Fr. Davide Pagliarani’s Conference on "Semper Idem"

I am very happy to be able to speak to you today, and to get to know you personally; it is a joy for me, too. You know the theme and the subject of this conference. I will very simply repeat the message from the General House on the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the declaration by Archbishop Lefebvre on November 21, and comment on it for you. 

We will see how this declaration contains the whole history of the Society: it contains its past history, up to the present, to the present moment, but this declaration also contains the future of the Society. And above all, we will see how this declaration goes back to the fundamental principles, and, I would say, it transcends the circumstances pertaining to this or that particular year of this post-conciliar period. 

But before we examine the text, I would say that this declaration shows first of all the holiness of Archbishop Lefebvre. When we think about holiness, about the signs of holiness, we always think about miracles and healings. But one sign of holiness is the fact of being moved directly by the Holy Ghost. It is a sign of holiness to have supernatural prudence and a gift of counsel that surpass all human understanding, all human ability. 

It was impossible, in 1974, to describe in just a few words the situation of the Church, and to provide remedies, with such clarity and conciseness.... It was impossible to do that without a truly supernatural inspiration. We must acknowledge this. 

At that time many bishops and cardinals were asking themselves questions. The Council had just ended. But only Archbishop Lefebvre had that clarity and lucidity. It is much more than the clear-sightedness of a well-advised, highly experienced person; it is much more than that: it is supernatural. 

And this declaration, we must not forget, was also the original reason for the condemnation of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was because of this declaration that, a few months later, the Society would be suppressed canonically. And one and a half years later, the Archbishop himself would be suspended. Several times they asked Archbishop Lefebvre, in Rome, to issue a retraction. Archbishop Lefebvre replied: I wrote what I think; I cannot go back. 

We really see the strength of this bishop. I said that the history of the Society is included in this declaration. And if the Society deviated from the spirit and from the letter of this declaration, the Society would no longer be the Society. We would be something else. Quite simply, we would not be here today. The reason why we are here today is because of the principles that were laid down in this declaration. 

I take the text, then, of the message from the General House [Semper Idem] and I will comment on it for you.

“This declaration contains two absolutely central ideas, which mutually complement and support each other. The first affirms the essentially doctrinal nature of the Society’s battle. The second expresses the purpose for which it is waged.

It is a doctrinal battle, against a clearly identified enemy: the reforms of the Council, presented as a poisoned entity, conceived in error and leading to error. It is its fundamental spirit that is called into question, and consequently everything that this spirit produced[.]”

I quote Archbishop Lefebvre: It is clear enough, it is straightforward enough. There is no room for several interpretations. It is the language of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is the language that enlightens us. And, I would say, this is the language which today, 50 years later, enlightens us even more. Why? Because you see other prelates or other institutions or celebrities who ask themselves questions about the Council, certain aspects of the Council, in any case certain aspects of the life of the Church today. 

One example, which is rather easy to grasp, is liturgical reform. The New Mass displeases a certain number of people, even outside the Society of Saint Pius X. You see, especially recently, some rather strong reactions to certain initiatives of Pope Francis that originate in circles external to the Society of Saint Pius X. 

For example, on the question of ecumenism, you see objections that are formulated even outside of the Society. But what are the general limits of these reactions? They focus on a particular point, for example the liturgical reform, and claim to resolve these problems as such, without going farther, without going to the root of the matter, without going to the principles that are the basis, not only of the liturgical reform, but of all the reforms that have changed all the different aspects of the Church’s life. 

Today the Church has been reformed or gradually changed, starting from the Council on, in all the different aspects of her life. The idea of the Church is no longer the same, the idea of the Magisterium, the concept of the Magisterium is no longer the same, as we will see. The spiritual life is no longer thought of in the same way. Marriages, the family, the problems of homosexuality, etc. 

Well then, why were all of these different aspects of the Church’s life affected? Because the Council is poisoned in the very principles on which it is founded. In this sense, everything that it produces is poisoned. And this is the sense in which we reject the Council as such. 

Quite obviously, this does not mean that in the Council there is nothing but errors. The Council sometimes quotes the Fathers of the Church. A quotation from the Fathers of the Church, in principle, cannot be an error. But be careful: it is characteristic of error always to be right beside the truth. Error is a privation of truth, if you will. 

