Negotiating About the Unnegotiable Since 1978

I have no intention of going down the rabbit holes concerning the Society of Saint Pius X’s off again/on again/off again/on again relationship with the lords of conciliarism, whom its leaders accept as legitimate officials of the Catholic Church.

Thus, the purpose of this very brief commentary is to remind readers not to get wrapped up or personally invested in what happens as the latest chapter in “how to understand the documents of the ‘Second’ Vatican Council” soap opera as I think that my most recent commentary, Maximalist Blasphemy, Minimalist Reverence for the Mother of God, covered most of the points about the absurdity of this whole enterprise, and I not going to repeat those points now.

For present purposes, therefore, I want to explain that the SSPX-Conciliar Vatican soap opera about negotiating over the unnegotiable did not begin in 1987-1988 when an agreement was almost reached before Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre reneged on it, but when he met with Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II on Saturday, November 18, 1978, in the newly “elected” “pope’s” private quarters.

Here are the details about that morning as drawn from a conference the Archbishop gave to the Society’s seminarians in Econe, Switzerland, on December 21, 1978, the Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle:

The Holy Father was informed that I was in Rome by Cardinal Siri whom I had gone to visit on my arrival in Rome. Cardinal Siri wanted to intervene so that I should have this audience. I did not myself ask Cardinal Siri for the audience – I was thinking of having it later, as it was still too soon and it would be better to wait until the Pope had been informed and events would show what line the Pope would take, what he was thinking. But as soon as I met Cardinal Siri he said: “Fine! Next week I have an audience with the Pope, and if you like I'll talk to him about it. We'll certainly discuss it."

He did have an audience the next week, on the Monday. I had visited him on Friday and on the following Monday he had his audience (he hadn't told me the day: it could have been Thursday, Friday). That Monday evening he told me, saying: "Good. It is arranged. The Holy Father will receive you on Saturday at 4:30 in his private apartments"- on Saturday, for, as the Pope had said to him, he wanted the meeting to be on Our Lady's day so that it would be under her patronage. I was to get in touch with one of his friends who would bring me to the Holy Father's private apartments – as it was not an official audience it could not take place in the offices where the Pope is accustomed to receive those who have an audience with him.

I have often been to see the Popes, one after another, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI – but always in the official places, never in the private apartments. So I thought it better to keep out of sight for a day or two so as to avoid being eventually interrogated by people in the Vatican, who always know everything. It is difficult, I said to myself: I don't know how I can get to the Vatican without the news being in the press beforehand. Monday to Saturday evening! It would be a miracle if nothing appeared in the press. And, if it did get in, would I have the audience? 

However, things were so well arranged that nobody knew. I started on Saturday afternoon in Monsieur Pedroni’s car. He drove me to the little Holy Office Square where the entrance to the Vatican now is. There we were joined by the car of the secretary appointed by Cardinal Siri, and I went off in that car, so that no one should see a car with a Swiss – still less a Valais! – registration, especially as no one comes to the Vatican on Saturday afternoons: they are all away on holiday. But the Swiss Guards saw me change from one car to another. And it seems, though I did not notice it myself, that when Monsieur Pedroni and the Abbé du Chalard stayed on in the Holy Office Square, and were strolling under the colonnade of St. Peter's waiting for me to return from the audience, they were spotted by a young man who was already there, and who waited as they did, smiling from time to time. They both said: "That is surely someone in the know. He saw Monseigneur leave and is waiting for him to come back. He is certainly up to something!" And that is just what happened. As soon as I got back he rushed to the telephone to pass on his news, so that the same evening on the radio and the next the Italian newspapers the news was out. 

In the Pope’s Private Apartments

When we got to the Court of Saint Damasus, there was nobody there except a Swiss Guard. Mgr. Magee, an Irishman, who had been secretary to Pope Paul VI, came down as soon as he saw the car and led me to a private life which goes up directly to the Holy Father’s private apartments. That made things easier. I did not know of that lift, and I should have taken the official lift up to the third floor – I knew where it was. So we reached the private apartments, and the secretary took me for a short visit up to the Chapel, a Chapel which is completely standard, not in the modern but totally in the old style – a fine simple altar, altar screen, candlesticks, the Cross, tabernacle; a nun dressed as a nun was praying before the Blessed Sacrament. I genuflected, stayed there for a few moments, and left. I was led then into a salon where there was a round table and seven or eight armchairs, all alike. I asked myself: “Where is the Holy Father going to sit?” I could not say. Was I be led into another salon, nearby? I stayed where I was, and the secretary said: “The Holy Father will be coming.” 

A Warm Welcome

And so it was. Scarcely had he closed the door when the Holy Father arrived and embraced me warmly. I confess that it occurred to me that he had done the same with the communist mayor a few days before! However, ecumenism is the current practice! So he gave me a friendly embrace, sat at my side, and, very simple, without ceremony, he got straight into the conservation: “I am glad to see you. I know one of your good friends, Cardinal Thiandoum. I had met him before, but he came specially to talk to about you.” So we spoke of Dakar and such-like subjects. I said that I had ordained him priest. The Pope asked: “Did you also consecrate him?”

I replied: "No, I did not consecrate him as I had already left, but it was he who succeeded me: it was the Apostolic Delegate, my successor, who consecrated him."

"Ah," he replied, "so you have been an Apostolic Delegate?"

"Yes, indeed. I was Apostolic Delegate for eleven years."

"So, then, you must have been engaged in diplomacy.

"Oh, ever so little, ever so little."

Though by his office an Apostolic Delegate is not a diplomat, he is nonetheless the delegate of the Holy Father and the French government agreed to give him all the honors of a Nuncio, which made him the diplomatic representative of the Holy Father. 

