| Home - Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Videos |

Archbishop Lefebvre met with the impostor pope on September 11, 1976


"My child, I bring to you a sad truth, one that must be made known to mankind .... Our dear beloved Vicar, Pope Paul VI, he suffers much at the hands of those he trusts....
     "He is not able to do his mission. They have laid him low, My child. He is ill, he is very ill. Now there is one who is ruling in his place, an impostor, created from the minds of the agents of satan. Plastic surgery, My child - the best of surgeons were used to create this impostor.
     "Shout from the rooftops! He must be exposed and removed. Behind him, My child, there are three who have given themselves to satan. You do not receive the truth in your country and the world. Your Vicar is a prisoner....
     "Casaroli, you shall condemn your soul to hell! Giovanni Benelli, what road have you taken? You are on the road to hell and damnation! Villot, leader of evil, take yourself from among those traitors; you are not unknown to the Eternal Father." 
- Our Lady of the Roses, September 27, 1975 

Archbishop Lefebvre is reported to have said that he didn't believe in Bayside because of the revelation of the impostor pope replacing Pope Paul VI, he said God would not allow that to happen to the Church. Our Lady said that the impostor pope was "common knowledge" in Rome. Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre met with the impostor pope on September 11, 1976, a meeting that perhaps precipitated his path into schism:

Archbishop Lefebvre: meeting of September 11, 1976

The following account of Archbishop Lefebvre's audience with “Pope Paul VI” (actually the impostor pope) on September 11, 1976, is entirely in the Archbishop's own words:

“I tell you quite sincerely that this meeting with the Pope was for me altogether unexpected. Certainly I had been wanting it for several years. I had asked to meet the Holy Father, to talk to him about my seminary, my work - I might say to give him joy because I was still able, in spite of the circumstances, to manage to form some priests, to help the Church in the formation of priests. But I never succeeded. I was always told that the Pope had not time to receive me. Then, little by little, when the seminary was penalized, the difficulties were obviously greater, with the result that I was never able to get through the bronze door. But after those events (the suppression of the seminary and the suppression of the Fraternity) the condition set for my seeing the Holy Father was that I submit to the Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and the post-conciliar orientations desired by the Holy Father - that is, practically, the closure of my seminary. That I did not accept. I could not accept the closure of my seminary or the cessation of ordinations in the seminary, because I consider that I am doing constructive work, I am building the Church, not pulling it down, though the demolition is going on all around me. I consider that I cannot in conscience collaborate in the destruction of the Church. That brought us to a complete deadlock: on the one side the Holy See was imposing conditions which meant the closure of the seminary, and on the other side I would not have the seminary closed. It seemed, therefore, that dialogue was impossible. Then, as you know, that penalty of suspension a divinis was imposed, which is very serious in the Church, especially for a bishop: it means that I am forbidden to perform acts corresponding to my episcopal ordination - no Mass, no sacraments, no administering of sacraments. Very serious. That shocked public opinion, and it so happened that a current of opinion was formed in my favor. It was not I who sought it: it was the Holy See itself which gave tremendous publicity to the suspension and to the seminary. You represent all the means for the diffusion of news, and it was your job to give people what they wanted by speaking of this event. That set moving a wave of opinion which, to say the least, was unexpected by the Vatican.

So the Vatican found itself in a rather delicate and tiresome situation in face of public opinion, and that, I think or least imagine, is why the Pope wanted to see me after all, but not officially through the usual channels: I did not see Mgr. Martin, who usually arranges audiences, nor did I meet Cardinal Villot - I met no one. It so happened that I was at Besançon preparing for Mass when I was told: "There is a priest come from Rome who would like to see you after Mass. It is very urgent and very important." I said: "I'll see him after Mass."

