Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The Last Interview
'It is no longer merely a question of liturgy,' Lefebvre said, 'but a question of faith.'
‘It is no longer merely a question of liturgy,’ Lefebvre said, ‘but a question of faith.’
Editors’ Notes
The following is Archbishop Lefebvre’s final interview, given in 1991. He died on the Feast of the Annunciation later that year.
As with another text which we published recently, it reveals the state of Lefebvre’s mind after the defining moment of his life – the consecration of the four bishops without the mandate of John Paul II.
As such, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, it is an important text for the historical record.
Some highlights
The attitude of the Conciliar Church is diametrically and fundamentally contrary to that of the Catholic Church
“One must not entertain illusions. The principles now guiding the Conciliar Church are increasingly and openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.”
“In one sense, things today are becoming clearer. They prove us ever more right. We are dealing with people who have a philosophy different from ours, a different way of seeing, influenced by all the modern and subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, no dogma. Everything is in evolution. This is a wholly Masonic conception. It is truly the destruction of the faith.”
Archbishop Lefebvre praises those who told him negotiations were a bad idea.
Our true faithful—those who have understood the issue and who have helped us precisely to persevere in the straight and firm line of Tradition and of faith—feared the steps I took towards Rome. They told me that it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the very last moment that in Rome they would show a little loyalty. No one can reproach me for not having done everything possible. So now, to those who come to me saying, ‘You must come to an understanding with Rome,’ I think I can reply that I have gone further than I ought to have gone.
He condemns the idea of collaborating or being seduced by concessions from the Conciliar Church
“What Rome now grants in favour of Tradition is nothing more than a purely political, diplomatic gesture, intended to force submissions. But it is not born of conviction in the benefits of Tradition.”
“It was not for pleasure that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to preserve the Catholic faith. And they were in agreement with us. They collaborated with us. And then, all at once, they abandon the true battle to ally themselves with the destroyers under the pretext that a few privileges have been granted to them. It is inadmissible.
“They have practically abandoned the fight for the faith.”
“Certainly, the question of the liturgy and of the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the faith. For us, it is resolved. We have the faith of all time—the faith of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, of all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.”
Some comments
We are obliged to remind readers that Lefebvre’s critical comments about “Rome” – for example, the fact that they are against “Tradition” and need to be opposed – can only be justified on the basis that the word refers to those illegitimately occupying the city of Rome and its various offices. No Catholic can have a right or duty to be “opposing Rome” in matters of faith, if by that we mean the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
As noted previously, Lefebvre’s comments in Q.2 on the third paragraph of the Conciliar ‘Profession of Faith’ are problematic. The text in question runs as follows:
“Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
While Lefebvre is obviously correct in saying that this paragraph will lead to bad consequences when applied to a putative hierarchy made up of modernists, there is nothing wrong with the paragraph itself at all. This is a standard understanding of the duties of the Church Taught with regards to the Church Teaching exercising its teaching authority in a non-definitive way.
The fact that it has become habitually impossible to apply it to the modernists does not indicate a problem with the doctrine, but with the modernists themselves – and with any conception of the current situation which treats them as legitimate. This is because they are not legitimate.
In Section 5, Lefebvre mentions “the sedevacantists” in the context of those whose Masses about which he has warned the faithful. As noted previously, Lefebvre openly discussed the possibility of a vacant see at different points in his life, and his negative comments normally seem to be about particular groups of sedevacantists. In any case, the entire section in which this comment appears consists of warnings against the liberalising and modernising environments one finds at “authorised” Masses.
See also:
The Last Interview
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Intereview with Fideliter
N. 79, Jan-Feb 1991
New translation from the French by The WM Review. Base text translated with the help of AI with every line checked by a person.
On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre kindly agreed to answer the questions we put to him. “It is no longer merely a question of liturgy, however important that may be, which separates us from Rome, but a question of faith.” One will also note how the prelate refutes the calumnies that have been levelled against him regarding the conciliar documents on Religious Liberty and ‘The Church in the Modern World.’