The Archbishop Explains the Seminary

We chatted like that for a while. Then: "But we had better get down to business."

"Yes, Holy Father. If you wish I will tell you briefly the position of the Fraternity, how it began, etc."

I gave him the story that you know already, from Fribourg with Mgr. Charriere, the decree of erection, the canonical existence of the Fraternity for five years, perfectly legal in its foundation; the seminary authorized by Mgr. Adam; the Albano House authorized by Mgr. Mamie (though he is not very favorable, as I told the Pope) and by Mgr. Maccario.¹

The Pope interjected: "So your Albano House is quite legal?"

And I replied: "Yes." Someone must have told him it was a wildcat house! 

The Plan for the Suppression of the Fraternity

“The French Bishops then became jealous of this seminary which was growing fast." And I quoted to him what Cardinal Lefebvre (whom I knew well: he is my cousin) had written and had printed: that there could be no pardoning Mgr. Lefebvre for taking up, at the Council, positions contrary to those of the French Bishops. I said: "You can see what the French episcopate already thought of me. Obviously, seeing this growing seminary and the prospect of its training priests as they could not do themselves, they were disturbed. So they entered into a veritable conspiracy, with Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Garrone, and later with Cardinal Wright and Cardinal Tabera: they decided to pretend to have an official investigation. They sent two Apostolic Visitors2 who did not even visit the Chapel, and who left no word behind them, no report. I do not know what the conclusions were from their visit, but what they said was scandalous. I myself said to them: “I know very well why you are here – to condemn and to suppress this seminary. That means so many fewer priests, although the whole world is short of them and here in France the number of seminarists is going down rapidly. Why come to this seminary? What shall we do when there are no more priests?' To which they both replied at once: 'Oh, we’ll ordain married men!' They were from Rome, and that, you will agree, was a bit too much!"

He listened, with great attention. I went on: "The meeting which I had with the Cardinals just for information was not a tribunal! Cardinal Garrone himself said so: it was merely an interview in which explanations could be given to supplement the (Apostolic) visitation of 11 November 1974.3 Yet, a few weeks later came the condemnations, totally illegal, for it was Mgr. Mamie who withdrew the canonical institution, which he had no right to do: when a bishop has accepted a Congregation in his diocese he cannot suppress it: Rome has to issue a decree of suppression, not the bishop of the place (Canon 493). When that happened I went back to Rome, to the Signatura Apostolica, where Cardinal Staffa received my protest. I even paid the fee due for its reception; and, together with my lawyer and Cardinal Staffa 's delegate, we signed the protocol of the reception of my complaint at the Signatura. But a few days later Cardinal Villot wrote a letter in his own hand forbidding the examination of my case and an investigation into whether I was right or not."

I said then to the Holy Father: "I don't know if the communists can improve on that!" He laughed. "Faced with that contempt for natural rights, good sense and canon law, it seemed to me that I was not obliged to submit to such a measure. That is why I kept the seminary going. Obviously that has made our relations with Rome delicate; but I hope the priests trained in the Fraternity are good priests, devoted to Rome." 

The Same Old Accusation: You are Against the Pope: NO!

"Now what, precisely, are we accused of? Since this difficulty with Rome we are accused of being 'against the Pope, against the Council, and against the reforms, especially the liturgical reform.' Listen: we are not at all against the Pope – that is absolutely false! We were calumniated on those points to Pope Paul VI, and that is why it was made so difficult for us to see him, and why he was so hard on us. He was made to believe that I got the seminarians to take an oath against the Pope. He accused me of that in my audience with him. That is too bad! I can understand why they did not want me to go near the Pope – they had told him such serious calumnies." I added: "It was not through Cardinal Villot that I saw the Pope. It happened quite unexpectedly. A Father LaBellarte, whom I did not know, said to me one day: 'Go to Rome and see the Pope. He wants to see you.' I replied: “I shall not see the Pope. They have always prevented me from seeing him. I’ve been waiting for five years to see him, and they have refused me every time.’ ‘Oh, yes, you'll see him.' In fact, I saw Pope Paul VI, but against the will of Cardinal Villot who, the evening before, learning that I was to have the audience, forced the Pope to have Mgr. Benelli present at our audience.”⁴

I could tell that he was listening to me with great attention and interest. I told him again: "We pray for the Pope. We are perhaps one of the few seminaries which still pray for the Pope. At Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament we sing the prayer for the Pope, in the Canon of the Mass we name the Pope. The Albano House was founded precisely for the acquisition of romanita,⁵ to attach us to Rome, to the successor of Peter to all that is represented by Rome and the Roman Church.”

It was then that he asked me: "How many seminarians have you?”

“One hundred and seventy."

“Ah, one hundred and seventy!"

“Yes, there are thirty at Albano, ninety at Ecône, and the rest at our two other seminaries in the U.S.A. and Germany."

You are Against the Council! No!

I continued: “As to the Council, there are certainly things in the Council which are hard to admit; but I should be ready to sign a sentence like this: 'I accept the Acts of the Council interpreted in the sense of tradition.' That is a sentence which I think I could eventually accept and sign, if you so wish.”

“But that is fine, fine! But that is ordinary and obvious! Would you really agree to sign such a sentence?"

I replied: "Certainly, I am ready to sign it, provided it contains the phrase 'interpreted in the sense of tradition'."

He said again: "But that is just ordinary," He seemed to be thinking that that settled the business of the Pope and the business of the Council, Both questions were settled, so now what about the question of the Liturgy? 

The Liturgical Reform…in Poland!