Well, this clarity is the characteristic clarity of Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre is the one who handed down this principle to us. Because you see that if we reduce the problem, for example, to the liturgical problem alone, to take the same example, and we try to resolve it alone with a liturgical, historical discussion about the Mass, without going to the root of the problem, we cannot get anywhere. I return to the text. 

“The events of the last 50 years have only confirmed the pertinence of this analysis. Since the Reformation was corrupt in itself, and in its principles, it seems impossible to restore anything in the Catholic Church without first challenging the very principles of the Council, and rejecting all the errors contained therein. All those who have tried to maintain both Tradition and the Vatican II reforms, trying to marry them or to enrich them mutually, have inevitably failed.”

Here, I would say, these remarks are aimed especially at Pope Benedict XVI. The pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI was a particularly significant period in the history of the post-conciliar period because he was the only pope who sensed the need to demonstrate that between the pre-conciliar and the post-conciliar eras—if you prefer, to simplify, between the old Mass and the new Mass—there is continuity, there is no rupture. There is a development, but in continuity. This is the famous hermeneutic of continuity. This is the principal axis of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. 

It was in this spirit, along this axis, that Pope Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio in 2007 to give more freedom for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, which he called “the extraordinary [form of the Roman] rite.” What was the idea here? They will put the two Masses side by side. Both Masses will have the right to exist, to coexist in the Church. And they will therefore enrich each other mutually, but at the same time, they will demonstrate that they express the same faith, the same concept of the Church, the same concept of the priesthood. 

Well, then, does it appear today, with hindsight, that that helped? 

I leave aside the opportunity that was given to many priests to rediscover the Tridentine Mass, which, in itself, is something positive, very positive, and which in a certain number of cases enabled them to ask themselves questions. A priest who discovers the Tridentine Mass, a priest who celebrates it with faith, who returns, if I may say so, to this rite of the Church, sooner or later, and easily, I will say, calls into question what was taught him [in the seminary]. He realizes that the idea of the priesthood, for example, which was transmitted to him, does not correspond to this Mass. The idea of sanctifying souls, the manner of teaching souls, of bringing them to Our Lord, the very manner of preaching, the language, inevitably change. Therefore this was a positive effect. We will not deny it. 

But this liberalization of the Tridentine Mass was intended by Pope Benedict XVI in this context of the hermeneutic of continuity, and to demonstrate, therefore, that there is no rupture. Where did that end up? It ended in a failure. The trajectory started by the motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 unleashed a conflict, a war, if you will, between the two Masses which, instead of demonstrating their continuity, their compatibility, and their equivalence, ended with the motu proprio of Pope Francis, Traditiones Custodes, in 2021 which, in fact, forbids the Tridentine Mass. With some exceptions but, concretely, the idea is clear enough. They still want to tolerate, in some cases, the use of the old Mass, but, for the future, they do not want this usage to continue to spread in the Church. That is clear enough. 

Well, you see, with hindsight, this experiment of Pope Benedict XVI—as I call it—only confirmed that between the two Masses, and therefore between these two concepts of the Church that they manifest and express, there is a dichotomy, there is an incompatibility. And, on the contrary, it only increased the hatred for Tradition and the Mass of all times. 

 “Begun at the Council,” again I quote from the text: “Begun at the Council, this Reformation is still underway and continues to produce its fruits. Today, through synodality, we are witnessing the complete reversal of the very structure of the Church. The transmission of the Divine Truths, received from the Incarnate Word, is being replaced by a system, of man’s elaboration, in which God Himself no longer has a place, and in which the spirit of man breathes and no longer the spirit of the Holy Ghost. This is a diabolical reversal of the Gospel itself.”

I will dwell a little more perhaps on this passage, because here it touches on the current situation of the Church, it touches on synodality. 

I think that all of you have heard people talk about synodality, which is the principal axis of the pontificate of Pope Francis. He has put all his efforts into it, but this error is difficult to grasp, difficult to understand, because it is not an error in content, but rather an error in method. 

Let me explain. If I say that—oh, I don’t know—the Redemption by Our Lord is not sufficient to save the world, for example, or if I say that there are other paths that lead to salvation besides Our Lord, then these are classic heresies, if I may say so, and therefore statements that are false in themselves, clearly false, and there is an instinct in our faith that causes us to find that absurd, and we reject it, of course. But if they talk about synodality, well, that is something modern, but that interests us to a certain extent. 

Why? Because we do not immediately grasp the significance of this method. This method has the purpose of changing the very structure of the Church, more precisely of changing the transmission of truth in the Church, the teaching in the Church. It definitively changes the Magisterium of the Church. 