1. Why there can be no collaboration
Fideliter: Since the consecrations there have been no further contacts with Rome. Yet, as you have recounted, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you, saying: “Things must be set right. Ask the Pope for a small pardon, and he is ready to receive you.” Why then not attempt this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate of Rome, which is becoming ever worse. One must not entertain illusions. The principles now guiding the Conciliar Church are increasingly and openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Cardinal Casaroli recently declared:
“I wish to dwell for a moment on one specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thought and of acting according to one’s conscience, that is, religious liberty… The Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor, who has made human rights one of the great themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that, in a world made by man and for man, the entire organisation of society has meaning only insofar as it makes the human dimension a central concern.”
To hear such words from the mouth of a cardinal! Of God, he says nothing!
For his part, Cardinal Ratzinger, when presenting a lengthy document on the relations between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms – “for the first time with clarity,” he says – that “decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such,” but “a kind of provisional disposition…”
“The core remains stable, but the particular aspects influenced by the circumstances of the time may require subsequent correction. In this regard one may note the declarations of the popes of the last century. The anti-modernist decisions rendered great service, but they are now outdated.”
And there it is—the page of modernism is turned! Such reflections are utterly senseless.
Finally, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop and to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They hide it less and less. It is therefore absolutely inconceivable that one could accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy.
2. The situation at the Vatican is worse than ever
Fideliter: Do you think that the situation has worsened since you had – before the consecrations – entered into discussions which led to the drafting of the protocol of 5 May 1988?
NB: For more on the third paragraph of this Profession of Faith, see the Editor’s Note above under the heading “Some Comments.” The Archbishop says “he requires all those who have rallied to them, or who might do so, to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and in the post-conciliar reforms.” But this is only implicit in the third paragraph of the Profession of Faith – which itself merely expresses basic and traditional Catholic doctrine on the assent owed to the non-definitive magisterium.
The problem here is not this doctrine, but recognising the putative hierarchy as that of the Catholic Church, when they are nothing of the kind.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Oh yes! For example, the matter of the profession of faith now demanded by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. For he requires all those who have rallied to them, or who might do so, to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and in the post-conciliar reforms. For us, that is impossible.
It will still be necessary to wait before considering the prospect of any agreement. For my part, I believe that only the good God can intervene, for humanly speaking there appears no possibility for Rome to set the course right again.
For fifteen years we have been engaged in dialogue in order to restore Tradition to honour and to the place which is its due in the Church. We have encountered continual refusal. What Rome now grants in favour of Tradition is nothing more than a purely political, diplomatic gesture, intended to force submissions. But it is not born of conviction in the benefits of Tradition.
3. The status of the ‘Indult’ communities ‘in good standing’ with the Vatican
Fideliter: When one sees that Dom Gérard and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter have obtained permission to retain the liturgy and the catechism, without – as they say – having conceded anything, some, troubled by finding themselves in a difficult position with Rome, may in time be tempted to rally in their turn out of weariness. “They have managed, they say, to come to an understanding with Rome without yielding anything.”
Archbishop Lefebvre: When they say they have yielded nothing, that is false. They have yielded the possibility of opposing Rome. They can say nothing now. They must remain silent, in view of the favours that have been granted to them. It is now impossible for them to denounce the errors of the Conciliar Church. Little by little they adhere, if only by the profession of faith demanded by Cardinal Ratzinger. I believe that Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on religious liberty, which will attempt to justify it.
From the point of view of ideas, they are gradually turning, and end by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them a few favours for the sake of Tradition. It is a very dangerous situation.
During the audience granted to Dom Gérard and to a delegation of the monks of Le Barroux, the Pope expressed his desire to see them progress ever further. He did not conceal it. They must submit still more to the archbishop, and must take care not to act in such a way that the conciliar reforms appear to be undervalued because exceptions have been granted to them regarding the liturgical rule of the Council. They must also make an effort to bring back all those who are not yet in obedience to the Holy Father.