I said, "Oh, yes. The question of the liturgy…We are evidently very attached to the Mass of Saint Pius V and also to the traditional rites. All around us we see these reforms and their consequences: the destruction of churches, the closing of seminaries, the lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament."

At that point, of course, and without a pause, as though his mind were still in Poland, he said to me: "But, you know, in Poland it is all going very well! The reforms have been effected, but I assure you there is plenty of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Besides, we have had lots of difficulties with the communists. Our people are very respectful to the Blessed Sacrament, and are very devout. We fight for devotion to the Holy Eucharist, processions, any show of devotion: we fight. And what has caused us most pain, let me tell you, and made us suffer, is the suppression of Latin. I myself think that it was most painful for us. But now! What do you want to do? The seminarians no longer know Latin; they all read the breviary in the vernacular; Latin is not taught anywhere; what do you want to do? What do you want us to do? Besides, perhaps the people understand the Mass better, what is said at Mass."

I then permitted myself to say: "Are you not afraid, all the same, that because of those reforms a certain Protestant and neomodemist spirit will in the end creep slowly but surely into seminaries, parishes, everywhere?"

"Oh, I know very well that there have been complaints from the faithful who are afraid. We are not altogether free from difficulties, but, after all, they don't amount to much."

Then I said to him: "Holy Father, listen. I have in my pocket a letter from a Polish bishop."

He looked at it: "N..., he is the communists' Enemy Number One. They are scared of him." He read part of the letter and then he said to me: "Yes, but you have to be careful. I wonder if this letter is genuine. One of the communist tricks is to compose false letters and spread them left, right and center as to divide the Catholics and divide the bishops."

“Of course, I am no judge of that."

“Anyway," he said, "these liturgical questions: they are disciplinary questions, disciplinary: perhaps we had better look into the question." 

Religious Liberty

He went back to the Council: "You know, the Decree on Religious Liberty has been a great help to us in Poland."

“No doubt. It can serve in that way – an argumentum ad hominen; but all the same there have been serious consequences of that declaration since its approval by the Council, above all the laicization and de-Christianization of Catholic States." I quoted Colombia, the Canton of Valais, and the words of the Nuncio at Berne whom I had myself asked why Mgr. Adam had written to his diocesans inviting them to vote suppression of the first article in the Valais Constitution according to which the Catholic religion is the only one officially recognized in the Canton of Valais. I said to the Nuncio: “That is a bit too much!”

The Nuncio replied: “But the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is very difficult these days.”

Then I said: "And the Encyclical Quas Primas. What about that, then?" He replied: "Today, Pope Pius XI would not write it!”

The Holy Father then said to me: "That's not the way to say it. We should say, rather: 'He would not write it in the same way’."

I replied: “That may be so…but the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ should certainly be acknowledged in Catholic States. There are plenty of communist States based on the communist religion, and Muslim States whose official religion is Islam, and Protestant States whose official religion is Protestantism. I don't see why Catholic States…why there can't be officially Catholic States." The Pope answered: “Oh, yes, yes, that's true." 

“We Must Come to a Practical Solution”

"But now," he said, "we must be practical, we must come to a conclusion."

I answered: "Could you nominate an intermediary with whom I could discuss, and examine things more closely?"

He said: "Precisely! I thought of that, and it will be Cardinal Seper. I very much want it to be Cardinal Seper, he is a friend of mine, I know him well, he knows your business and will be dealing with it. I'll call him at once." 

Cardinal Seper: “You are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V!”

"Good! He is efficient!"

The Pope got up at once – smartly, I can tell you! He is lively. He went to his office and phoned for Cardinal Seper to come, and he arrived three or four minutes later. He sat on my right. I wish a photograph could have been taken! The Pope on my left, Cardinal Seper on my right – very democratic!

The Pope summed up quickly for the Cardinal and said: "We must find a solution without delay."

But the Cardinal then proved difficult. "Yes," he said. "But wait a moment. They are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V."

"Oh," I said, "Not a banner! The Mass is of capital importance, essential in the Church, and that is why for us it is a grave and primary problem.”

The Cardinal answered: "What Pope Paul VI said to me was true! He would have made it possible to say the Mass of Saint Pius V if you had not turned that Mass into a banner!”

By that he meant that we criticize the other Mass, that we do not want it: and, upon my word, that is exactly true.

He went on: "Monseigneur, two and a half years ago you came to see me.

"So I did."

"You came to ask my advice. What did I tell you? I told you: 'Obedience, obedience, obedience, obedience!' There!"

"Yes. And what did obedience require me to do?"

"If you had closed your seminary and all your Houses, if you had stopped everything, stopped it for a year and a half or two years, everything could then have been arranged."

"That I think is a totally gratuitous assertion. I do not know what would have become of us. We should have been dead, and we should have continued dead, just that!" 

The End of the Audience

The Pope intervened: "Yes. Look into that…stay here, I have to go, Cardinal Baggio is waiting for me with dossiers this high! Your Eminence, stay and talk."

But the Cardinal had no wish to stay with me. He got up, saying: “No. Not now. In any case, Monseigneur, you will be receiving a letter in two or three weeks asking you to come again to Rome for an interview. We can talk of these things then. Besides, you must be given the results of the study we made of what you sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." That was the end. I paid my respects to the Pope who once more embraced me warmly. I said good-bye to Cardinal Seper, and we parted. And that's how matters stand for the moment. 

Can We give a Direction to the Reform, and Limit the Damage?

What I noticed in the Holy Father is that he is very pious, that he has a great love for the Blessed Virgin, that he is completely anti-marxist (I do not say anti-communist, but anti-marxist), and that he will do all he can to suppress abuses and keep the reform within limit; but I must confess that he appears to be basically in agreement with the Council and with the reforms – he just does not question them. And that is serious, because it means that he is for ecumenism, for collegiality, and for religious liberty. 