Well, what is it all about? You know, I will try to explain it with a classic image, really classic: it is a question of a pyramid. You know that the Church, in the traditional Catholic concept, is a pyramid, a monarchy. At the head of this pyramid there is the pope and the bishops who represent the teaching Church. 

What is their function? Their function is to transmit the truth, to hand on, more precisely, to teach the Faith, and to hand on this eternal truth that we received through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which are the sources of Revelation. Therefore, if you will, it is a truth that comes directly from God which has very definite sources. It is up to this hierarchy, popes and bishops, to guard it faithfully and to hand it on. This is their principal function: to teach the Faith. A child who is baptized asks the Church for faith. This is the first thing that we ask of the Church. And it is the right of every baptized person to receive this teaching. And the Church is there, first of all for this purpose, because it is [through] Baptism, it is [through] the rite of baptism, it is through faith that someone can see, that someone can enter into eternal life. 

The synodal Church, the Church that is supposed to set out on this synodal path, is an upside-down pyramid. It is a pyramid in which the popes and the bishops are listening. Listening to whom? They are not listening to a supernatural truth that comes from above, no! They are listening to the people of God. They are listening to the expectations, the desires, the impressions, more precisely, the experience, the desires that result from the experience of every believer. Therefore, if you will, the base community, the people of God (to put it more simply) are the ones who suggest to the hierarchy what should be taken into consideration, in what direction the Church should go. And afterward, of course, this hierarchy will make its discernment. I am simplifying just a little bit. 

But by what title do the masses, or to put it more simply, the people of God who have been consulted—the synodal path started in this way: they consulted in all the parishes of the world, they consulted the faithful, then they make initial syntheses at the diocesan level, at the level of the episcopal conferences, at the continental level, and after that, universal syntheses, Roman syntheses; but everything started in a very democratic way, with general consultations. But by what title can the people of God, the masses, the faithful, if you will, suggest to the hierarchy, let’s say, what direction the Church should go in? How is it that they can provide the Church, and the hierarchy of the Church, with new ideas? The ones who, in principle, must be guided and must be taught? Yes, it is an upside-down pyramid. They attribute this to the sensus fidei. 

What is it, this sensus fidei [Latin: sense of the Faith]? The sensus fidei is the instinct that every Christian has in the presence of an error, for example, or in the presence of something true. If they tell us, for example, that the Most Blessed Virgin is Mediatrix of all graces, well then, our sensus fidei runs along these lines. Even though it is not yet a solemnly defined dogma, for us it is still normal, it is the Faith that pushes us in this direction. That is the sensus fidei, you see? It is a sort of instinct. Or else, on the contrary, in the presence of an error, we have the opposite reaction. 

Now, they attribute everything that may happen, please excuse the expression, off the top of anyone’s head, they attribute it to the Holy Ghost. And therefore, the hierarchy must listen, afterward it will make its discernment, and thereby you see how the Magisterium of the Church finds a new source. 

But then, concretely, what ideas will be sifted out by these masses of the faithful who are consulted, who live in the world, who in principle should be protected by the pastors from the world itself in which they live: They will sift out, in one way or another, everything that the world wants. 

Well, where does it all come from? For example this necessity—I talk about this because it is in the news, and you know very well everything that it has unleashed in the Church—where does it come from, for example, this new need to bless homosexual couples? How can it be that for two thousand years no one ever thought about it, and all of a sudden, we have to get with it, we have to do it? It’s logical, it’s logical: the world changes. The people who live in the world sense new needs, which correspond to the new problems that the world experiences, and therefore ask the Church, suggest to the Church, if you prefer, the direction in which we must go. 

This example, I would say, is the perhaps the best known example, but we could give many others. Then why is it diabolical? It is diabolical because it attributes to the Holy Ghost what in reality comes from the world. And that is unacceptable. Really, I hope that you understand the seriousness of this. This is the first reason why it is extremely serious and diabolical. But there is another reason why that is diabolical. 

It is because these masses who live in the world (who feel today this need, for example, to bless homosexual couples), since life in the world is evolving—because every day, every year, people are thrown into new situations, into new conflicts, and into new difficulties—well, this evolution of everyone’s life, of the world’s life, will continually provide new ideas. Therefore, all of that is attributed to the Holy Ghost, and all of that has no endpoint. All of that is destined to evolve over time. 

