Newly Transcribed: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Conferences w/ the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary on April 24, 1983

Newly Transcribed: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Conferences w/ the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary on April 24, 1983

The conference below was previously only available on an old audio recording. It has recently been transcribed and placed online at Catholic Truth.


The following links are carrying in Microsoft Word format (.docx) a transcript of four conferences and an appendix arranged by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary on April 24, 1983.

Note that the transcript is in the form of .jpg images for technical reasons.

Conference 1
Conference 2
Conference 3
Conference 4

Here is the link to the website, in case the links above do not work:

Get AQ Email Updates

12 comments on “Newly Transcribed: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Conferences w/ the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary on April 24, 1983

  1. Some Excerpts From Conference 1 –


    “I have sought many times to give ordinations; that is the principal gift to receive in the seminary. But you now that today I cannot give ordination to you. Why? You know that.”

    “I cannot give ordination because in November (1982). I gave the priesthood to 3 of you, i.e., 3 young deacons, and I think in January… at the end of January, when I asked young Fr. Zapp to go to St. Mary’s to help Fr. De LaTour, he said, ‘No. I cannot go to St. Mary’s. I refuse to go to St. Mary’s.’ For me it was very sad and very bad… a young priest, the first priest (to do this in the Society)… I ask him to go… and he said: ‘I refuse’. Why?? Why refuse? Why? He said: ‘I cannot go to St. Mary’s, because at St. Mary’s they have the rite (liturgy) of Pope John XXIII.'”

    “But this fact, this refusal of Fr. Zapp’s was an unveiling of another thing more important… (of something far graver)… more sad. For I know as he said to me (himself) that he was supported by the director of the seminary (Fr. Sanborn). And so if the director of semiary of Ridgefield helps the seminarians to disobey to the Superior General of the Fraternity, then where are we going? Then what is the semianry? He (Fr. Zapp) is the first priest I ordain here… these 3 young priests (I ordained), who were here for all of their studies… (the first fruits of the semianry)… the first to refuse to go to the place (I assigned him) because he refused the liturgy of that place.”

    “The director (himself) of the semiary… he agreed with this young priest… tht is impossible! Not only the director of the semianry was agreed with this young priest, but some professors and some priests fromt he Northeast District. They say (they agreed with Fr. Zapp) because the liturgy of Pope Paul XXIII is not good. And so they condemn it… they condemn me… and they condemn Econe… How is this possible???… that they condemn the bishop who gave them their ordinations?

  2. More Excerpts From Conference 1 –


    “Now, not only do they dispute about the liturgy, but also about the pope… you know that some of these priests… they are, in their hearts, against the fact that there is a pope in Rome. They say that there is no pope in Rome, no pope in the Church, no Cardinals in rome, no more hierarchy in the Church. In their hearts they say all sacraments in the new reform… all sacraments, they are invalid. And so they show that ‘their spirit’ is not the same as my spirit and my teaching. The teaching I have always given in my seminaries, in Econe, in Zeitskoffen, in Buenos Aires, in Albano, its the same… I do not change… I cannot change. (This spirit of theirs), that is very very very sad.”

    “But to interpret the situation of the Church now, we have not the same meaning, nor the same thinking. This is very dangerous, i.e., the way they follow is very very dangerous. You now that there are other priests in the world, in France, in America, in Mexico, in Dutchland, in Germany,… there are some priests who follow the same dangerous way. They say: ‘No more pope; no more… all sacraments are invalid, etc.’ But now they are going, slowly, slowly, into SCHISM. That is very dangerous… very dangerous.”

    “What is the first principle to know what we must do in this circumstance, in this crisis in the Church? What is my principle? The principle of the Church is the principle of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is not my choice; its not my favor; its not my personal desire… I am nothing… I merely follow the doctrine of the Church… and this doctrine is exponded by St. Thomas Aquinas… So what does St. Thomas Aquinas say about the authority in the Church? When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church? PRINCIPLE: ‘Only when the Fiath is in question.’ Only in this case. Not in other cases… only when the Faith is in question… and that is found in the Summas Theologica: II II Q.33, a.4, ad 2m:”

    “That is the principle (of St. Thomas), and I cannot harbor another motive to resist the Pope… it is very serious to be opposed to the Pope, and to the Church. It is very serious, and if we think that we must do that, we must do it (resist the Holy Father) only to preserve our Faith, andnot for any other motive.”

    “So, I have said concerning this reform (of Pope John XXIII), we must obey the pope, especially since we have no reason to refuse it.”

    “… but now, today, with this fact of Fr. Zapp (his insubordination), now I know… (said very distressedly) now I know that they do not accept (the John XXIII liturgy), they refuse it! And they speak against this institution! That is true! I cannot accept that… that is a rupture… a division in the Fraternity.”