Always the same Three Things!

Those are the three capital ideas from the Council. It is they which make the spirit of the Council. They are what the progressives wanted and what in practice they obtained – watered down perhaps, but they got them, and they will not loosen their hold on them! Study those ideas, and see how serious they are!

1. Collegiality: that means number against person, the law of number against the authority of the person. It is no longer the person who has authority, but number! It is democracy, or at least the democratic principle. It is no longer Our Lord Who commands through the authorities (it is Our Lord Who is the Authority, and in the Church all those who have authority – Pope, Bishops, Priests – share in the authority of Our Lord). By the very fact that number is put in the place of the person, that authority is given to number, authority is in the people, in the rank and file, in the group. That is absolutely contrary to what Our Lord wanted, to the personal authority which He always wanted to give: the Pope has a personal authority; the Bishop has a personal authority by his consecration; the Priest has a personal authority by his sacramental character, his ordination; in the Church authority is personal. The subject of authority (he who is going to exercise it) may be designated democratically, but the authority cannot be so given. That is an important principle. On a false principle Our Lord could lose His crown.

2. Ecumenism: Fraternity. That is not directly contrary to Our Lord, but ecumenism is, for it is a fraternity which destroys paternity. Who makes the unity of brothers? It is the father. Ecumenism makes us all brothers in a sentimental communion but no longer in the faith, no longer in the faith taught us by Our Lord, no longer in the "Father" we have in the Creed. That unity is not in the Father but in a vague feeling of subjectivism, of religious sentiment : it is Modernism.

3. Religious Liberty: that is conscience in place of law. Once more something subjective in place of law, which is objective. And what is this law? It is the Word of God. The Word of God is the Law: Our Savior Himself is our Law. You can see how all that is directly opposed to the authority of Our Lord! 

On Those Three Principles the Church Cannot Survive.

That, for the Church, is a catastrophe. The Church cannot live in an atmosphere directly opposed to Our Lord, its Founder, opposed to what makes the unity of the Church, her truth and her law. They have no hope of damming the harm done by those principles. They will try to set limits, to make the catechisms a little more orthodox; but until they have gone back to those fundamentals of the Council and brought them into line with tradition there is nothing to be done. It is that which is serious. 

He is no Longer a Polish Bishop!

It is a pity. He seems to be attached to order and discipline; but he is certainly filled with Liberal ideas. Cardinal Wyszynski could well tell himself: "He did well as Archbishop of Cracow, because he fought the communists."  That is what makes the unity of Poland, anti-communism and devotion to the Blessed Virgin – the devil is in communism, and then there is the Blessed Virgin: with two such elements it is easy to see how  the Poles can be united among themselves and with their bishops. But Poland and the circumstances of Poland are one thing: what matters is what he is going to do as Pope. For in the West, communism does not have such a hold, and as for devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he himself has it, but where is it now in the surrounding world? And that is the problem. What he was able to do as bishop united with the other Polish bishops to save the reign of Our Lord from disappearing – will he be able to do that as Pope, in other, completely different, circumstances? 

Hope of Recovery

At least we can pray to the Blessed Virgin that when he becomes aware of the gross difficulties he will meet in the exercise of his power as Pope he will reconsider himself and perhaps conclude that he must return to Tradition. That is a grace for which we should pray to the Blessed Virgin. In another three or four months we shall know one way or another, when he has had a look at his surroundings and at what is happening in Western Europe. (Marcel Lefebvre: An Audience with John Paul.)

This is very valuable history, especially to those who think that “things” will be “different” now even though the same old song and dance has been going on for over forty-seven years since that meeting took place on November 18, 1978, just one month, two days after Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “election.” One can see that the same arguments were raised then that were rehashed in 1988, 2001, 2009, 2012, and 2017, and are being raised anew even after all that the conciliar “popes” have said and done to prove that they are not Catholic and that the institution that they head is but the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.

However, those of us who were alive at the time and shared Archbishop Lefebvre’s guarded hope about the Polish “hope” even though we did not agree with the approach that the Archbishop had taken were very hopeful that a “legal” refuge from the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service could be provided to those of us who were tired of fighting for “reverence” in a liturgical rite that we later come to accept was irreverent and invalid of its very nature.

The New York Times reported on the meeting as follows on Monday, November 20, 1978:

ROME, Nov. 19 (Reuters) — Pope John Paul 11, in an unexpected gesture aimed at church unity, has met Marcel Lefebvre, the‘French rebel Archbishop whose traditionalist movement has challenged Vatican authority for the past three years.

Monsignor Lefebvre, 72 years old, who was suspended from all priestly duties in July 1976 by the late Pope Paul VI, was ‘received at his own request by the Pope yesterday,’ a Vatican spokesman disclosed today. He declined to give further details.

The audience, only a month after Pope John Paul took office, showed his concern over the split between the Vatican and the Archbishop's movement.

Archbishop Lefebvre came close to causing a schism within the church with his rejection of the liberal reforms of the 1962‐1965 Vatican Council.

Since his suspension, Archbishop Lefebvre has continued to confirm children into the Roman Catholic church, ordain priests and say mass in Latin, despite a decision by the Vatican Council that it be celebrated in the local lanIguage. He has traveled all over the world seeking to gain support for his movement and has opened new seminaries in North and South America.

Only two months ago, after the death of Pope John Paul I, Archbishop Lefebvre announced he would open a new seminary by moving 37 of his student priests from the traditionalist seminary in Switzerland to Albano, near Rome.

