Father Hess: I went to Rome in 1976 to study for the priesthood. Of course, it was the heydays of the Novus Ordo, the post-Conciliar Church, and the spirit of the council, which engulfed me too. So for a while, I thought the council was all right and the Novus Ordo was all right. Then in 1981, I was ordained a priest in St. Peter’s Basilica, which accounts for my outfit; that’s an old privilege given to the basilica. Shortly after my ordination, I realized that the Novus Ordo was not anything that would please Christ, both as contents and as formalities are concerned. I’ll talk about that later.

In 1983, I got my licentiate in theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, and later on, the doctorate. So my credentials are: I’ve got a doctorate in theology, a papal doctorate in theology from the University of St. Thomas Aquinas. I am a candidate for the doctorate in canon law from the same university. In both matters, I got a licentiate, bachelor of arts, and an additional bachelor in philosophy. So that accounts for the credentials. Even though I must say, it’s true, I have one and a half, or if you want to put it, it depends on the country you’re in, two doctorates. These doctorates come from a Novus Ordo Church and Conciliar Church university. I must say that about two-thirds or three-fourths of my theology, I had to study back home, because at the university, they’re teaching you all the theologians that made Vatican II: Schillebeeckx, Chenu, de Lubac (who became a cardinal), Rahner, and all these.

And that’s probably why I’ve become what you call the „bull in the china shop.‟ Our Lord said, „Jota unum‟—not one jot, one tittle to be taken away from His words. And He said, „My words will be everlasting. Heaven will pass, Earth shall pass, but my words will remain.‟ That means the truth cannot change. St. Vincent of Lérins, he’s quoted by the First Vatican Council, which is without a doubt one of the most important and one of the most beautiful councils in the history of the Church. And they quote St. Vincent of Lérins saying, „Yes, there is a progress in tradition, in the sense that you deepen the understanding, but‟—eodem sensu et eadem sententia—‟always in the same sense and in the same judgment.‟ Sententia is a judgment. Always in the same sense and same judgment. That means the truth cannot change. And if anybody tells you the truth changes according to the times, he has ceased to be a Catholic. And that, unfortunately, is true now for the Pope and most of the cardinals and most of the bishops. This is why I have become the „bull in the china shop.‟

Father Hess: Materially, yes. You have to be careful about the distinction. Material heresy and material schism mean it’s there, but it’s not declared, it’s not wanted. If the Pope says, and he does, „In accordance with tradition, I tell you that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from giving salvation to the efforts of Protestant churches…‟ I’m quoting Catechesi tradendae number 32. If he says, „In accordance with tradition, I tell you this,‟ then he’s simply wrong in pronouncing heresy, but not wanting to, because he says, „In accordance with tradition, I tell you.‟ If he were to say, „I don’t care what the Council of Florence said. I don’t care what Pope Eugene IV said. I tell you…‟ In that case, he ceases to be pope. That’s common opinion among canon lawyers and theologians, that is, if the Pope were to pronounce formal heresy. That means declared as such, undeniable as such. He doesn’t. He’s just contradictory, that’s all.

If I, on the pulpit, were to say, „Oh, well, of course, Christ doesn’t mind saving Protestants,‟ I would be pronouncing heresy. But if I were to say, „No matter what the Pope said, no matter what the council said, I say that Christ will save the Protestants,‟ then I’m pronouncing formal heresy. I become objectively, formally a heretic. If I just make a mistake, even if I repeat the mistake, I’m not a formal heretic. The heresy is there, but I don’t want it to be such.

Interviewer: Say that again, Father?

Father Hess: The progress in tradition comes about by people studying the faith, studying the Bible, and through their religious experiences.

Interviewer: So therefore, the dogma that was taught by the Church in the past, does it not hold?

Father Hess: It would seem so. What the council is trying to say is a mistaken sense of what is called the sensus fidelium. The sensus fidelium was always described, even by Saint Augustine, as the sense for what all people believed all the time and everywhere. So if you tell the average Catholic who has not studied theology, doesn’t know anything, that God is four persons, he will say, „What?‟ And he will not accept it. He hasn’t studied theology. He has not studied the question of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Son being man and God at the same time, which we know is one and the same person. But he has not studied it. He would not be able to prove what he says academically, but yet at the same time, he knows that God is one in three and three in one. He doesn’t understand it. He cannot explain it scientifically. But it’s his sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful for the truth, which does not make it a majority decision.

When some people today accuse me of saying things that go against the vast majority of the bishops, the vast majority of the clergy, and the vast majority of the people, I can only say, „Okay, that’s one generation.‟ The sensus fidelium is for all people for 2,000 years, all Catholics, of course. Because a Buddhist cannot have the sensus fidelium. He cannot have that inborn sense for the truth in the way that Catholics have, because he might have the inborn sense, but he doesn’t know enough to develop it. What Vatican II tries to do is to extend the meaning of the sensus fidelium to something like a majority decision, or the people pondering the truth of the faith in their heart and finding out what it is, an inside revelation. We don’t have that. The Church has always rejected that. The Church always said, „If you do not stay with the defined truth, if you do not stay with the teaching of the Church, the ordinary and the extraordinary teaching, then you’re not a Catholic. You cease to be Catholic.‟

Father Hess: Well, that’s quite mistaken, because we know what the Bible means as far as the Church has explained it, the popes have explained it. The popes have given us a lot of insights into the true meaning of the Bible. The popes have studied the Bible. The popes have had the Bible studied. The popes asked competent theologians to study the Bible, and then they approved their findings. But, you see, that’s a Protestant mistake to think that you find the truth in the Bible, just in the Bible. It’s the sola Scriptura of Martin Luther, the Bible alone of Martin Luther. The Catholic Church doesn’t have that.

The Catholic definition of tradition, as a matter of fact, you will find in the Council of Trent, and you will find again in the above-quoted document of Vatican I, Dei Filius, where Vatican I defines as a dogma that the sources of the faith are the written and the unwritten tradition. The written tradition being the Bible and all the approved books of the Bible, and the unwritten tradition being what the apostles heard out of the mouth of Christ and then transmitted to the faithful and their successors.