The synodal Church, in other words, is setting out on a path which has no end, which is coextensive with the evolution of the world. But this is poles apart from a Church which teaches an eternal truth, which is entrusted with an eternal, unchanging truth. It is the exact opposite. This is all too serious. All too serious. 

Well, then, is this something new, or is this an eccentricity of Pope Francis? Because Pope Francis is criticized by a certain number of conservative prelates. But is this really an eccentricity peculiar to Pope Francis, or does it have its roots in the Council? 

But it has its roots in the Council, too: we must acknowledge it. Already the Council, with the idea—we don’t have time to go into all the details—the Council, with the idea of collegiality (another error that is perhaps a little more difficult to grasp) already tried to associate somehow the bishops with the authority of the pope, in a somewhat permanent way. In other words, it tried, in a certain way, to transform the Church into a situation of a permanent Council, up to a point. Pope Francis goes much farther: Pope Francis, by the synodal stepladder, transforms the Church into a modern democracy. It is a great democracy in which, finally, the truth comes from the expectations of the people of God. 

Well, to give you some examples that are a little more concrete, in what is this expressed, concretely? I will take a concrete example. I will cite several of the sins, the new capital sins. You must understand, you see: if the Church enters into this system, everything changes. Consequently, there are new sins, also, of which the Church must accuse herself, or, in any case, for which it is necessary to ask forgiveness. These are sins attuned to what the world suggests. 

What are these sins? I will give a few examples. You know that the last session of the Synod started with: “We ask forgiveness.” “Sins against women.” Sins against women... What does that mean? 

We can measure a sin against God, of course, or against our neighbor: a sin wounds charity, either against God or against our neighbor. Always against God, of course, directly or indirectly, or against our neighbor. But why [talk about] sins against women? The Church has never expressed herself in this way. A sin is a sin. Whether you offend a woman or a man, it is the same sin. It is perhaps less thoughtful to commit it against a woman, but it is the same sin. 

Yes, but be careful. Today, you see what is blamed for a whole series of very real offenses against women. They are blamed on the patriarchy. They are attributed to a traditional concept whereby the man dominates and crushes. He crushes the woman. And therefore the Church must acknowledge this specific character of the seriousness of the sin against women. In some way they are attacking what they call the traditional patriarchy. This is completely ideological, completely false. The patriarchy, the real, traditional Catholic patriarchy protects women. It is incredible! You realize: the Church, the men of the Church, who adopt this language, which is a purely political, politically correct language.... 

“The sin against creation” is the sin against nature. Against nature. Against the earth, in a word. Why? No one sins against the earth. We sin against God or against our neighbor; we do not sin against trees. We do not sin against the ocean. We do not sin against the fish. We do not sin against the elephants. But why even mention it?

You see that, especially in the initial years of the pontificate of Pope Francis, the Pope insisted a lot on ecology. But a kind of ecology... ultimately, a reflection on the ecology that tried to create a sort of ecological morality. Why? Because it is a morality which, in some way, can be addressed to everyone. It is a secular morality. Why? Ultimately, what do we have in common, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers? We have in common this common house which is the earth. And therefore, they propose to humanity a new morality founded on respect for the earth, respect for creation, respect for the earth. 

You see, the question about the Pachamama has deep theological importance. There is clearly a profound idea behind it. For example, the duty to respect the ocean, not to pollute it, is a duty that affects everyone, regardless of whether you believe or not. You see that such a morality, preached by the Church, is a morality with no supernatural perspective. It is not a morality whose purpose is to bring souls to heaven. No, we cannot reduce sins to sins against the earth, against the common house. That is a secularist, ecological morality. 

“The sin against migrants.” Well, here too, you are acquainted with the problem of immigration. Immigration is a very complex problem. It is a problem that affects the identity of the whole population. In France, it is a problem that affects a nation. Inevitably, in France as elsewhere, the arrival of persons from other backgrounds, from other cultures, poses problems, which you know better than I do. Well, it is a problem that must be studied calmly, with Christian principles. What must be done to preserve Christendom? What must be done to offer real help to these persons? If we can do something, in short, if these persons accept the help. 

We can debate this, but be careful: the Church cannot use political language. Sins against migrants: that means that, concretely, if someone says something against immigration, he is in sin. And that is not honest. Because it is a very complex problem, which poses very serious, real problems. “To sin” against immigration, against migrants, is not correct. Whereas there is not a single word, no effort at all to try to convert these souls. It is incredible. 