This was immediately deplored by the Vatican, which said it would only aggravate Archbishop Lefebvre's position.

An ardent anti‐Communist, Archbishop Lefebvre criticized the late Pope Paul VI's efforts to improve church relations with Eastern Europe, and deplored Papal audiences with Communist leaders.

He once described this rapprochement and the church reforms as the work of “the devil's hand in Rome.”

The new Pope is a staunch defender of church doctrine and warned of uncontrolled innovations in his inaugural speech the day after his election on Oct. 16. (Pope Meets Rebel French Prelate.)

I read that article in my office at the then named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales in Center Valley, Pennsylvania, and prayed that the Society of Saint Pius X would be “regularized” as thought so very foolishly that John Paul II was going to “restore” the Church even though he had been one of the chief architects of the “Second” Vatican Council and had this to say about the “liturgical reform” that robber council was meeting:

Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

Nothing happened after the meeting between Archbishop Marcel Lefebre and Karol Jozef Wojtyla on November 18, 1978, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul, and nothing has happened thereafter in the ensuing forty-seven years, three months except the endless spectacle of negotiating over matters that unnegotiable with those who deny multiple points of the Catholic Faith and who have made their “official reconciliation” with the principles of that “new era that was inaugurated in 1789,” in other words with the ideas and the very spirit of the French Revolution.

This is all such utter sophistry as, to state the obvious once again, to put the teaching of the Holy See into doubt is a criminal enterprise:

In his 157th letter he [Saint Ambrose] remarks: “The Catholic faith derives so much strength and support from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it.” “In verbis sedis Apostolicce tarn antiqua aique fundala, certa et clara est Catholica jides, ut nefas sit de ilia dubitare.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Yet it is that those in the Society of Saint Pius X and in the “resist while recognize” movement continue to act as though it is entirely Catholic to entertain doubts concerning the words of the Apostolic See. This false, heretical belief is now accepted as the “gold standard” by which the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland and Raymond “Cardinal” Burke can resist the teachings of a man they claim is a true pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in spite of the damage that he has wrought and continues to wreak upon Catholic, Faith, Worship, and Morals.

Indeed, the wreckage wrought by the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s unremitting warfare against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals:

Among conciliarism’s many victims have been:

1. The honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, which has been profaned by the worldly nature of liturgical rites that are designed to appeal to the “people” and not to reflect the reverence due to Him in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and the sacrality necessary to raise the people out of the muck and mire of this passing world, The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service celebrates the world, sacralizes the profane, and profanes all that is holy and sacred (please purchase G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship if you have done not so already). God’s honor and glory has also been blasphemed and profaned by the abundant praise heaped upon false religions, their false doctrines, their false leaders and by the esteem shown to idols by the conciliar “popes” and “bishops.”
2. God’s immutability, which has been rendered mutable by dogmatic evolutionism’s different contemporary appellations (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open embrace of dogmatic evolutionism by means of distorting and misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, each of which ignores the condemnations of dogmatic evolutionism found in The Third Council of Constantinople, Singulari Vos, May 15, 1834, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the Decree on the Doctrine of the Faith issued by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominicae Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestatia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
3. The unicity and infallibility of Holy Mother Church, which has been granted a “perfect immunity from error” (e.g., cf. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
4. The ends proper to Holy Matrimony, which have been inverted by the conciliar revolutionaries according the “personalism” of Father Herbert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned directly by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944.)
5. The very nature of the papacy itself, which was become an object of derision, ridicule, and abject disobedience in the past fifty years with the recrudescence of the Gallicanism by the Society of Saint Pius X and then by scores of others in the “resist while recognize” movement.

These are only some of the victims of the conciliar revolution, to say nothing about the incalculable harm done to the sanctification and salvation of souls nor Holy Mother Church’s condemnation of “interreligious prayer” services, false ecumenism, Modernist exegeses of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, and separation of Church and State that have examined in hundreds upon hundreds of detailed commentaries on this site. The conciliar revolution and the Gallican reaction to it have destroyed a proper understanding of Catholic doctrine of the papacy, papal primacy, and papal infallibility.

Today, Sunday, February 15, 2026, is Quinquagesima Sunday and the Commemoration of Saints Faustinus and Jovita.

The Gospel passage read at Holy Mass today includes the account of the blind man beseeching Our Lord with what is called the “Jesus Prayer”: "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me”:

At that time, Jesus taking to Himself the Twelve said to them, Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that have been written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and scourged and spit upon; and after they have scourged Him, they will put Him to death; and on the third day He will rise again. And they understood none of these things and this saying was hidden from them, neither did they get to know the things that were being said. Now it came to pass as He drew near to Jericho, that a certain blind man was sitting by the wayside, begging; but hearing a crowd passing by, he inquired what this might be. And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he cried out, saying, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! And they who went in front angrily tried to silence him. But he cried out all the louder, Son of David, have mercy on me! Then Jesus stopped and commanded that he should be brought to Him. And when he drew near, He asked him, saying, What would you have Me do for you? And he said, Lord, that I may see. And Jesus said to him, Receive your sight, your faith has saved you. And at once he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God. And all the people upon seeing it gave praise to God. (Luke 18: 31-43.)

The Apostles were spiritually blind to what their Divine Master was prophesying to them would be accomplished within a short time to prepare them for the events of Holy Week. They had eyes but they could not see.

The blind man on the road to Jericho could not see anything. However, he was given to “see” Who Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is, and he had the humility to beg Him for mercy so that he could not only see naturally but supernaturally.

Each of our souls was blind because of Original Sin prior to our baptism, and souls continue to be blinded to a greater or lesser degree because of our sins, including the sin of disordered self-love and the pride from which such disordered self-love springs and is fed unless corresponding acts of humble self-abasement before Christ the King in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and on one’s knees in prayer before His Real Presence.