These are the urgent exhortations addressed to them, and this indeed is the purpose of the privileges that have been granted to them.
That is why Dom Gérard wrote to Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, to Father Innocent-Marie, to the Capuchins of Morgon, and to others, even attempting to reach me. On his return from Rome he launched this offensive to try to persuade all those who do not follow him to take his path and to rally to Rome.
Everything that has been granted to them has been conceded only with the aim of ensuring that all who adhere to or are linked with the Society detach themselves from it and submit to Rome.
Fideliter: In this way Dom Gérard takes up again the role that had been entrusted to Monsignor Perl.
Archbishop Lefebvre: I have had occasion to see at least three letters that Monsignor Perl sent in reply to persons who had written to him. It is always the same thing: one must absolutely make an effort with those who have not understood the necessity of rallying to the Pope and to the Council. “It is regrettable,” he writes, “to see that there have not been more rallyings.”
Fideliter: You have said, speaking of Dom Gérard and the others: “They are betraying us. They now give their hand to those who are demolishing the Church—to the liberals, to the modernists.” Is that not somewhat severe?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Not at all. They appealed to me for fifteen years. It was not I who went in search of them; they themselves came to me, asking for support, for ordinations, for the friendship of our priests, and also for the opening of all our priories to assist them financially. They all made use of us as long as they could. We did it gladly and even generously. I was happy to perform those ordinations, to open our houses so that they might benefit from the generosity of our benefactors… And then, all of a sudden, I receive a telephone call: we no longer need you, it is over. We will go to the Archbishop of Avignon. We are now in agreement with Rome. We have signed a protocol.
It was not with a light heart that we had difficulties with Rome. It was not for pleasure that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to preserve the Catholic faith. And they were in agreement with us. They collaborated with us. And then, all at once, they abandon the true battle to ally themselves with the destroyers under the pretext that a few privileges have been granted to them. It is inadmissible.
They have practically abandoned the fight for the faith. They can no longer attack Rome.
This is also what Father de Blignières has done. He has changed completely. He, who wrote an entire volume condemning religious liberty, now writes in its favour. It is not serious. One can no longer rely on men such as these, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question.
In any case, I judge that they are committing a grave error. They have sinned gravely by acting as they have done—knowingly, and with an unbelievable levity.
I have heard it said that some monks intend to leave Le Barroux, saying that they can no longer live in an atmosphere of falsehood. I wonder how they have been able to remain until now in such an atmosphere.
The same may be said of those who are with Dom Augustin. They were even more traditionalist than we are, and now they have completely gone over to the other side. For all the young men who are there, it is dreadful to think of such a reversal. They entered the monastery in order truly to be in Tradition. It was the most secure, the firmest Tradition—more so even than that of the Society. They thought themselves guaranteed for ever. And then they turn their coat completely… and they remain. It is inexplicable.
4. Did Lefebvre sign the conciliar documents?
Fideliter: Father de Blignières, Abbé de Nantes, and Dom Gérard have practically accused you of lying when you affirmed that you had not signed two of the Council’s documents, Dignitatis humanae on religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. The review Sedes sapientiae reproduced a document taken from the Vatican archives in which your name appears, written in your own hand. What exactly is the truth of this, and what is that document?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This idea, that the interpretation of signatures implies approval of the conciliar documents, sprang from the ill-intentioned mind of Father de Blignières.
The approvals or rejections of the documents were, of course, carried out for each document individually. The vote was secret, done on individual slips, using a special pencil which allowed electronic counting of the votes. The slips were collected by the secretaries, from the hand of each voter.
The large sheets that passed from hand to hand among the Fathers of the Council, and on which each one affixed his signature, had no meaning of a vote for or against, but simply attested to our presence at that session of voting for four documents.