To give you an example for both: the written tradition is exactly what several councils in a row, and without contradicting each other, have defined as being authentic Holy Scripture – the books of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament. And the unwritten tradition, one of the best examples is the assumption of Our Lady. It needed 1950 years until the Church, through the voice of Pope Pius XII, defined the assumption of Our Lady with body and soul to heaven right after her death as a dogma. But the Church always believed it anyway. The dogma was just clarifying terms, but the Church always believed it. The apostles were witnesses to that. The apostles found her grave empty. So they transmitted what they saw, and this is the unwritten tradition in the Church, and it cannot change, because it was completed with the death of the last apostle.

This root for the whole problem, you can find in the famous document Ecclesia Dei, where in number four, the present pope accuses Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers of a wrong concept of tradition. Well, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers were doing nothing else but quoting the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council on tradition. If you read all the sermons and all the speeches that Archbishop Lefebvre ever gave, you will always find the same concept of tradition. And it’s exactly the concept of tradition to be found in the First Vatican Council. And then the pope says, „No. This is wrong.‟

Interviewer: Does that mean the pope is talking about new doctrines?

Father Hess: Yes, he does. In the same Ecclesia Dei document, he mentions the new aspects of doctrine. He says there are some people who cannot get along with the teachings of Vatican II because some of the aspects of this teaching are new. Well, at the same First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX defined solemnly in his Constitutio Dogmatica I Pastor Aeternus de Ecclesia Christi of July 18th, 1870, he defined the infallibility of the pope. He did not only define the infallibility of the pope, he also defined the limits of this infallibility when he said, „But the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter to reveal a new doctrine with His assistance, with His revelation, but to defend‟—that means to guard—‟the depositum fidei, the deposit of faith that has been handed down from the apostles, to guard this in a holy way and to explain it in the most faithful way.‟ As a matter of fact, the Latin text speaks about sancte custodire et fideliter exponere: to guard in a holy way, and to explain in a faithful way. So the Holy Spirit has not been given to the pope to reveal anything new. (Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent). It was not given to them to reveal a new doctrine. So when the present pope, in his Ecclesia Dei, speaks about the new aspects of doctrine, even already he is going against the fourth chapter of the dogmatic definition of infallibility.

Father Hess: Of course. That’s simple common sense.

Interviewer: But there was a papal bull in there where he actually stated you cannot… whatever the Church has proclaimed, you cannot in further councils try and take that away.

Father Hess: Of course, that’s speaking about the solemn magisterium of the Church, the extraordinary teaching. But it’s only common sense that the ordinary teaching of the Church, that means the non-infallible but binding teaching of the Church, cannot be contradictory, because then, where would the assistance of the Holy Spirit be? Where would that leave the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit allow ordinary magisterium that goes against the teachings of previous popes to be binding? Well, then we would not be bound by the truth anymore. Christ didn’t say, „I’m gonna give you a little bit of the truth.‟ He said, „Ego sum veritas. I am the truth.‟ So when a Catholic is faithful to the truth, he’s faithful to Christ directly, not to something that Christ just gave us, and that’s not part of Him. But the truth for a Catholic is identical with Christ Himself. This is important to understand.

The truth cannot change because God cannot change. It is impossible for anything perfect to change. Now the only thing perfect is not a thing, but God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is infinitely simple, He’s infinitely perfect, and therefore He cannot change, because if He changed, there would be something coming in that He didn’t have yet, or something missing that He had. That would mean an improvement. God cannot improve. God cannot change. So the truth cannot change. The moment Christ says, „I am the truth,‟ He cannot possibly be speaking about the human nature of Christ. He must be saying this as the second person of God. He says, „I am the truth.‟ God is the truth. God cannot change, so the truth cannot change. The Church always said that. This is why I quoted Saint Vincent of Lérins, which again you find in the Dei Filius document of the First Vatican Council. Dogma cannot know change, only deepening. Obviously, the Immaculate Conception was something that needed a clarification, so in 1854, Pope Pius IX pronounced the Immaculate Conception as a solemn dogma. That means extraordinary teaching of the Church. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Church always believed it. Even though St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t, the Church did. The very fact that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on this point just shows that even the best theologian of all can be wrong, and how. But the Church always believed it. It was part of tradition. The apostles heard it. It’s not to be found in the Bible. Not everything is in the Bible. We do not live with this Protestant saying, „Only the Bible can save you.‟

Father Hess: Yes, but you have to read it in context. Take that passage there when St. Paul speaks to the women. Oh, well, that’s very clear. I don’t see any problem with it. It’s perfectly within the context of the Bible, because in another part of his letters, he says, „Mulieres taceant in Ecclesia.‟ Women should shut up in church. And I perfectly agree. Wherever they don’t, they cause a mess.

Interviewer: You’re not gonna make friends this way, you know that?

Father Hess: „Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium,‟ Christ said. „I did not come to bring peace, but the sword.‟ So that passage of them wearing veils, how did we start the custom… not the custom, how did we allow the custom of not wearing veils?

Well, the fact that St. Paul wants veils is something that is a matter of discipline, obviously. Women wearing veils in church are following a discipline. It’s something that you can reinforce in countries that have never stopped doing it for more than 10, 20 years. I’m not talking about what happened after the council, because after the council, almost everything Catholic went out the window, the very window that John XXIII opened to let in fresh air. Well, he let in Satan.

To give you an example, in Austria, where I usually live and I’m coming from, a very infelicitous emperor called Joseph II dared to abolish the veil for women, which was a perfectly unjust action, and needed not to be followed, but people followed it anyway. So now, it’s about 200 years ago that the veil was abolished, and you cannot force it on women again, because of customs. You know the law of customs? Now, something done that is against the law cannot be custom, but then, it has been done in the belief that they are doing right, and the Church never interfered. The Church did not come up and did not speak up in the 19th century saying, „You have to put the veil back on.‟ So silently, the Church approved it, and it’s gone in Austria. It would be not very prudent if a priest was trying to enforce it. What you should do is invite women to go back to the tradition that St. Paul wants anyway. But we’re talking about disciplinary matters.

Father Hess: Yes, except that would be true if Communion in the hand and the new Mass were a mere question of discipline.

