Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Marcel Lefebvre

Quote by Marcel Lefebvre

“I am asked how it is that I can refuse orders which come from Rome. Indeed, these orders do come from Rome, but which Rome? I believe in the Eternal Rome, the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Rome which dispenses the very life of the Church, the Rome which transmits the true Tradition of the Church. I am considered disobedient, but I am moved to ask, why have those who are issuing orders which in themselves are blameworthy been given their authority? The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests have been given their authority for the purpose of transmitting life, the spiritual life, the supernatural life, eternal life, just as parents and society as a whole have been given their authority to transmit and protect life. The word "authority" itself is from the Latin, "auctoritas', and "auctor" which means "author", author of life. We have authority insofar as we transmit and sustain life. We are not authorized to transmit death, society is not permitted to pass laws which authorize abortion, because abortion is death. In like manner, the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, and the priests exist as such to transmit and sustain spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many of them today no longer transmit or sustain life, but rather authorize spiritual abortion.”

Quote by Marcel Lefebvre

Work

Author

Marcel Lefebvre

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Marcel Lefebvre. more

You May Also Like

“This, of course, is very simple for us who are Catholics. This is our Faith, the Faith we have always been taught, and yet, in our own time, how many Catholics still accept this truth, that salvation comes to all men through Jesus Christ, that outside of Christ there is no salvation? I find it extraordinary that Catholics should question the age old adage, "no salvation outside the Church". This is precisely the most important question facing mankind today, just as it has been in every age. Indeed there is nothing more vital to man than for him to know how he is to be saved, by whom he is to be saved, and in what manner he is to be saved. Can there possibly be a question of greater moment for those who inhabit the earth? Now it is quite certain that when we proclaim today that there is "no salvation outside the Church", many Catholics rise up incredulously and affirm that this is nonsense, that otherwise those not in the Church must be condemned to Hell. The fact is, however, that this remains a crucial tenant to all mankind. As Catholics we are bound to affirm what the Church has always affirmed, because the Church is the repository of all truth; the Sone of God was made man to be crucified for the salvation of all men. Can there possibly be any other source of salvation outside of the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ? Can we as Catholics accept that Luther, Buddha, or Mohammed are also means of eternal salvation? Are they also in Heaven seated at the right hand of God? Yet today, despite the absurdity, many Catholics no longer accept that there is "no salvation outside the Church".”

“During a sinister interchange between one of the little princes and his wicked uncle, Richard III, the prince wonders how truth is passed down the ages - whether through the written or the spoken word (3.1.75-83). The prince believes, he says innocently, that the history of the Tower of London - a choice of subject never far from the minds of English Catholics - would survive simply by word of mouth, even if it were never written down. The little prince has stepped into dangerous territory. He is not only defending the role of tradition against scripture - a central Catholic Reformation stance - but he also suggests that the grisly truth about England's persecutions will survive irrespective of what appears in history books.”

“What is most astonishing, most alarming is the fact that although these deficiencies were obvious to a layman like myself, with no specialized theological knowledge, almost every Catholic hierarchy in the world pronounced in favour of the ARCIC Statements. The gravity of this fact cannot possibly be exaggerated. Can there have been such a virtually universal failure of the Teaching Church (Rome excepted) since the Arian heresy?”

“When we talk to our fellow men and they tell us about their troubles, we will listen to them carefully if we have love for them. We will have compassion for their suffering and pain, for we are God's creatures; we are a manifestation of the love of God.”

“Yet still they cling to the anti-Catholic ideas of Vatican II. Alongside the "Motu Proprio" apparently favoring the Mass of the true Faith, Benedict XVI organizes and presides over ecumenical meetings which, by placing the Catholic religion on a more or less equal footing with all other religions, officially represented and all necessarily more or less false, are a grave offense to God. So any apparent benevolence shown by Benedict XVI towards the true Faith or the true Mass can only mean that he wishes them to be reconciled with the Conciliar religion and all other religions! Therefore if he is not a conscience agent of truth-dissolving Freemasonry, at any rate he has no understanding of the true Faith, and so he cannot grasp how absolutely opposed it is to the man-centered religion of Vatican II. (Eleison Comments letter #36)”

“A priestly colleague of the Society of St. Pius X has just written (or maybe adopted) a parable whereby the Society is the last cartridge of a hunter who must shoot to kill the monster of Neo-modernism entrenched within the structures of the Catholic Church. Since it is the last cartridge, the hunter cannot afford to miss! Well, the "hunter" may be burdened, but let me attempt to assure him that he is not burdened that much! (Eleison Comments letter #47)”

“Archbishop Lefebvre's detractors frequently accuse him of rejecting or defying a General Council of the Church. Such a claim requires a great deal of clarification before it can be proved true or false. Is it claimed, for example, that Mgr. Lefebvre has denied that Vatican II really was a general council; that its documents were not approved by a majority of the Council Fathers and confirmed and promulgated by the Pope? What Archbishop Lefebvre has claimed in fact is that the reforms imposed in the name of the Council constitute an inexcusable breach with Tradition and are destroying the Church. He insists further that the seeds of this process of self-destruction can be found within the Council itself. If what he claims is true, then he is right to reject the post-conciliar reforms and to urge the Faithful to do so; indeed, it would be his duty in conscience to take this step even if it meant, as it has done, that he should decline to accept the clearly expressed wishes of the Pope.”

“What I do argue is that a prelate, like Mgr. Lefebvre, who has rendered the Church outstanding service, is, at the very least, entitled to have his case presented fairly and considered seriously. Mgr. Leonard, I am afraid, has failed conspicuously to do this in the pamphlet under review. This provides yet another instance of a most interesting fact: viz, that Archbishop Lefebvre's critics appear never to dare to present his case factually and fairly or to refute it with reasoned and documented arguments and evidence.”

“Then there are two Churches? No way. There is only one immaculate Bride of Christ. Then does the expression "Conciliar Church" have no real meaning? Alas, it names an all too real reality. It names all those members and structures of the one true Church as caught up in the toils of the subtle errors of Vatican II, and as tending all the time to be taken out of the true Church by these errors. This is the "Conciliar Church" from which Archbishop Lefebvre did not mind being "excommunicated", because, as he said, he never belonged to it in the first place. (Eleison Comments letter #105)”