One would truly have to take the Fathers who voted against the texts for weathercocks, to imagine that they would have approved what they had rejected half an hour earlier.
Such are the results one may expect from the imagination of those who are weathercocks and who now adore what they once burned—like Father de Blignières, Dom Gérard, and the weathercock par excellence, Abbé de Nantes.
[See more: ‘Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II and the Signatures Controversy’ – John Daly]
5. Attending the Masses of the FSSP, etc.
Fideliter: Some among the faithful are tempted to maintain good relations with those who have rallied, or even to attend the Mass or ceremonies which they celebrate. Do you think there is a danger in this?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I have always warned the faithful, for example, in regard to the sedevacantists. They also say: the Mass is good, we go there.
Yes, there is the Mass. It is good, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, the contacts before and after, which cause one gradually to change one’s ideas. It is therefore a danger, and that is why, generally speaking, I consider that it forms a whole. One does not go only to the Mass; one frequents a milieu.
There are, of course, people who are attracted by beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where the old Mass has been resumed. They find themselves in an atmosphere of ambiguity which, in my view, is dangerous. From the moment one finds oneself in that ambience, subject to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends by becoming ecumenical.
6. John Paul II and communion without regard for faith
Fideliter: The Pope is very popular. He gathers the crowds; he wishes to unite all Christians in ecumenism, which he has said is the cornerstone of his pontificate. At first sight it may seem a noble thought, to wish indeed to gather all Christians together.
Archbishop Lefebvre: The Pope wishes to make unity outside the faith. It is a communion. A communion with whom? With what? In what? It is no longer unity. True unity can be achieved only in the unity of the faith. That is what the Church has always taught. That is why there were missionaries: to convert to the Catholic faith. Now there must be no more conversions. The Church is no longer a hierarchical society; it is a communion. Everything is falsified. It is the destruction of the notion of the Church, of Catholicism. It is very grave, and it explains why so many Catholics abandon the faith.
When one adds to this all the scandalous remarks that were made on the occasion of the synod on the priesthood—statements such as those of Cardinals Decourtray and Danneels—one wonders how there can still be any Catholics.
After Assisi, and after similar declarations, one can understand that many people go off to the Mormons, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or elsewhere. They lose the faith; it is only to be expected.
7. Questions relating to the missions
Fideliter: With regard to the synod, Cardinal Lorscheider, announcing that two married Brazilians had been ordained priests, asked that the possibility be studied of ordaining married men “of proven life.”
Archbishop Lefebvre: All this is directed against priestly celibacy. The synod which is to be held in Africa will probably be a step towards the abolition of the celibacy of priests—unless the good God intervenes beforehand.
Fideliter: The growth of Catholicism and the considerable increase in the number of vocations in the countries of Africa, notably in Zaire, where there are said to be several hundred seminarians, are often cited as examples.
Archbishop Lefebvre: But one must see how they are being formed. In these Third World countries there are many children, and to be a priest is a form of social advancement. It is, unfortunately, not a real progress of Catholicism.
I do not say that everything is negative. But they are all conciliar seminarians, with the new Mass, with the introduction of the tom-tom drum, with inculturation in the liturgy. What religion will they have? It will no longer be the Catholic religion, but a kind of religious syncretism with purely external manifestations. It is grave, because it is the destruction of all the work accomplished by the missionaries.
8. A question of faith, rather than of liturgy – and conservative bishops
Fideliter: More than a question of liturgy, as you often say, it is now a question of faith that separates us from today’s Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Certainly, the question of the liturgy and of the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the faith. For us, it is resolved. We have the faith of all time—the faith of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, of all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
For years they strove in Rome to show that everything contained in the Council was perfectly in conformity with Tradition. Now they show their true face. Cardinal Ratzinger has never spoken with such clarity. There is no Tradition. There is no longer any deposit to transmit. Tradition in the Church is what the Pope says today. You must submit yourselves to what the Pope and the bishops say today. For them, that is Tradition—the famous “living Tradition”—the sole reason for our condemnation.