Interviewer: But they think that it’s okay, because the Church has not ruled it as heretical.

Father Hess: Well, we’re not judging these people anyway. We’re not judging anybody, because a subjective judgment is not within our competence.

Interviewer: But if the comparison of the veil as discipline, and then Communion in the hands…

Father Hess: Yes, but the veil is not a sacrament.

Interviewer: Communion in the hands is not a sacrament?

Father Hess: Oh, yes, it’s a sacrament distributed. It is, and how. Now, you bring up a very important point. Going back to the definition of infallibility of Vatican I, there is a very, very important line. When the infallibility of the pope is defined, they say that he has this… excuse me, not the infallibility. It’s the definition on papal infallibility, but it’s talking also about the primacy the pope enjoys. Now, the papal primacy, the document says, does not pertain only to things of the faith and morals, „Non solum rebus fidei et morum et etiam disciplinae et regiminis Ecclesiae.‟ It does not only apply to matters of faith and moral, but also to matters of discipline and government of the Church. The papal primacy does, not the infallibility, obviously, but the papal primacy.

Now, why does the Conciliar document bother to make that distinction, saying which in Latin is a lot clearer than it can ever be in English, „Non solum fidei et morum,‟ not just matters of faith and morals, saying thus… Well, that’s understood anyway, but also matters of discipline and government of the Church because the papal primacy applies to matters of discipline and government of the church, not the infallibility. The pope can bind his successors in matters of faith and morals. He can never bind his successors in matters of discipline and government of the church. For example, the pope binds all of his successors in everything that he defines, but he also binds his successors in his ordinary magisterium. When Pope Paul VI decided that artificial contraception is not to be used, it is immoral, he said the same thing that Pius XI said, Pius XII said, and he said the same thing that future popes hopefully will say because they’re bound by it. But when Pope Pius X changed the law of the conclave, and then Pope Pius XII changed the law of the conclave, and then Pope Paul VI changed the law of the papal election, the conclave, and then the present pope, two years ago, changed the law of papal election, they could do so freely because they’re not bound by it. It’s a mere question of discipline. Papal election is a matter of administration. Wearing a veil on your hat or not, like for us, not entering into church covered, wearing a hat, or I saying mass, entering the church to say mass with my beretta, is a matter of discipline. The rite of mass is not a matter of discipline.

We’re not only talking about a sacrament. There are seven sacraments in the Church. And Saint Thomas Aquinas says six of these sacraments lead towards the seventh, the highest and most important of all, and that’s the Most Blessed Eucharist. So we’re not only dealing with a sacrament, we are dealing with the most important sacrament. But we are not only dealing with the most important sacrament, we are dealing with the foundation of the faith. The oldest liturgical law is lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. It’s not the other way around. Historically, it’s the other way around. If you want to look at the Church from the viewpoint of a mere historian, you will say, „Okay. Well, first, the Immaculate Conception was believed, and we have the certain text for mass, a proper in the missal. Then the Immaculate Conception was defined, and the text of mass changed, historically.‟ Yes. But the average faithful, and that includes me in that case, we believe the Immaculate Conception because it’s celebrated December 8th. We hear about it at mass, and I read the text of mass when I say mass. And that’s why I believe in the Immaculate Conception and not the other way around. The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. So mass is not only a foundation of the faith, it’s the foundation of the faith.

Father Hess: Yes. They tell me it’s a discipline. That’s exactly what I’m proving wrong. The way you say Mass… Now we’re not talking about every little single rubric. Rubric being a law of how you have to hold your hands, or where at what point you put your hands on the altar like this or like that, or you don’t touch the altar at all. Those are little rubrics. But everything of it together: the way the church has to be built, the way the altar has to be built, the way the altar has to be decorated, the way the priest has to dress, the way the priest has to use the missal, the hour at which mass has to be said, the time span that is allotted for mass (which is not two hours like for some priests, and it’s not 10 minutes like for other priests; 20 to 30 minutes, by the way, in the old Roman books on moral theology). The way the church is decorated, the way the altar is decorated, the way the priest looks towards God with his back to the people and not the other way around (which would denote, like with this table, a meal or a desk, but not an altar). All of it together, and then the whole book, the Roman missal, all of that together is what you call the lex orandi, the law of what has to be prayed. And that, as such, cannot be changed for the simple reason that if you were to change this, you are to change the faith. If the law of what has to be prayed can be changed, then the law of what has to be believed can be changed. But if you change the law of what has to be believed, then you change the faith, and that’s exactly what happened with the new mass. The Novus Ordo Missae is the foundation of a new faith, of a new Church, of a Church that denies what the old Church said, of a Church that goes far beyond what the old Church ever allowed. It’s the foundation of a faith that makes all the truth of the old Church relative. I’ll explain that.

But first, I want to answer your question on Quo Primum. The people say Quo Primum does not bind the successors of Pius V who wrote the document. If we dealt with a document that is merely disciplinary, that would be true. It has been pointed out to me, I didn’t check it, but let’s say it’s true just for the argument’s sake. It has been pointed out to me that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuit order using the same formula that Pius V was using: „This document in itself is irreformable and irreversible, and whoever dares to do so, et cetera, et cetera.‟ And then, Pope Pius VII, I think it was, reinstituted the Jesuit order, and therefore, he must be, obviously, if I was right talking about Quo Primum as binding, then Pope Pius VII committed a grave sin when he reinstituted the Jesuit order. What kind of argumentation is this? Abolishing a religious order and reinstituting a religious order is not a matter of faith. It’s not a matter of sacraments. It’s a matter of church government, period. And I just mentioned before, the pope cannot bind his successor in church government. But to change the missal around is not just a question of church government.

Interviewer: But wasn’t the missal an outcome of the Council of Trent?