And, I will end here, these are only a few examples: the sin against synodality itself. This is a new capital sin, you see? They state a new principle. The whole Church must set out on this new path, if you will. And if you do not accept it, you sin. It is a capital sin. 

And concretely, what does it mean to sin against synodality? I would say, in a word, it is the sin against listening. Therefore, the refusal to listen, the refusal to understand. You see? We thereby set out on a Magisterium, as I said, on a concept of the Magisterium that is very dynamic and which, in one way or another, is ready to justify everything, to accept everything, to teach everything. And from this perspective where there is absolutely nothing dogmatic, because there is absolutely nothing dogmatic left, every new event that occurs in the life of the Church will be thought of and perceived, not as something good or bad, but as a given fact and therefore a new opportunity, a new challenge, as they say. 

How many times do they use this term “challenge”? As soon as there is a contradiction, a problem, it is no longer a problem that must be resolved in a traditional way. It is a challenge. That is not the same thing. 

I will give you a very concrete example. The question of vocations. There is a vocations crisis, in any case a shortage of vocations that is obvious; they have been well aware of this for decades. Well, normally, when there is a decline in vocations, what would the episcopacy have done a hundred years ago? They would have said: very well, there is a decline in vocations, we must pray more for vocations. So we make a pilgrimage for vocations. We ask all the parishes to promote the consecration of children to the Most Blessed Virgin to preserve them, so that they will be ready to answer God’s call. We ask all pastors to preach about the beauty of the religious and priestly vocation. We make every effort to have good seminaries. Good. We send the seminarians into the parishes. That would be the normal reaction of a Catholic clergy faced with the problem of vocations, of recruiting vocations. 

Nowadays that is not what happens at all. If there is a decrease in vocations, if there are no more priests, it is a sign of the times. It is a new challenge. It means that the Church must reconsider, rethink how she should transform herself; she must evolve in this new situation which, in every way, is providential. Therefore, if there are no more priests, we must not stubbornly seek new vocations. No. We have to design a Church in which, every Sunday, we can have a Protestant service, at last, as the Protestants do, a service in which there is a pious lady who gives out communion and reads the Bible, reads the Gospel, in which there is an extraordinary minister who, of course, is prepared according to the Council, who says a few words, who exhorts. But what are you going to do? It is a challenge.

And above all, well, sooner or later, we will have to think—perhaps not immediately about ordaining women—but why not deaconesses? Deaconesses, after all, well, deaconesses existed in the past, in the beginning of the Church’s history, but then it was something quite different—but why not deaconesses? You see there is no longer anything dogmatic. And if that doesn’t go over well today, that is not a problem, it may go over well in ten years, fifteen years, when the situations and the minds are sufficiently mature. Why? Because this new concept of “magisterium,” in quotation marks, is extremely dynamic. Now this, I repeat, all of this is diabolical. Humanly speaking, there is no solution. 

I return to the text. “Faced with this clearly denounced demolition of the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre encourages us to continue the doctrinal battle, and therefore to fight in a holy way for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Today, as in the past, our mission is none other than the restoration of all things in Christ. Restoring all things – starting with the Catholic priesthood, in all its doctrinal purity, and in all its missionary charity.”

To restore, in the Church and in civil society, the acknowledgment of the rights of Christ, King of the nations. This is the major idea that summarizes all that Archbishop Lefebvre left to us: Christ the King. How many times he spoke about this.... And in his supernatural wisdom, we see very well that he had grasped that, just as all the modern errors have their origin in this idea, in this idolatry of man, this anthropocentrism—the Council is nothing but a reinterpretation of the whole content of the Faith while putting man at the center instead of God—so too, therefore, the antidote, the antidote is Christ the King. In other words, preaching Christ at the center with all His rights. 

“The second idea that dominates the 1974 declaration is the clear and determined intention to act with the sole aim of serving the Roman Catholic Church.”

This is a very important point. 

So we have seen what the doctrinal battle of the Society is, what enemy it fights against (contemporary modernism).... But here in what spirit: that is very important. Indeed, only in the Church of all times, in her constant Tradition, do we find the guarantee of being in the truth, of continuing to preach it and to serve it. 