Father Francis X. Weninger’s three sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday explains the pernicious nature of spiritual blindness, a blindness that blinds those in public life even to the supernatural truth that they are going to be judged at the moment of their deaths no matter in what high estate they have been viewed by others or even in what high, self-deluded state of pride they have viewed themselves:

"For He shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and scourged, and spit upon: and after they have scourged Him, they will put Him to death."--Luke 18: 31.

The Gospel of today refers to the preparation of the Church for the great festival of Easter. This time of Lent was especially instituted in order that we might have a time, in which to meditate, with more than ordinary seriousness, on the passion of Christ. All those who, believing in Christ, obey this invitation of the Church, feel their hearts filled with bitterness and aversion for the ungrateful Jews; but how few consider that when they, as Christians, sin, they become more guilty towards the Redeemer than were even the Jews!

This we will understand if we refer the words we have just read: "He shall be delivered to the Gentiles and shall be mocked and put to death" to the life of a Christian sinner. O Mary, refuge of sinners, pray for us that we may recognize the foulness of sin, and from today banish every trace of it from our hearts! I speak in the most holy name of Jesus, to the greater glory of God!

Christ prophesied of Himself: "The Son of man shall be delivered to the Gentiles." This complaint is also directed to the Christian sinner. Each sin is treachery. A child of the Church who commits sin is a traitor to Christ, as Judas was; for at baptism he swore to be true to God; and, in addition to this, he has, perhaps, received Him frequently in holy Communion. A sinner is a traitor to Christ; for if he be a child of the Church, he generally prays and lives outwardly as though he were a genuine follower of Christ. He becomes a hypocrite, confessing with his lips love for God above all else, and outwardly seeking only to know and fulfill His holy will, while all the time he is acting exactly the opposite. Thus his whole life is a life of treachery.

Christ prophesies of Himself: "The Son of man shall be delivered to the Gentiles and shall be mocked and scourged." Every sinner scourges the Lord anew! St. Alphonsus Liguori tells us that the Lord once appeared in Rome to a great sinner in the form of a young man. The woman rejoiced at His coming; but when she asked Him who He was, the figure of the youth changed, and Christ the Redeemer stood before her crowned with thorns, and His body lacerated by scourging. "Do you know Me?" asked He, the Lord. "Behold how I have suffered for and through you. When will you cease to scourge Me?" The woman, weeping bitterly, cast herself repentantly at the feet of Christ, and abandoned her evil ways.

This vision concerns not only this one sinful woman, but all sinners, and to each Christ addresses the sad question: "Do you know Me?" And to each the Apostle says: "Whoever sinneth, crucifies Christ in his heart." The sinner revives the passion of our Lord; he scourges Him anew.

Men who live in the state of mortal sin are generally guilty not only of one sin, but of many, both in number and kind. A man offending God by impurity is likewise often angry, envious, full of hatred towards others, and intemperate. He braids all these sinful fetters into a lash with which he scourges the Lord in his heart.

Even to a single sin several guilty acts may concur. Thus the seducer offends not only in deed, but also in thought and word; then how long, how broad, how sharp the lash becomes with which he scourges Jesus!

And not only this, but he gives scandal by his sinful life, and is the cause that others offend God and scourge Jesus by their sins of thought, word and action. We can understand how the number of these scourges is increased, if we but consider how those corrupted by one sinner lead others into the path of evil, and these again others, and so on, God only knows how long, even to the end of time.

Have you ever thought of this dreadful lash with which you yourself have scourged Jesus by your sins, and by the scandal you have given? Has not Christ the right to address the same words to you which He spoke to the sinner in Rome: "Do you know Me?"

Behold how I am scourged by the number and greatness of you sins! Oh, cease to scourge Me with your countless sins! Christ prophesies further: "The Son of man shall be mocked." The sinner mocks and derides Christ as God and as Redeemer. To comprehend this, we need only think of the Lord's prayer, and then consider how the sinner derides God when he repeats it!.

He calls God "Father," and yet, as Christ says, he is born, through sin, of his father, the devil! He says with his lips: "Hallowed be Thy name," and desecrates it daily by sin! He prays with the mouth: "Thy kingdom come," and yet destroys it in his heart by sin, and in the hearts of others by his vicious life and the scandal which he gives!

He prays: "Thy will be done," and follows only his own sinful inclinations, and this with an ingratitude, a wickedness that is worse than that of the devil, because his soul has been redeemed with the blood of Christ.

He asks: "Give us this day our daily bread," and works as hard as though he thought there was no God, and every man had to take care of himself. He gives no thought to nourishing his soul by the frequent reception of holy Communion; he lives for this earth only, and cares nothing for heaven. He prays that God may forgive him as he forgives others, and yet he refuses to pardon; what mockery!

He entreats: "Lead us not into temptation," and does not avoid, but seeks temptation. He begs God to deliver him from evil, and remains voluntarily in a state of sin, which is the source of all evil.

Lastly.--The Son of man is, according to the prophecy of Christ, to be crucified. Every Christian who sins crucifies the Lord in his heart. He crucifies Jesus, and can not prevail upon himself to take Him from the cross of sin. The three nails which fastened the Lord to the cross are: Custom,--the forgetfulness of eternity,--the example and society of others! These are the three obstacles which generally prevent the conversion of a sinner.

Divine grace, however, is all powerful; may its triumph be celebrated, and may every sinner now present profit by it, in order that the Lord may, during this Lent, arise in his heart; and, celebrating Easter within it, dwell therein from this day on for evermore! Amen!