Father Hess: No. Only the book as such, not the contents. Pope Pius V hardly changed anything in the book. The Missale Romanum of 1570 that was published with binding force forever by Pope Pius V is nothing else but the Missale that was used by the Roman Curia a century before. And the Missale of the Roman Curia that was used a century before is basically nothing else but the Missale that was used by Gregory the Great, the last one who dared to touch the Roman Canon. When at the prayer, at the moment the priest holds his hands over the chalice like this and says, „Hanc igitur oblationem.‟ And Pope Gregory the Great in 590-something inserted the words „Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas‟ into the Hanc igitur, so that you may dispose our days in your peace. Your peace, mind you. Not the way the world gives it, but your peace. When he did that, the population of Rome almost killed him. They said, „How dare you touch the Canon?‟ That was in 590-something. Pope Gregory the Great was pope between 590 and 604. So, in those days, the concept of tradition in prayer and the sacredness of the Holy Mass texts already was developed to a point that the population almost killed the pope for touching it. But Gregory the Great did not scratch out anything or omit anything. He just added beautiful words, and yet he almost was not allowed to do that. This was the real sense of tradition that the Church once had, and that I hope we still have. Because the text of mass is the foundation of your faith and my faith, which is the faith that Christ gave us. Because of that, the text of mass cannot be changed, and the rubrics cannot be changed in important matters.

When Pius X, Saint Pius X, in 1907, reformed the rubrics of mass and the breviary, by the way. But we’re talking about mass here. When he changed a few rubrics in the Missal of Pius V, what did he do? Well, for example, he promoted Sunday. In the old categories, before John XXIII messed it all up with his first, second, third class, you had the category of a feast explained by how it was dealt with in choir, in chanting. So you had the duplex, meaning you had to say all the antiphons fully. You had the semi-duplex when you said only half of it, and you had the simplex when you just pronounced the first word of the antiphon at the beginning of a psalm. Pope Pius X promoted Sunday from a semi-duplex to a duplex primae classis, but only materially. I explain what that means. Before Pius X, most green Sundays, as we call them, the Sundays in the summer, the Sundays following Pentecost, Dominica post Pentecosten, were covered by a saint. You had saint so-and-so and saint here and saint there, and the priest on Sundays would have to celebrate in red chasuble, white chasuble, whatever, but not a Sunday. So Pius X very rightly said, „Hey, wait a second. When in 1570 Pope Saint Pius V published this missal, there were very few saints in comparison to today, few saints in the calendar. And most Sundays were kept.‟ So you had the liturgical times of the year: Advent (violet), Christmas (white), after Epiphany (green), Lent (violet), Easter (white), Pentecost (red), and after Pentecost (green). And you would see this. The people would see. But with all the saints coming in until Saint Pius X, the liturgical calendar got so packed with feast days that sometimes during an entire summer, all of June, July, August and September, you wouldn’t see a single mass in green. So Pius X said, „I’m sorry, this is not what Saint Pius V wanted.‟ So he promoted Sunday from semi-duplex to a practical, mind you, to a practical duplex primae classis. So now only the highest feast days can make the Sunday secondary to be commemorated and not celebrated. But you know what? Saint Pius X did not dare to change even the name of Sunday. Until John XXIII, Sunday still said semi-duplex, even though it wasn’t anymore. So Pius X was very, very, very careful in touching the missal and changing rubrics. And in this document that explains the changes, he explains exactly, and almost apologizes why he dared to touch something as sacred as the Roman missal. Now isn’t that exactly what I am saying? Do you think that five or six popes after Pius V would have bothered with all these documents if they did not feel bound by the first one? Were all these popes idiots, and now we’ve got the enlightened man on the throne of Peter? No. It’s the other way around, believe me.

Interviewer: In reading Quo Primum, I don’t see any… Pope Pius V certainly used every adjective possible to tell the people this is what he meant.

Father Hess: Yes, but some people say that’s legal formula. Yes. And it is to a point, except that with Quo Primum, it’s a legal formula that doesn’t concern a mere disciplinary matter, but a matter of faith. Holy mass is a matter of faith. If holy mass is a mere disciplinary question and not a matter of faith, then how can it be the foundation of faith? That’s contradictory. It’s ridiculous, as a matter of fact.

Father Hess: The new mass, why? Oh, well, Paul VI explained it himself. The very same person who wrote up, who had the new mass written up, explained why. He said, „The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.‟ The new mass is the smoke of Satan. The new mass is something intrinsically evil. The new mass, in itself, is something that goes against the will of Christ, it goes against divine law. It goes, therefore, against eternal law. Why? Well, we have mentioned one source that proves me right in this point: Quo Primum. Quo Primum binds all the successors of Pius V, and all of the successors of Pius V felt bound because they had their documents inserted after the document of Pius V. They did not throw out the document of Pius V and replace it with their own, but they added. So by the time John XXIII had the 1962 edition of the missal coming up, which is the last more or less acceptable version, you had a whole list of documents, some seven or eight popes in there. And none of them dared to throw out the document of his predecessor. If that doesn’t look like they felt bound, then what does?

Interviewer: Why? Why?

Father Hess: Exactly. Because the Council of Trent, in the seventh session on the sacraments in general, canon 13 says… (as previously explained, „by whomsoever of the pastors of the churches, let him be accursed.‟)

Father Hess: Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos very clearly says that the very concept of calling the Church to be anything but one unified is to be condemned because in the creed, we say, „Credo in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.‟ I believe in the one Catholic Apostolic Church, the one Church. The Catholic Church has always been one, and the Protestants are not disunited members of the Church, but they are not members of the Church. They are outside the Church. All the Protestants are outside the Church, all the heretics are outside the Church, all the schismatics are outside the Church. The Russian Orthodox are not our sister church. The Russian Orthodox are outside the Church, period, objectively speaking, mind you. Again, I’m not judging the situation of an individual soul. I can’t. The poor priest out there in Siberia who has never studied proper theology and doesn’t know much about the so-called Church of Rome, I don’t know in what state you’ll find his soul, and I’m not gonna attempt judgment. Judge ye not, that ye not be judged. But objectively, when we talk about facts and not persons, objectively, he’s a heretic and a schismatic. He’s a heretic because he says the Pope is not infallible, and he’s a schismatic because he says, „The Pope is not my boss.‟ He rejects the primacy of Rome. You reject the primacy of the Pope, you’re a schismatic. You reject the infallibility of the Pope, you’re a heretic. And all heretics and all schismatics are outside the Church. That’s a definition. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. No salvation outside the Catholic Church. And Pope Eugene IV made that very, very clear in 1441 at the Council of Florence, which for those who like footnotes, it’s number 1351 in Denzinger-Schönmetzer.