“Above all, we are well aware that safeguarding Tradition, and taking all the necessary steps to preserve it and to transmit it, is a duty of charity that we fulfill for the benefit of all souls, and for the Catholic Church herself as a whole. From this perspective, our combat is profoundly disinterested. The Society is not primarily seeking its own survival. It is primarily seeking the good of the Universal Church and, for this reason, the Society is par excellence a work of the Church, which, with unique freedom and strength, responds adequately to the specific needs of an unprecedentedly tragic era.”

This is an extremely important point. We are not working to save the Society of Saint Pius X. We are not working because we want the Society of Saint Pius X to triumph. We work in the Society of Saint Pius X because the Society of Saint Pius X is the means by which to remain faithful to the Church of all time. This is our perspective, and this point is extremely important. 

I would say that this is what distinguishes us concretely from the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities. I will not get into a discussion about the individual dispositions of this Catholic or that priest. That is not what interests us here. What interests us is to understand correctly that in the Ecclesia Dei institutes, in the Ecclesia Dei communities, by force of circumstances, the option for the Tridentine Mass, for example, is a privilege which is granted to this or that other congregation according to a proper law. 

This means: for me, in my congregation, we prefer, we want the Tridentine Mass. Very well. In order to have it, you can have it on certain conditions, and the most obvious, the most explicit condition is that you accept the Council. Strictly speaking, you can raise constructive objections—what does this mean and what does that lead to, you see—but, if you want to enjoy this privilege (which is not a right, in the strict sense), there are conditions that you have to respect. This is the impasse in which you inevitably put yourself and find yourself if you consider the Tridentine Mass as a privilege for some. 

The Tridentine Mass, for us, is not a privilege. It is a right for every Catholic without distinction. Every Catholic without distinction has a right to the Faith, has a right to be taught the Faith, and has a right to the sacraments, the right to the means necessary to save his soul. It is a right for all Catholics without distinction. And this is the perspective from which the Society of Saint Pius X wages its battle. And in this sense, our position—despite our canonical status, which is a consequence of our fidelity—our position is truly ecclesial, in the sense that it aims for the good of the Universal Church. 

What does the Universal Church need today? The Universal Church needs someone to keep the Mass, the Tradition as a whole, someone to offer it to souls and to remind us, with all our faults and limitations, to remind the Universal Church that there is one faith, one Mass: because there is only one truth, only one Church, only one way to save one’s soul. And that is faith. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre left to us. That is what we should return to all the time. That is the reason why we are here. I repeat, without these principles laid down 50 years ago, we would not be here. We would not be here. This sole purpose is still ours today, by the same right as it was 50 years ago. 

“That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment,”—I quote the Archbishop here—“we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.”

Yes, that is very beautiful. That was written 50 years ago. The Archbishop was thinking about future generations. 50 years is an interval of two generations. We are here. This perseverance of the Society, despite all our weaknesses, is a sign that the Society is the work of God. But above all, I would say, 50 years ago the Archbishop sensed this responsibility for future generations. This responsibility must be ours today for the generations yet to come. Not only our confreres, the priests, but every one of the faithful, every one of you at your place has a responsibility for the future generations. What is the most precious inheritance that you can leave to your children and grandchildren? The Faith. It is the Faith. They will thank you eternally if you succeed in handing the Faith on to them. This is of capital importance. 

There is nothing more important. “It is to the Catholic Church that Tradition belongs. It is in her and for her that we guard it in all its integrity, ‘until such time’”—again I quote the Archbishop [in the text of Semper Idem]— “‘as the true light of Tradition dispels the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.’ We maintain this supernatural and unfaltering certainty that this same Tradition will triumph, and with it the whole Catholic Church.” This certitude is the certitude of faith. 

Humanly speaking, the situation is irremediable. But faith tells us that Tradition must triumph because the Church must triumph. And if Providence allows this crisis and allows this crisis to persist, and if Providence allows it to become increasingly obvious that humanly speaking there is no solution, it is to show that, on the day when the Church will be restored and will triumph, it will be to show that the Church is divine. Her life transcends human laws. And [we believe] in “the renewed certainty that the gates of hell will never prevail against her!”

I thank you for your attention. I would have liked to speak a little less, to have been somewhat briefer. We have touched on different subjects, you see, subjects related to the history of the Society, the statement made 50 years ago. But you see how all this is extremely relevant today. That was the purpose of the conference, to show this continuity, this continuity in the life and in the battle of the Society. We live in another era, yes, but an era that follows the one from 50 years ago. And these principles, provided by Archbishop Lefebvre 50 years ago, are even more relevant today.