So after Mass we retired to a corner of the room where we happened to be, and this priest, Don Domenico La Bellarte I think - I did not know him, having never in my life set eyes on him - said to me: "The Archbishop of Chieti, my superior, saw the Holy Father recently, and the Holy Father expressed a desire to see you." I said to him: "Look, I've been wanting to see the Holy Father for five years. They always impose conditions, and they will impose the same conditions again. I do not see why I should go to Rome now." [note: Our Lady of the Roses message, and the REAL Third Secret of Fatima, mentions that satan would enter Rome in the year 1972] He insisted, saying: "There has been a change. Something has changed at Rome in the situation with regard to you." "Very well. If you can assure me that the Archbishop of Chieti will accompany me to the Holy Father, I have never refused to see the Holy Father and I am willing to go."

I then promised him that I would go to Rome as soon as possible. I had the ceremony at Fanjeaux, so I went to Fanjeaux, so I went to Fanjeux and afterwards went direct by car to Rome. I tried to get in touch with that priest, and I met him in Rome, where he said to me: "You had better, all the same, write a bit of a letter to the Holy Father which I can give to Mgr. Macchi, his secretary, and then you will be able to see the Holy Father." I said: "But what sort of letter? There is no question of my asking pardon or saying that I accept beforehand whatever will be imposed on me. I will not accept that." Then he said to me: "Write anything. Put something on paper and I'll take it at once to Castelgandolfo." I wrote expressing my deep respect for the person of the Holy Father and saying that if there were, in the expressions I had used in speeches and writings, anything displeasing to the Holy Father, I regretted them; that I was always ready to be received, and hope to be received, by the Holy Father. I signed the letter, and that was that.1 The priest did not even read the little note I had written but put it in an envelope. I addressed the envelope to the Holy Father and we set off for Castelgandolfo. He went in to the palace. We remained a while outside. He went to see Mgr. Macchi, who said to him: "I cannot give you an answer at once. I will let you know about seven this evening." That was last Thursday evening. And in fact at seven I got a telephone call in my house at Albano. I was told: "You will have an audience with the Holy Father tomorrow at ten-thirty."

So, the next day, Saturday, at quarter past ten, I went to Castelgandolfo, and there I really believe the Holy Angels had driven out the Vatican employees because I had come back there: there were two Swiss Guards at the entrance, and after that I encountered only Mgr X (not Mgr. Y: their names are very alike). Mgr. X, the Canadian, conducted me to the lift. Only the lift man was there, that is all, and I went up. The three of us went up to the first floor, and there, accompanied by Mgr. X, I went through all the rooms: there are at least seven or eight before you come to the Holy Father's office. Not a living soul! Usually - I have often been to private audience in the days of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, and even Pope Paul VI - there is always at least one Swiss Guard, always a gendarme, always several people: a private chamberlain, a monseigneur who is present if only to keep an eye on things and prevent incidents. But the rooms were empty - nothing, absolutely nothing. So I went to the Holy Father's office, where I found the Holy Father with Mgr. Benelli at his side. I greeted the Holy Father and I greeted Mgr. Benelli. We seated ourselves at once, and the audience began.

The Holy Father was lively enough at the beginning - one could almost call it somewhat violent in a way: one could feel that he was deeply wounded and rather provoked by what we are doing. He said to me:

"You condemn me, you condemn me. I am a Modernist. I am a Protestant. It cannot be allowed, you are doing an evil work, you ought not to continue, you are causing scandal in the Church, etc..." with nervous irritability.

I kept quiet, you may be sure. After that he said to me:

"Well, speak now, speak. What have you to say?"

I said to him:

"Holy Father, I come here, but not as the head of the traditionalists. You have said I am head of the traditionalists. I deny flatly that I am head of the traditionalists. I am only a Catholic, a priest, a bishop, among millions of Catholics, thousands of priests and other bishops who are torn and pulled apart in conscience, in mind, in heart. On the one side we desire to submit to you entirely, to follow you in everything, to have no reserves about your person, and on the other side we are aware that the lines taken by the Holy See since the Council, and the whole new orientation, turn us away from your predecessors. What then are we to do? We find ourselves obliged either to attach ourselves to your predecessors or to attach ourselves to your person and separate ourselves from your predecessors. For Catholics to be torn like that is unheard of, unbelievable. And it is not I who have provoked that, it is not a movement made by me, it is a feeling that comes from the hearts of the faithful, millions of the faithful whom I do not know. I have no idea how many there are. They are all over the world, everywhere. Everybody is uneasy about this upset that has happened in the Church in the last ten years, about the ruins accumulating in the Church. Here are examples: there is a basic attitude in people, an interior attitude which makes them now unchangeable. They will not change because they have chosen: they have made their choice for Tradition and for those who maintain Tradition. There are examples like that of the religious Sisters I saw two days ago, good religious who wish to keep their religious life, who teach children as their parents want them to be taught - many parents bring their children to them because they will receive a Catholic education from these religious. So, here are religious keeping their religious habit; and just because they wish to preserve the old prayer and to keep the old catechism they are excommunicated. The Superior General has been dismissed. The bishop has been five times, requiring them to abandon their religious habit because they have been reduced to the lay state. People who see that do not understand. And, side by side with that, nuns who discard their habit, return to all the worldly vanities, no longer have a religious rule, no longer pray - they are officially approved by bishops, and no one says a word against them! The man in the street, the poor Christian, seeing these things cannot accept them. That is impossible. Then it is the same for priests. Good priests who say their Mass well, who pray, who are to be found in the confessional, who preach true doctrine, who visit the sick, who wear their soutane, who are true priests loved by their people because they keep the Old Mass, the Mass of their ordination, who keep the old catechism, are thrown on the street as worthless creatures, all but excommunicated. And then priests go into factories, never dress as priests so that there is no knowing what they are, preach revolution - and they are officially accepted, and nobody says anything to them. As for me, I am in the same case. I try to make priests, good priests as they were made formerly; there are many vocations, the young men are admired by the people who see them in trains, on the underground; they are greeted, admired, congratulated on their dress and bearing; and I am suspended a divinis! And the bishops who have no more seminarians, no young priests, nothing, and whose seminaries no longer make good priests - nothing is said to them! You understand; the poor average Christian sees it clearly. He has chosen and he will not budge. He has reached his limit. It is impossible."

"That is not true. You do not train good priests," he said to me, "because you make them take an oath against the Pope."

"What!" I answered. "An oath against the Pope? I who, on the contrary, try to give them respect for the Pope, respect for the successor of Peter! On the contrary, we pray for the Holy Father, and you will never be able to show me this oath which they take against the Pope. Can you give me a copy of it?"

And now, officially, the Vatican spokesmen have published in today's paper, where you can read it, the Vatican denial, saying that it is not true, that the Holy Father did not say that to me: the Holy Father did not say to me that I made my seminarians and young priests take an oath against the Pope. But how could I have invented that? How invent anything of the kind? It is unthinkable. But now they deny it: the Holy Father did not say it. It is incredible. And obviously I have no tape recording. I did not write out the whole conversation, so I cannot prove the contrary materially. But my very reaction! I cannot forget how I reacted to that assertion by the Holy Father. I can still see myself gesturing and saying: "But how, Holy Father, can you possibly say such a thing! Can you show me a copy of the oath?" And now they are saying it is not true. It is extraordinary!

Then the Holy Father said to me, further:

"It is true, is it not, that you condemn me?"

I had the strong impression that it all came back rather to his person, that he was personally hurt:

"You condemn me, so what ought I to do? Must I hand in my resignation and let you take my place?"

"Oh!" I put my head in my hands.

"Holy Father, do not say such things. No, no, no, no!" I then said:

"Holy Father, let me continue. You have the solution of the problem in your hands. You need say only one word to the bishops: receive fraternally, with understanding and charity all those groups of traditionalists, all those who wish to keep the prayer of former days, the sacraments as before, the catechism as before. Receive them, give them places of worship, settle with them so that they can pray and remain in relation with you, in intimate relation with their bishops. You need say only one word to the bishops and everything will return to order and at that moment we shall have no more problems. Things will return to order. As for the seminary, I myself shall have no difficulty in going to the bishops and asking them to implant my priests in their dioceses: things will be done normally. I myself am very willing to renew relations with a commission you could name from the Congregation of Religious to come to the seminary. But clearly we shall keep and wish to continue the practice of Tradition. We should be allowed to maintain that practice. But I want to return to normal and official relations with the Holy See and with the Congregations. Beyond that I want nothing.”