Interviewer: In Mortalium Animos, did the pope really tell us that no matter how good it appears, we cannot be in union with the Protestants?

Father Hess: He not only said we cannot be in union with the Protestants, he said we are not in union with the Protestants because they have left the Church, and we must not even be present at these interchurch meetings.

Interviewer: So it’s the opposite of Vatican II.

Father Hess: Exactly. It’s the exact opposite.

Father Hess: For the very simple reason that Vatican II is going against Church doctrine, therefore it’s null and void. That’s it. Vatican II goes directly against tradition of the Church. It goes against defined teachings in its document Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism. It goes against the defined doctrine of the Church in its declaration on religious liberty when it says that human beings, through his own dignity, the dignity of his own nature, has the right to choose his religion. This is a sentence that was explicitly condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus, the Syllabus being a list of condemned sentences, 80 sentences, 80 statements that the Pope in his different documents condemned, and they were put together by the Holy Office under one title, Syllabus Errorum. And the Syllabus is ordinary teaching. Okay? It’s not extraordinary. It’s not necessarily infallible in the sense of a solemn definition, but it’s ordinary teaching, and it talks about very, very theological matters. Now, either Vatican II is wrong or Pius IX is wrong.

Interviewer: Well, what happened to the Holy Spirit?

Father Hess: The Holy Spirit was present in Vatican II, but he was excluded.

Interviewer: Did he show up?

Father Hess: The Holy Spirit shows up whenever you want, but he was excluded in Vatican II by the very fact that John XXIII said, „This is not going to be a dogmatic council. It’s not going to be a council that defines anything.‟ Pope Paul VI said, „This is not a council that will define anything.‟ It’s only the present pope who tries to turn it into the foundation of a new doctrine. But John and Paul, who were the two popes of the council, and whose decision is final on that too, said it’s a pastoral council. Whatever the term pastoral means, it sounds like giving advice to priests on how to convert the faithful and keep them in the flock. But Vatican II did not want to define anything.

And besides that, people are very, very mistaken about the Holy Spirit’s existence, both with popes and councils, or, as a matter of fact, papal elections. I’ve heard people tell me that John Paul II was elected in the regular papal elections, so he’s the one God wanted to be pope. No. The Church never said that. The Church said that at a papal election, which is a mere act of administration, it’s like voting for the governor. It’s a mere act of administration. The Church said those who participate in the conclave, namely the cardinals, will get the Holy Spirit’s inspiration if they ask for it. But the Holy Spirit, I’m sorry, God has bound Himself. God is omnipotent, but when He binds Himself, He’s bound. God bound Himself when He gave us our free will. The Holy Spirit cannot go against my free will. He might appear in my dreams and say, „Vote for this cardinal,‟ but then I might be a lousy cardinal and vote for the other one. What’s the Holy Spirit gonna do? Burn the vote? Appear as a dove right there in the Sistine Chapel and tell everybody, „I want this one to be pope‟? No. The Holy Spirit offers His inspiration, and if you kneel down and pray hard, you will get it. But if you don’t care about it anyway, then it’s not necessarily the candidate of the Holy Spirit who was elected.

Father Hess: Annibale Bugnini. Oh, he’s the author of the new Mass. Yes, that’s a long story. He was discovered under Pius XII. I wouldn’t say by Pius XII. If Pius XII had known what a foul apple that was, he would have never selected him. But probably Giovanni Battista Montini already, who was the pro-secretary of state, one of the two pro-secretaries of state of Pius XII, it seems that he discovered Bugnini, who was at the time a teacher on liturgy at the Lateran University in Rome. Bugnini’s ideas about Mass were as wacko as can be, and as the Novus Ordo is anyway. So Bugnini started to reform the Mass, unfortunately with the approval of Pius XII, in 1949 when he rewrote parts of Holy Week. Pope Pius XII, I think, made a grave… But that’s my personal opinion as a theologian. I think he made a grave mistake when he confirmed and approved these reforms. Then John XXIII kicked Bugnini out. He didn’t like him.

Interviewer: Was it because he was a Mason?

Father Hess: I’m not sure that John XXIII knew about that.

Interviewer: Was John XXIII a Mason?

Father Hess: Not that I would know. He behaved like 10 of them, but not that I would know. I have no proof for it. But anyway, Paul VI then called Bugnini, and that goes to show you who discovered Bugnini 15 years earlier. He called in Bugnini to head the Consilium. The Consilium was the council for implementing the documents of Vatican II on the new liturgy, on the reforms of the liturgy. Then Bugnini wrote up an entirely new Mass, which was published—published, mind you, be careful about that—published by Paul VI, not promulgated or made obligatory.

Father Hess: It’s still there. The Holy Spirit protected the Church from a Vatican II that became obligatory. They didn’t define anything in Vatican II. On the contrary, at the end of the document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, it’s called a Dogmatic Constitution because it deals with Church doctrine, but it’s not a dogma, because it doesn’t condemn any opinions to the contrary. It just says, „That’s how we see the Church.‟ At the end of that document, there is a nota, which we have to thank Cardinal Pericle Felici, who was the secretary of the council. And in this note, it says, „None of what is said here enjoys the status of extraordinary teaching. None of what is said here, unless the council specifies otherwise (which the council does in no way and in no place), is to be taken in any way but as ordinary teaching.‟ Now, the moment we deal with ordinary teaching versus ordinary teaching, the one that is versus afterwards goes out the window because there cannot be a contradiction. If Pius IX said, „This is so and so,‟ and Vatican II says the contrary, Vatican II is just null and void, not teaching.

