I believe he is the successor of those who preceded him on the Chair of Peter. This is true. It isn't clear... The Good God knows why he isn't following the ways of his predecessors, or why he is not conforming himself to the Church doctrine. I don't know. Maybe we are at the End Times...don't know. God alone knows why we are in an epoch like this one. In any case, I can't agree with cutting ties with Rome...can't agree. For the simple reason that , one day, salvation will come from Rome. The Good God will permit something to happen, certain events, I can't say...that would replace the pope on the Chair of Peter with one who would re-establish tradition...I can't say otherwise...

    Now and then, others quit us saying: ' You aren't sedevacantist...oh well...we are leaving.' What am I to do? Some others grow weary. They say: 'You are too critical of the Pope, so I am also leaving.' Eventually, three months later these priests celebrate the New Mass, and practically abandon tradition. There.
[Time 1:00:36]

...End of Second Post...Con'd