They no longer try to prove that what they say is in conformity with what Pius IX wrote, with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, all that is finished—it is outdated, as Cardinal Ratzinger says. It is clear, and they might as well have said it earlier. There was no need to make us talk, to make us discuss. Now it is the tyranny of authority, because there is no longer any rule. One can no longer refer to the past.
In one sense, things today are becoming clearer. They prove us ever more right. We are dealing with people who have a philosophy different from ours, a different way of seeing, influenced by all the modern and subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, no dogma. Everything is in evolution. This is a wholly Masonic conception. It is truly the destruction of the faith. Fortunately, we continue to rest upon Tradition!
Fideliter: Yes, but you are alone against all.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, it is a great mystery.
Fideliter: In the latest Introibo bulletin, Father André notes that, although they say the new Mass, about ten bishops provide a measure of hope. They are described as “traditional bishops” by the Trombinoscope épiscopal.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, but they are all conciliar. Only Bishop de Castro Mayer and I have resisted the Council and its applications, whereas during the Council there were 250 of us opposed to its errors.
Someone recently made me reread the prophecy of Our Lady of Quito,1 where, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Most Holy Virgin Mary revealed to a holy religious the dissolution of morals and the dreadful crisis now afflicting the Church and her clergy,2 also foretelling that a prelate would devote himself to the restoration of the priesthood.
The Most Holy Virgin announced this for the twentieth century. It is a fact. The good God foresaw this moment in the Church.
9. Marked by providence
Fideliter: You have said that you came to the conviction that the work you have undertaken is blessed by the good God, for on several occasions it might well have disappeared.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, that is true. We have always suffered attacks—very hard, very painful. Often people who have worked with us, who were our friends, have turned against us and become true enemies. It is very distressing, but there is nothing to be done. After a time one perceives that those who bear us ill will and seek to destroy us come to nothing, while we continue. One must believe, after all, that the line of faith and Tradition which we have adopted and which we follow is imperishable, because it is the Church, and God cannot allow his Church to perish.
10. ‘I have gone further than I ought.’
Fideliter: What can you say to those among the faithful who still hope for the possibility of an arrangement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Our true faithful—those who have understood the issue and who have helped us precisely to persevere in the straight and firm line of Tradition and of faith—feared the steps I took towards Rome. They told me that it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the very last moment that in Rome they would show a little loyalty. No one can reproach me for not having done everything possible. So now, to those who come to me saying, “You must come to an understanding with Rome,” I think I can reply that I have gone further than I ought to have gone.
Fideliter: You reply: you have nothing to fear, because we are with Tradition, with the councils before Vatican II, with all that the popes who preceded it have declared…
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, it is evident. If we were inventing something, one might fear that our invention would not endure. But we are doing nothing new.
Not long ago I met a bishop, a friend of mine, with whom I had worked during the Council, who at that time was entirely of my mind. And he said to me: “It is unfortunate that you are in difficulty with Rome.” I replied:
“How—you who fought in the Council for the same reasons as I did—how can you now express surprise? We held continual meetings together, and with others, to try to maintain the line of Tradition in the Council. And now you have abandoned all that. Was what we did reprehensible?
“Look at the results of the Council. Can you show me any that are good, that are positive? In what field, and in what way, have the Council and the reforms it produced brought about an extraordinary renewal in the Church?”
He could not reply. There is nothing. All is negative.
11. Final analysis
Fideliter: And what of the charismatic movement?
Archbishop Lefebvre: That too is negative. It is the devil, since charismatics come to us asking to be exorcised. One must believe that they are possessed by the devil.
They call upon the Spirit. Which spirit? No doubt there are some among them who are of good will, who strive to pray, to go to Adoration, certainly; but the Devil is cunning. He attracts on one side, and on the other he takes back what he has given.
We have not finished fighting. Once I am gone, my successors will still have to fight.