The same Holy Spirit kept Paul VI from making the new mass obligatory. Pope Paul VI put his personal signature under the Constitutio Apostolica Missale Romanum. That’s a document that says, „I like this book here.‟ He published the missal in 1969, the new so-called Roman Missal. The first one that did not have documents of the other popes in there, but only Paul VI. It was a new book with a new mass, a new rite, Paul VI said so himself. And the book says, „I like this,‟ and there are only two points of decree: one is, from now on, there are four Eucharistical Prayers. It doesn’t say we have to use them. It says, „There are four Eucharistical Prayers, and I want the formula of consecration, the words of consecration, to be the same in all forms.‟ That’s the only part of the decree. So that concerns, again, the book itself, but not the use of the book or the obligation to use it. The obligation to use the Roman Missal was pronounced by Pope Paul VI orally in his speech at the consistory of May 26, 1976, and before that, there was a notification of the congregation. Now, I’m sorry, I got Quo Primum of Pius V saying, „No new mass must ever be written up. This document cannot be changed.‟ And then there’s a notification of the congregation saying I have to use the new missal. The notification is null and void. Inferior non potest tollere legem superioris: an inferior cannot take away the law of the superior, and the congregation is bound to any pope whatsoever.

Interviewer: So the new mass did not come out of Vatican II?

Father Hess: The new mass came out of Vatican II, and I have proved this on another occasion. But the new mass was never made obligatory with the signature of Pope Paul VI or any other pope.

Interviewer: So no one was bound by anything?

Father Hess: No. As a matter of fact, we are still bound by Quo Primum. We are bound by Pope Pius V’s Quo Primum for the simple reason that it was never abolished, and it can’t be abolished anyway.

Interviewer: But also, if Vatican II did not say there would be a new mass, there’ll be a new mass, but you didn’t have to go to it.

Father Hess: No, Vatican II was… As far as Vatican II is concerned, as usual, the document on liturgy is completely contradictory. As such, not to be taken seriously. Laws that are not clear do not hold. So the Holy Spirit is still with the Church. It’s indefectible because it never made the abomination of the new mass obligatory, and it can’t.

Father Hess: Well, I think the church teaching is very clear on that. We have to distinguish, again, between matters of discipline and matters of faith. You will see why. And we have to distinguish between objective heresy and subjective heresy and between material heresy and formal heresy.

Let’s take up the question first: what happens if a pope is secretly a member of Freemasonry? Would he cease to be pope? No. He’s just committing a grave sin, and he’s excommunicated, and only he can absolve himself from that.

Interviewer: He’s excommunicated? And he can still be pope?

Father Hess: Personally, sure. If a pope commits… For example, if Pope Alexander VI, the famous Borgia pope, if he had attempted to absolve the concubine he spent the last night with in confession, he would’ve been solemnly excommunicated, reserved to the Holy See. Does that make him cease to be pope? No. A pope does not cease to be pope because he’s in sin, not even when it’s public sin. A pope ceases to be pope when he is in formal heresy. Canon law always stated, and the new code of canon law says the same thing: someone who is objectively in heresy, who’s in formal heresy, who is in the subjective sin of heresy, cannot hold office.

But I explained on another occasion that as long as the pope does not make his heresies (and there are enough of them) formal, he is pope. He’s just a man who is in error, who says the wrong things, but does not say, „This is a new teaching, a new doctrine, and I say this in spite of the councils before.‟ He doesn’t want to contradict. I told you about the mistaken concept of tradition the present pope has. Now, within this mistaken concept of tradition—a tradition that changes with the times and with the understanding of the faithful and their studies and their experiences, quoting again Dei Verbum VIII—the pope will say certain things that are against church doctrine, but he will always say, „In accordance to tradition.‟ For him, Vatican II is the second coming of the Holy Spirit, and therefore, whatever that means, it’s a second Pentecost, or as Pope Paul VI said (and the present pope never gets tired of quoting Paul VI on it), it’s a council almost as important as the Council of Nicaea, or maybe even more important. So, these people just totally overrate the so-called teachings of Vatican II, and they think that this is now tradition because tradition knows progress. So, when the Pope says something that seems to be against the doctrine of the Church as pronounced by the popes of the 19th and the 20th century before, and the Church for 2,000 years, matter of fact, this is just because of the change and the progress in tradition. So, they make it manifest that they do not want to be heretics. Pope John Paul II makes it abundantly clear that he does not want to contradict the definitions of the Council of Trent, but to interpret them in a new way that is fitting to our present times. That makes him a material heretic. It means the heresy is there. The matter of heresy is there. The heresy is there, but the intention is not there. And if I do not know and do not see, I cannot commit a sin. I cannot commit a mortal sin unless I know, want to, and in a grave manner. That’s the definition of mortal sin. And heresy is a mortal sin. It’s one of the worst sins possible, but there have to be three conditions: grave matter (well, matter of the faith is always grave matter), knowledge, and intention. To be quite frank with you, the present pope is a very lousy theologian, because his philosophy is all screwed up, and I doubt he knows what he’s saying. Doesn’t make you a formal heretic.

Interviewer: But you believe he’s the Pope?

Father Hess: Yes, that’s the reason why. Because, you see, when Herr Doctor Martin Luther said, „The Church is wrong, and I say,‟ he immediately was a heretic. He knew it, he wanted it, and the matter was there.

Father Hess: I must follow the pope in everything that is not against Church tradition. But if it is against Church tradition, and mind you, I have to prove it. The pope doesn’t have to prove anything to me. I have to prove to him that he’s wrong. Well, that’s pretty easy with him, I honestly tell you. Because I just read the Syllabus of Pius IX, and there you have the same thing that the present pope says, except that Pius IX condemned it.