Second Sermon.

"When He drew nigh to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way-side.--Luke 18: 35.

Today's Gospel, besides relating to us the prophecy of Christ concerning His approaching sufferings, speaks also of a "blind man who sat by the way side begging." It might at first sight appear that there is no connection between these two circumstances, and yet there is.

This blind man, begging by the way-side, personates the sinner. No one is able to restore to him his sight but He Who came into the world to suffer and die for sinners. The particular fact to which I wish to draw your attention today is: The blindness of sinners. I desire the more particularly to speak of this blindness as we live in a century which boasts of its enlightenment, and of its progress in art and science. 

It is true that in a temporal point of view we have reason to marvel at the inventive genius of men, but at the same time we have no less reason to wonder that these same men should be so blind and grow daily more so in regard to everything that concerns their future life.

O Mary, thou first bright beam of Christ, the rising Sun, pray for us that we may receive light to see the misery of that blindness with which sin encompasses men! I speak in the most holy name of Jesus, to the greater glory of God!.

At the siege of Assissi by the Turks, when the latter were attacking the cloister in which St. Claire and her sisters lived, the saint had the Host brought before the gates of the convent and cried to the Lord for help. Christ heard her prayers, and while the Turks were scaling the walls of the convent, they were suddenly struck with blindness and precipitated to the ground.

Blindness, spiritually considered, is the state in which all sinners live, especially those who, though belonging to the Church of Christ, conduct themselves like heathens. Let us draw a comparison; a blind man does not perceive that the rays of the sun descend upon the face of the earth; the darkness of night surrounds him. The sinner passes his days in spiritual blindness. He who looks with his physical eyes upon the world, sees the wonders of the wisdom, power and kindness of God. He recognizes how Providence cares for everything, preserves every thing, and leads all things to the end for which He has destined them.

And when we look about us with a heart filled with love for God, how many causes greet our sight to love, honor, worship and serve Him! The divine attributes become clearer to us, if we think of all that God has done for mankind by the work of Redemption. What proofs of His Wisdom, Power and Goodness we have in the creation of divine grace! But of all this the Christian sinner seems to see nothing. For him it is night, as it was night for Judas when, on the evening of holy Thursday after having unworthily partaken of the Lord s supper, he went away and betrayed Christ.

The Catholic sinner confesses with his lips all the tenets of his faith, but they do not influence his life; he remains in utter darkness, and in the light of faith lives like a blind heathen. This is especially the case if he has never been thoroughly instructed in his faith. Oh! how many spiritually blind people there are in this enlightened century, even among the children of the Church. Whatever may be the size of an object the blind can not see it. So it is with the spiritually blind. The truth of faith stands in its eternal grandeur before the eyes of his mind, but he does not see it, he does not deign to regard it.

A blind man knows nothing of the beauty of colors, nor of the harmony which unites all things in nature and forms of them one great picture. Thus it is with one who is spiritually blind, it is as if he had no perception of the beauty of true holiness and of a virtuous life.

He experiences no longing after perfection, and regards all aspirations to a higher life as unfeasible. He is hardly aware that there have been saints upon earth. He never raises his eyes to these glorious stars in the firmament of the Church, and if he does accidentally, these far-off luminaries, these worlds of holiness, appear but points of light, and it never occurs to him, while contemplating them, that they shine for his illumination.

The blind man does not become convinced of the existence of a thing until his hands have felt it. Thus one spiritually blind believes only that which he can seize, so to say, with his hands; he thereby dishonors his intellect and reason.

A blind man passes the most costly diamonds, the most brilliant jewels, and stretches out his hands towards a pebble which lies in his path. He is incapable of earning his livelihood, and would starve; if no one took care of him. Thus, one spiritually blind starves mentally, though he is in the midst of plenty and could gather with every breath merits of incomparable worth for the life to come. He is heedless of this fact, and wastes the precious time of his life in groping about in the darkness until the approach of that night when no one can work.

A blind man is unaware of the abyss that yawns at his feet; one step more and he will be precipitated into its measureless depth. If he is in danger, he does not perceive it, and would not leave his place if a wild beast came rushing towards him ready to tear him to pieces. Thus with the man spiritually blind. He must, as a Christian, be aware that the dangers besetting salvation are manifold, and he must know what Christ has said about the broad path leading to destruction and the torments awaiting the sinner, yet he never gives a thought to his danger, and is not concerned even if he is reminded of it.

A blind man, when threatened with some calamity, does not see the means of escape even if they are within his reach. This is exactly the case with one who is spiritually blind. He does not perceive that sureness which the Catholic faith imparts, but wanders about without a guide; or if, retaining the appearance of a Christian, he seems to perceive the light of revelation, he nevertheless sits motionless, like an owl on a withered branch, turning his eyes in every direction, but seeing nothing in the clear light of the sun.

Large numbers of these night-birds, of these spiritual owls, are to be found in the streets of cities. A true conversion to God by His preventing grace will restore the sight to these blind men when, on some occasion in their lives, the Lord passes by, and they perceive His presence by the grace that arouses their conscience.

It is especially on great festivals of the Church, in Missions and Jubilees, that the sinner feels the approach of Jesus, and is moved to follow him like others. Well for him if he then open his heart to the light of faith streaming upon him, or, should this light be still flickering in his heart, well for him if he endeavor, with the help of grace, to revive its feeble flame.

Christ said to the blind man: "Thy faith hath made thee whole." Sinners, and all ye who are spiritually blind, take this admonition to heart, reanimate your faith, and you will see clearly the path of salvation. Then will you make rapid progress upon this path, and one day behold Jesus and understand the miracle which His power and love hath wrought to enlighten and save you. Amen!