But the good God can do all things. On the political level, it would have been difficult one or two years ago to foresee what is now happening. No one imagined that the Iron Curtain would be lifted, that Germany would be reunified. Now they say that the collapse of the Soviet empire is near.
I have received a letter from a Ukrainian bishop who wished to make contact with us, that we might help him to publish a catechism, because they have nothing left. He spent more than fifteen years in Soviet prison, together with others. A certain number of them are now released.
He found his diocese in an appalling state, because everything now belongs to the Orthodox Church. They have taken everything. So they are trying to recover what they can, but they have against them the Vatican, which is poisoned by this affair. The return of these bishops and priests who wish to bring the Catholic Church back to life in Ukraine is an embarrassment to the Vatican, which wishes above all to avoid any conflict with the Kremlin and with the Orthodox. This Catholic revival in Ukraine is an embarrassment to them. This is what this bishop writes to me: “There truly is a mystery that hangs over us regarding the attitude of Rome.”
For us, it is no mystery!
Fideliter: What assessment can be made of the Fraternity after twenty years of existence?
Archbishop Lefebvre: The good God has willed Tradition. I am deeply convinced that the Fraternity represents the means willed by the good God to preserve and maintain the faith, the truth of the Church, and whatever can still be saved within the Church. Thanks also to the bishops who surround the Superior General of the Fraternity, who fulfil their indispensable role as guardians of the faith, preachers of the faith, and communicators of the graces of the priesthood and of confirmation, Tradition remains unchanged and always a fruitful source of divine life.
All this is truly very consoling, and I think that we must thank the good God and continue faithfully to preserve the treasures of the Church, in the hope that one day these treasures will regain the place that is their due in Rome, which they should never have lost.
Interview conducted by André Cagnon, for Fideliter n. 79, jan-fev 1991.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Note from LPL: Extract from the sermon of the consecrations of 30 June 1988:
“Recently, our priest in charge of the priory of Bogotá, in Colombia, brought me a book written about the apparitions of Buen Suceso—of Good Success—which has a great church in Ecuador, at Quito, the capital of Ecuador, and which recounts the apparitions granted to a religious of a convent in Quito, shortly after the Council of Trent. Thus, as you see, it dates from several centuries ago. Well, the Most Holy Virgin said to this religious—this has been recorded, and the apparition has been recognised by Rome and by the ecclesiastical authorities, since a magnificent church was built for the Virgin. Moreover, the historians say that the sculptor was in the process of finishing the face of the Virgin when he found it already completed, miraculously. This miraculous Virgin is therefore venerated there with great devotion by the faithful of Ecuador—and this Virgin prophesied for the twentieth century. She said explicitly:
‘During the nineteenth century and the greater part of the twentieth century, errors will spread ever more forcefully within the Holy Church, placing the Church in a state of absolute catastrophe—of disaster—and morals will be corrupted, and faith will disappear.’
“It seems that we cannot fail to recognise this, and I beg pardon for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will stand absolutely opposed to this wave of apostasy and impiety by preserving the priesthood, by forming good priests. You may make the application if you wish; I do not wish to make it myself, I cannot. I was myself astonished on reading these lines, I cannot deny it—it is there, written, printed, recorded in the archives of this apparition.”
Cf. Fideliter no. 66, November–December 1988.
Thank you for bringing the words of Lefebvre back to our attention.
Just a little typo: here is the link to the 1991 article you translated. The current link in the above article points to a 1989 interview. https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/ecclesiadeisme/mgr-lefebvre-ce-nest-plus-seulement-une-question-de-liturgie-qui-nous-separe-de-rome-mais-une-question-de-foi-janvier-fevrier-1991
I had a copy of the story of Our Lady of Good Success. I loaned it to a friend, and don't have it now. I do remember many details........Sr Lucia also said Our Lady of Fatima told her Russia would spread its errors without the papal consecration to her Immaculate Heart. The Faithful sure need to pray.......Thanks.