That leads me to a very important point before I finally answer the question on sedes vacante. I have to prove that the pope is wrong. He does not have to prove to me that he is Catholic and that what he says is according to Church tradition. I have to prove to him that he’s wrong, and I can do that. But I cannot do it quoting theologians or myself, even. That would be the worst thing. If I was to say, „John Paul II says, but I say,‟ then I’m just a disobedient theologian, nothing else. But I do not contradict the present pope with anything but his predecessors. When I say that the present pope is wrong when he says that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from giving salvation to the efforts of the Protestant churches, I quote Pope Eugene IV. I quote the Council of Trent. I quote Pope Pius IX. When I contradict the present pope saying, when he says, „The Church is not one. We have to unite the Church, and that we have a sister Church in Russia, and we have a sister Church there,‟ then I just quote Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos against him. And if the present pope says that at the moment of death on the cross, Christ symbolically descended to hell with His body because His body was in the grave, then he contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council, not me. He contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council that defined as a dogma of the faith… I’m quoting, by the way, a speech of January 11th, 1987. He contradicts what the Fourth Lateran Council defined as a dogma: that the moment Christ died on the cross, His soul descended to hell. Now, the term hell means the waiting place for the just of the Old Testament. There’s no discussion on that. And His body couldn’t; His body was in the grave. But then John Paul II says, „The moment Christ died, He had the beatific vision, and we talk about His descendance to hell because His body was in the grave.‟ That’s against what the Church teaches also. It’s against Church tradition that Christ would have received the beatific vision at the moment of His death on the cross. He had it from the very moment of conception because He’s the second person of God united in the hypostatic union with human nature, but in the same person. There are two natures, but the same person. There is His divine nature and there’s human nature in Christ, and they’re united in the very same person of Jesus Christ who had the beatific vision all of His life, who never ceased to have it. And then the pope comes up and says, „He received it at the moment of death.‟ You see, this is a contradiction. And it’s not I who proves the pope wrong. It’s not I who judges the pope. I don’t judge the pope. I don’t prove anything here. I just quote the councils and the predecessors of this pope. And if I have a statement from the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and First Vatican Council, and then I have a statement by John Paul II that says the contrary, I know who’s right: the councils before because they define dogmas. John Paul is just writing speeches.

Now, it is the excellent comment on the new code of canon law issued by the Canon Law Society of America that says, „If a pope was to be in formal heresy, he would cease to be pope.‟ But then opinions are divided on what we would have to do in that case. However, the sedevacantists are not just satisfied with the document on material and formal heresy, they will quote Pope Paul IV, I think it was. The document is called Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. It’s a document which enjoys all the infallibility it could have. It uses all the legal formulas for an infallible document. That means, the pope says, „I, in virtue of my apostolic authority, herewith declare, define, and statute that, that, and that. And that has to be held and believed by all people forever.‟ And in that document, which also rules on the election of a future pope on the conclave, it says that, „No cardinal, if he is a heretic or was a heretic, can be validly elected to the papacy.‟ Many sedevacantists use this document as the definite proof that John XXIII, who in their eyes, was a heretic before his election, could not be validly elected. They are quite wrong on that because again, this is why I said you have to be careful about the distinction between matters of discipline, matters of faith. Pope Paul IV, with his Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was able to bind all of his successors forever in everything that concerns moral or dogmatic teaching in his document. To rule on the election of a future pope is not a moral decision. It is not a decision on moral theology. It is not a decision of faith. It’s not a matter of morals or faith. It is the ruling of a canonical election. That means, you talk about an act of administration. You talk about an administrative ruling, and that cannot, because it’s mere disciplinary, cannot bind his successors. And indeed, the many successors to Paul IV, who came up with new regulations on the conclave, including St. Pius X, never mentioned that paragraph again. So it’s not taken up anymore. And I think if the question of a former heretic or a material heretic not being able to become pope was something that the popes cannot change, then we’re probably in sedisvacancy for many centuries already. The present pope is not the first heretic in church history.

Father Hess: Objectively, definitely yes. Subjectively, I don’t see any escape for you because the church made it quite clear that you must not do that. You know it. You wanted to do it, and it’s a grave matter.

Interviewer: But why does that apply to a pope who doesn’t have intention?

Father Hess: Because it’s a very different matter, you see? To kill somebody, under certain circumstances, is always murder. To pronounce an error means always to pronounce an error, no matter what circumstances. But heresy, the word heresy in itself, means the intention of contradicting church doctrine. Otherwise, you do not deal with the sin of heresy. The members of the Church of the New Advent, they understand this to be in perfect accordance with what the church always taught, saying, „When Pope Eugene IV said that nobody who is in schism or in heresy can ever be saved, they were talking just about appearances,‟ which is a foggy concept of the word objective. Now I, myself have not ceased to underline the fact that when Pope Eugene IV says, „Anybody who is in schism or in heresy, even if he was to shed his blood for Christ, cannot be saved,‟ I’m talking about objective judgment. But you see, the point is, the Church of the New Advent does not use distinctions. The Church of the New Advent, headed by John Paul II, will always talk about as if objective and subjective were the same, material and formal the same, act and potency the same. This is why on many occasions, I have insisted on these distinctions.

There are many things that you are not allowed to say unless you make a distinction clear. I’ll give you the most obvious example. If I was to say to you right now, „I am Pope.‟ True or not?

Interviewer: It’s not true.

Father Hess: Yes, sir. It is true. Potentially, I am Pope. The probability is equal to zilch, but not the possibility. Potentially, I am Pope.

Interviewer: I know I could become… I could be Pope. Right. I could become a bishop, then a cardinal, and be elected Pope, right? So potentially, I’m a Pope.

Father Hess: Right. But you said very rightly that I am wrong, because you understood what I said, the way I said it. The usage of language is a law. It’s not just a mere convention. It binds you. You have to follow the rules of a language. And in the usage of language, no matter what language you speak, you do not name things that are only in potency without saying so. Can you imagine how scandalized people would be if I was to tell them at the same time, „I’m Pope and the physical father of many children‟? Potentially, I am. Of course, I could break my vows of chastity and my promise of celibacy and have a lot of children. I could also become Pope if I’m made a bishop and a cardinal and elected. But I’m not allowed to say, „I’m the father of many children,‟ without explaining what I mean.

This is the whole point. Now Pope John Paul II on uncountable occasions in his encyclicals, especially Dives in Misericordia, will tell you that all people are saved. That’s the same thing I just did. Is it true that all people are saved? No, it is not. But is it true that all people are saved potentially? Yes. Christ dying on the cross made it possible for all people to be saved; that does not include the slightest probability. It’s only a chance. Our Lady in Fatima showed very clearly that hell is not only not empty, but highly populated. So many people did not make it, that’s for sure.

Father Hess: Well, I would just say the fact that he disobeyed her command at Fatima is the definite proof that he’s not her favorite pope. Period. And I’m personally not interested in private revelations by some… What’s his name? Don Gobbi of the Marian Movement. Yes. Well, I think he’s as inspired as I am. Zilch. I do not believe it, and there’s no need for me to believe it.