He then said to me:

“I must reflect, I must pray, I must consult the Consistory, I must consult the Curia. I cannot give you an answer. We shall see.”

After that he said to me: "We will pray together."

I said: "Most willingly, Holy Father."

We then said the Pater Noster, Veni Creator, and an Ave Maria, and he then led me back very pleasantly, but with difficulty - his walk was painful, and he dragged his legs a little. In the room to the side he waited until Domenico came for me; and he had a small medal given to Don Domenico. We then left. Mgr. Benelli did not open his mouth; he did nothing but write all the time, like a secretary. He did not bother me at all. It was as though Mgr. Benelli were not present. I think it did not trouble the Holy Father, just as it did not trouble me, because he did not open his mouth, and gave no sign. I then said twice again that he had the solution of the problem in his hands. He then showed his satisfaction at having had this interview, this dialogue. I said I was always at his disposal. We then left.

Since then, they are now relating what they like in the newspapers, the most fantastic inventions - that I accepted everything, that I made a complete submission; then they said it was all to the contrary - that I had accepted nothing and conceded nothing. Now they are telling me, in effect, that I lied, that I am inventing things in the conversation I had with the Holy Father. My impression is that they are so furious that this audience took place unforeseen, without going through the usual channels, that they are trying in every way to discredit it, and to discredit me as well. Clearly they are afraid that this audience puts me back in favor with many people, who are saying: Now, if Monseigneur has seen the Holy Father, there are no more problems: he is back again with the Holy Father. In fact, we have never been against the Holy Father and have always wanted to be with the Holy Father.

Moreover, I have just written to him again because Cardinal Thiandoum was so insistent on that2 so that he could have a short note from me to take to the Holy Father. I said to him: "Good. I am ready to write a short letter to the Holy Father (though I am beginning to think that this correspondence is endless), I want to thank the Holy Father for granting me this audience." I did that, and thanked the Holy Father. 



June 17, 1988 - Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned Archbishop Lefebvre that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.

June 30, 1988 - Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.

July 1, 1988 - Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism".

"My child, this evening there is one more subject that must be resolved and dismissed quickly. All over your country and the world, there are groups forming that have alienated themselves from their hierarchy. I have asked you many times to not form another church. I have asked you to remain and suffer for all of the souls upon earth—suffer, even though you know that the Eternal Father watches what is going on. We do not want a schism. We do not wish that new churches be formed. Though the meaning is well, they can lead to nothing but destruction and schism.
     "We hear all names coming forward to Our ears of churches being born anew, called the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. My child and My children, We need no more Traditionalists running around and creating new churches. We have to remain steadfast and firm in our convictions that with enough prayer, and also the firm example of holiness among many, this will not happen.
"We do not condemn those who make these side churches, the Traditional Roman Catholic churches; they mean well, but they are being led astray. There will be eventually an American Catholic Church if this continues. This is not approved by Heaven. Man's judgment can always err, especially when he discounts the knowledge of the supernatural.
     "Remember, My children, I have asked you to remain steadfast in your parish churches, even though it will be a crucifixion to you. We cannot have schism in the United States and Canada. For those who are united shall stand, and those who divide themselves shall fall. My child and My children, do not discount this part of the Message from Heaven. It is most urgent that this breaking away stop now before it evolves into a major schism." - September 14, 1985


"This impostor, who has been given the image of the Pope, Our Vicar Paul VI, will pose and assume a role of compromise to the world. It is the plan of the evil ones about him ... to discredit your Vicar by placing him in print and photographs in a compromising position to destroy him."  - Our Lady, April 10, 1976


Directives from Heaven:

D49 - Pope Paul VI  PDF Logo PDF
D50 -
The Impostor Pope PDF Logo PDF
D129 -
Third Secret of Fatima Explained: Part 1 - 666 in Rome  PDF Logo PDF
D130 -
Third Secret of Fatima Explained: Part 2 - Satan entered the Church in 1972  PDF Logo PDF
D131 -
Third Secret of Fatima Explained: Part 3 - Satan entered the highest realms of the hierarchy  PDF Logo PDF
- Third Secret of Fatima Explained: Part 4 - There shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, as satan has set himself in their midst  PDF LogoPDF
D727 - Villot, Benelli and Casaroli  PDF LogoPDF


Articles (impostor pope):

The Deception of the Century: The Impostor Pope

Witness to the impostor pope: an Immaculate Heart of Mary nun sees Pope Paul VI and impostor pope within minutes of each other

Warnings from Beyond: A Swiss exorcism reveals existence of an impostor to Pope Paul VI

More evidence of a fabrication: Jacinta's vision of the Holy Father, "the poor little one," was Pope Paul VI

Why Pope Paul VI is the Pope mentioned in the REAL Third Secret of Fatima

Will the real Pope Paul VI please stand up?


Articles (Third Secret of Fatima):

Third Secret of Fatima:

VIDEO: "Third Secret" released by Vatican on June 26, 2000 is a FORGERY

The REAL Third Secret of Fatima explains the chaos

Evidence of a fabrication: Sister Lucy's handwriting notably different in document released by Vatican as the "third secret"

Evidence of a fabrication: World-famous forensic expert believes Vatican's released "third secret" is not in Sister Lucy's authentic handwriting

Sister Lucy's real handwriting, displayed before millions of viewers

Chief Exorcist Father Amorth: Padre Pio Knew the Third Secret: 'It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.'

Sister Lucy confided, in the 1970s, that "the chastisement predicted by Our Lady in the Third Secret had already begun"

Writing expert gives two reasons for radical changes in handwriting

The Third Secret Envelopes Expose a Vatican Forgery and a Vatican Lie about the Release Date of the Third Secret

Fatima’s Third Secret—More Relevant than Ever?

1989 letter quoted in Vatican's 'third secret' document also a forgery

Third Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so"

Evidence of a fabrication: The REAL Third Secret of Fatima specifically mentioned the year 1972, as Jacinta revealed to Mother Godinho

Two historical facts cast aside by the Fatima experts

Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached


Third Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so"


Fr. Alonso, official achivist of Fatima: The REAL Third Secret of Fatima warned of apostasy in the Church

Cardinal Oddi on the REAL Third Secret of Fatima: "The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church"

Third Secret tells of a spiritual chastisement: loss of faith, faltering and punishment of the pastors, diabolical disorientation

Cardinal Oddi's hypothesis on the REAL Third Secret: "Let me advance a hypothesis: that the Third Secret of Fatima pre-announces something terrible the Church has done"

Father Alonso's last article on the Third Secret

Third Secret: "Words" of Our Lady, not a vision

Flaws in the "two-document" Third Secret theory

Which Third Secret meets the litmus test?



Pope Paul VI: The Pope of the REAL Third Secret

More evidence of a fabrication: Jacinta's vision of the Holy Father, "the poor little one," was Pope Paul VI

Jacinta told Mother Godinho the REAL Third Secret, but...

The Deception of the Century - the Impostor Pope Paul VI  

Warnings from Beyond: A Swiss exorcism reveals existence of an impostor to Pope Paul VI

Why Pope Paul VI is the Pope mentioned in the REAL Third Secret of Fatima


Will the real Pope Paul VI please stand up?

Consecration of Russia:

The REAL Sister Lucy has repeatedly stated that Russia must be consecrated by name


Besiege the Pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady

The “conversion of Russia”: what does it really mean?


The meaning of the "consecration" of Russia

Our Lady of the Roses warns: Russia has not been consecrated properly; Pope John Paul II must consecrate Russia, not the world

Sister Lucy:

Sister Lucy and her impostor

A false "Sister Lucy" substituted for the true?

Sister Lucy was silenced


Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached


A forgery to replace the REAL Third Secret; an impersonator to replace the REAL Sister Lucy

Email us:

| Home | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Miracles & Cures | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos |
Videos |