Third Sermon

"Now it came to pass, when He drew nigh to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way-side begging." Luke 18: 35..

The holy time of Lent is approaching, and the Church endeavors to prepare the hearts of her children for this solemnity. She would have us not only believe that Christ came into the world in order to save us by His bitter passion and death, but also wishes us to use strenuous endeavors to make His merits our own. Unfortunately the words of Christ to the Apostles, or rather what the Gospel says in regard to their mental condition, may be applied to many children of the Church: "They understood none of these things."

The principal cause of this intellectual blindness is the state of sin which prevents them from understanding the true import of religious truths. We have a picture of this pitiable state in the blind man who sat by the way-side begging. The sinner is blind; we considered this truth last year on this Sunday. Today I say: he is also a beggar. I shall endeavor to show you the truth of this comparison, and to draw thence some important lessons.

O Mary, restorer of divine grace, pray for us that we may turn to God, and, forsaking the misery of sin, grow rich in merit as true children of God! I speak in the most holy name of Jesus, to the greater glory of God!.

St. Chrysostom, commenting on the parable of the prodigal son, says that the unfortunate young man feels particularly one circumstance of his miserable condition, which sinners, whom he represents, seldom take into consideration.

This circumstance is, that he served as a swine-herd, and without stated wages. He was hungry, but had nothing to eat. With how little would he have been satisfied! He craved the insipid husks which the swine devoured, yet no one offered them to him. Sinner, does your master give you bread ? Do you not serve him without recompense? Are you not obliged to beg your food of the swine?

Yes; even so! The master whom the sinner serves in capacity of swine-herd, is Satan! He serves him without stipulated wagers. There is no doubt of it. For what can Satan promise man in return for the slavish service of sin? He possesses nothing, nor does he rule the world. But even were he to promise something, the sinner could not be certain of his wages; for "Satan" according to the testimony of Holy Writ, "is a liar, and the father thereof." All reward is uncertain, even the very husks of enjoyment which man receives from the indulgence of his passions. How often is sin the cause even of man's temporal misery! How often does it not weary him of life, and hurl him into the suicide's grave!

But even if all the enjoyment of the world were the sinner's, his heart, created for God, would remain empty and sigh with Solomon: "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity," except to serve God, to love Him, and possess Him. Oh! that the sinner would bear this in mind, and say to himself like the prodigal son: I am the son of a rich father; "the hired servants in my father s house have plenty of bread, and I here perish with hunger."

Sinner, miserable beggar, are you not ashamed of yourself? Why do you not cease begging? God alone can give you that which you ask of human creatures. He alone can satisfy the longing of your heart. Men are poor themselves, and can give you nothing for food save husks, which can not allay the hunger of your soul.

We will see the truth of this if we consider the intrinsic value of those goods which the heart of man yearns to possess. First, man desires an occupation by which to earn a living; then he wants this occupation to be profitable enough to enable him to amass wealth. To succeed in this he becomes a beggar--begs of men. And yet what would it avail him were he to gain all the gold of the earth? It is but dust, and he can not take it with him to the other world. More over, he often receives for his labor only poor wages, and frequently the harder he labors the less he is repaid.

How many such beggars are there in this world! If they did for God and heaven only a tenth part of what they do for the world they would become, as Thomas a Kempis says, great saints, and immensely rich in the goods of heaven.

Yes, thou blessed Thomas, if men would do but a hundredth part of what they do for the world, what a great number of saints we would possess. But as it is, they are indolent in the service of God, and go begging, ask for wealth, honor, and renown. And how soon death deprives them of all they have gained by begging, while whatever is done for the service of God is gathered and kept for evermore in heaven!

The human heart craves not only possessions but also esteem, and what will not a sinner do to win distinction? and what will he not endure not to be disgraced before man or to gain his good graces? And yet of what worth is the honor bestowed by man? It is like vapor, which rapidly dissolves. Yet how many sycophants there are upon earth! Of those, however, who serve Him, God says: "Whosoever shall glorify me, him will I glorify." A holy life renders us an object of admiration even to the angels, and secures for us a throne in the kingdom of God.

Ambitious human creatures, why do you not think of this? why do you persist in asking man for what God will give you bountifully, if you only live in such a manner upon earth as to be worthy to be called His child?

The human heart does not alone desire the possession of wealth and honor, but it also craves enjoyment and the sinner goes begging to human creatures for it. But all in vain! St. Augustine rightly says: "Thou, O Lord, hast created our heart for Thee, and it can not rest, until it rests in Thee!"

The joy which man seeks from his fellow-man, how unsatisfactory and empty, how frivolous, and often debasing! The sinner deservedly merits the reproach of the Apostle: And what benefit did you derive from that of which you are now ashamed?

On the other hand, how great the enjoyment which God prepares for those who serve Him, and who unite themselves to Him in prayer! As we read in the lives of the saints, they enjoy a foretaste here below of the bliss which awaits them in eternal life. (Father Francis X. Weninger, Sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday.)

These three sermons describe the state of our own immortal souls

We must pray to Our Lady every day so that the spiritual eyes of our immortal souls will be enlightened by the ineffable graces that her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, won for us during His Passion and Death and that flow into our souls through her own loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces.

On the cusp of Lent, therefore, we beg Our Lady to help us be humble, not proud, to be pure, not worldly, and to make penance for our past sins as we strive with her maternal assistance, especially by our prayer recitation of her Most Holy Rosary, to root out all attachment to sin from our hearts and souls as we give ourselves unto her Divine Son as his consecrated slaves through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as it is her loving heart that is the path of the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus of right order in the Church and the world.