  3. Charlotte NC Bill on said:

    The Archbp that wouldn’t compromise with modernist Rome is ashamed of the current Sup Gen..and his Zionist ( no, he’s not a Zionist…everyone’s been to Maglan Special Forces training’s like going to Disneyland..don’t you know? ) Jew lawyer and business partner ( Dello Sarto AG )….For the real perspective on the current state of the SSPX go to or or At sos read about Fr. ringrose’s courageous response to Fr. Rostand…Fr. Ringrose has St Athanasius in vienna, Va….which has long worked with the SSPX until the reign of Bp Fellay became acutely corrupted and compromised….Now he’s working with the SSPXSO until such time as the SSPX can be cleansed of Bp Fellay/Max Krah and the corrupting influence of the Guttman’s money which has apparently seduced our once decent Sup Gen…

  4. Charlotte NC Bill on said:

    No he’s not a Zionist..The trustee ( Krah ) of the Jaidhofer Foundation ( which is buying influence in the SSPX ) just holds fundraisers for the American Friends of Tel Aviv Univ,,,,undermined Bp Williamson’s defense every chance he got ( Fr Ringrose commented on the shabby treatment that Bp Fellay and his Jewish friends have been dishing out to Bp Williamson ) and recently attacked German poet Gunter Grass….But probably covered all this…But he’s “anti-catholic”…Right…Everything not approved by is now anti-catholic…..If you’re really true to the teachings of the can no longer suport the current Sup Gen…Bp Fellay has got to go or the dissension and resistance will only grow…And it should..

    • Like I said, you are truly off balance. The fact that you support a fellow off balance trad (the man who put together the SOSSaveOurSSPX website) and ‘Maurice Pinay’ are just further evidence.

  5. Charlotte NC Bill on said:

    Fr ringrose speaks for himself…..Fr. Hewko..Fr Chazal and Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Cardoza speak for themselves..Soon bp Williamson will to…Bp fellay’s voice is not the only voice of Catholic Tradition..He doesn’t own the traditionalist movement…he’s hasn’t trademarked ” Traditional Catholicism ” yet..( though he would no doubt like to )…’s just a coincidence that after the Jaidhofer/Gutman money began to flow in all the articles in the District websites detailing the activities of our “elder brothers’ ( Freemasonry, bolshevism, etc. ) were removed….And the different posture of the Sup Gen on just about everything..Just a coincidence…

    • yes, They speak for themselves … But is what they are saying true?

      Is what you are saying true?

      For example you accuse Dr. Krah of a number of things. Being Jewish, a Zionist, etc because of what evidence? A few pictures? What makes Dr. Krah’s explanations less true than that of the demons of the internet?

      Does my association with a former idf commando make me a Zionist? He had the office next to mine?

      If it is guilt by association, what if your baby accused you of the Haditha massacre because of your admitted association with usmc?

      What you have missed in all your calculations is that the sspx was established canonically within the Church structures and the argument goes illegally suppressed. The reduces the sspx-so to just a bunch of priests and a bishop who have formed an unregistered militia because they did not agree with the commandant of the used. In the life of the Church it means the sspx-so does not exist as a congregation … The sspx does.

      There is nothing that can alter this significant distinction between the sspx and any and all the various groups establish independently of the Church.

  6. seek. ask. knock. this’ll result in nuuuuuthing in the NOkirk…but. seek. ask. knock. St Peter exhibited the ‘woohoo – i see’, and the ‘get the behind me Satan’. sifting the Christly from the Satanic of the successor of Peter is tipping towards great ‘deaths’ in the ‘flock’ in our days…but let’s stick with the Sovereignty of Our Lord who singled out Peter…who will sometimes feed the Lord’s sheep, and sometimes be one to whom Our Lord will say, get thee behind me Satan.

    So, what does an average Christ hungering-baa-lamb do?

    …this would be where a consecrated ordained apostolic ‘i-see’, sheep feeder might offer some comfort-advice-wisdom…

    the ‘transalpine redemptorists’ who were brought into the Body of Christ this year, as Fr. Michael Mary writes, were fed and sustained by the Immaculate Heart of Mary for decades and rewarded with an opening door under PBXVI. “We thank God for the great grace of our canonical structure within the Barque of Peter” (editorial-In Peaceful and Undisputed Communion-Catholic 2012_No. 277

    p.s. what do those of us who live hundreds of miles from Traditional-Valid Mass do?

    A: Follow Me…

  7. Since even the most notable “inquiries” established by legitimate “authority”, both secuar and ecclesiastic, seem to be little more than false flag ops run from behind the scenes, it most likely will always be the case that whatever comes out of Mint-zinger-dom or sunny Roma is going to be highly seasoned.

    Hard evidence, given the presence of easy manipulation of facts, photos, documents, etc. on the internet, will always provide a basis of “reasonable doubt” on all sides.

    My own contention that a management shake-up is overdue in the Society, based not on personalities or promises, has been rooted in experience with a number of organizations going back decades. Trust must be re-earned every day.

    Thus, a measure of what Bill says here is worthy of pursuit. And the same applies to Tradical’s measured responses.

    Once again, a full airing of ALL “financial affiliation and destination” questions is not only appropriate, it will prove necessary for the future success of the Society as the single most prominent Traditional voice in the world, today.

    There is no shortage of anti-Traditionalist interest groups and they lack little, either in means or intent, to undo the movement. To regain the affection of disaffected priests and laity, an authentic venting and complete removal of all question about the clarity and purity of the Society’s thoroughly Catholic aspirations must be accomplished.

    Sadly, I do not think this will ever occur. Thus, either attrition or disembowelment on the PC altar of Modernism will eventually end the Society’s usefulness.

Leave a Reply