Interviewer: But Our Lady had called through Medjugorje and the different places-

Father Hess: Oh, don’t talk to me about Medjugorje, because in Medjugorje, Our Lady says the Hail Mary. Our Lady cannot say the Hail Mary. It is impossible for Our Lady to say the Hail Mary. So anybody who tries to explain to me that Our Lady says the Hail Mary, I know that’s fake. It’s a hoax. Medjugorje is a hoax, and most of the apparitions are a hoax. Our so-called Lady of so-called Bayside said that the UFOs are the vehicles of the demons. That’s against any sound theology that I’ve ever heard. Demons do not need vehicles, and they don’t need a driver’s license. I’m not interested in all these hundred thousands of private revelations.

Interviewer: But those who are turning cold over there. People are being converted. Look at the fruits of Medjugorje.

Father Hess: That’s too bad. The fruits of Medjugorje, the devil will always be willing to give in on a lot of fruits if he ultimately can cheat the people. And you see, what’s the message of Don Gobbi? Vatican II is right, John Paul II is right. What’s the message of Medjugorje? Vatican II is right, John Paul II is right. What’s the message of all these self-appointed… Mind you, they called me a self-appointed theologian. Well, it was the Pope who appointed me a theologian by giving me a papal doctorate. But these self-appointed seers and visionaries, they just serve the devil by proving the conciliar church, the Church of the New Advent, and all the abominations that were pronounced in Vatican II to be right.

To me, that’s again, proof that Saint John of the Cross, whose spirituality I hope nobody will doubt, was very, very right when he said, „Do not trust visions, do not trust apparitions, and do not trust miracles even when they are right. Do not indulge in this because it will take away the faith from you.‟ Remember the Apostle Thomas? „Blessed are those who do not see but believe.‟

And while Vatican I, the last Catholic council so far, said very clearly that miracles are necessary for salvation, Vatican I was not talking about every single little miracle happening somewhere. Vatican I was not talking about visions, apparitions, and miracles in general. Vatican I mentioned occasional miracles, like the Miracle of the Blessed Eucharist in Lanciano. That’s a place in Italy where, 1100 or something years ago, a host during mass turned into visible flesh and blood, and so did the wine in the chalice. And it’s a proven miracle. It’s just been analyzed some 10 or 15 years ago by modern atheist scientists, out of whom two immediately converted. It’s a miracle proven to be authentic, and at the same time, a real miracle because it’s impossible that you will find human flesh and blood to be a horizontal slice of a human heart intimately connected with the old appearance of the host. So these are miracles that can prove the faith. Sometimes when people are not satisfied by the logics of the church doctrine, by the logical consequences in the church teaching until Vatican II, sometimes then you need a miracle to convert them. But you have to be very careful with them. Visions, apparitions, and miracles very often are a substitute for the faith. I do not need the miracles in Lourdes in order to keep my faith. I have to pray to God that He will never make me lose my faith. But in order to keep my faith, I do not have to read the latest statistics on miracles in Lourdes. As a matter of fact, I’m not interested in that. Saint John of the Cross was very right when he said, „Beware of apparitions, beware of visions, beware of miracles.‟ Why do you need them? You have the teaching of the Church. You better believe what the Church teaches. And then you might enjoy occasionally some miracle or whatever. But I do not need these things, and I’m not interested in Don Gobbi, I’m not interested in Medjugorje. Personally, I would have the right to say I don’t believe in Fatima. Well, I do believe in Fatima, and how. But I would have the right to say I don’t believe it. It’s not church doctrine.

Father Hess: You’re asking me to analyze the intentions of the last five popes. Why is it that Pope Pius XII didn’t do it? Why is it that John XXIII didn’t do it, Paul VI didn’t do it, John Paul I didn’t do it, John Paul II didn’t do it? I don’t know. I have a suspicion, a growing suspicion that the so-called Third Secret of Fatima talks about Vatican II, and that would make it abundantly clear why they didn’t publish the secret, and that would make it abundantly clear why they don’t believe the whole thing. But that’s theory.

Father Hess: Well, I get the impression that according to the Church of the New Advent, we are now the only ones who are not Catholic and cannot be saved. I don’t listen to these things anymore.

Interviewer: So a traditional Catholic would be the only one in jeopardy of losing his soul.

Father Hess: Probably. I don’t know what they really want. And I’m not interested. See, I follow the Church. I follow the popes. I’m interested in what the Church teaches.

The reason why Archbishop Lefebvre says 1958 is for practical reasons. The changes in the Church did not come about in 1958, period. The liturgical changes started in Germany in 1917, in the United States in the 1920s, 1930s. In Austria, in the 1930s, they said mass in the vernacular Versus Populum, towards the people. The actual changes in the Missale Romanum started under Pius XII when in 1949 Holy Week was destroyed in my eyes. Destroyed, but it’s substantially there.

And then, of course, there was the 1962 missal, and 1965 missal, and 1967 missal. Then you had the new Mass of Paul VI in 1969, 1970 edition. You had the vernacular versions come out in 1974 following. And now they are talking about another reform, just like in the old days, 1517 Germany with Herr Doctor Martin Luther. So the changes came about gradually, needless to say.

The point why Archbishop Lefebvre always says 1958 is very simple. Until 1958, there was not one official church document that was wrong. Pope Pius XII never wrote anything that was wrong, as far as I can judge. After that, with John XXIII coming in and ridiculous documents like Pacem in Terris, things started to change. So they’re not reliable anymore. And 1958 is a good way for the people who do not want to go into the details of all the history to remember. It’s very practical for them to remember 1958 as the date of the change so they know if a church document is dated before 1958, they can trust it. If it’s dated after 1958, it might still be right, but they cannot trust it. And that is why 1958 was used by Archbishop Lefebvre and by the Society of Saint Pius X.

Father Hess: Some people quoted me saying that I do not celebrate the Mass of 1962. And they said, „Very good. Father Hess does not celebrate the Mass of 1962 because the Mass of 1962 is definitely not the Mass of Saint Pius V.‟ Wrong again. I just said that the official changes, printed changes in the missal, changes that would make you doubt that the rule of Saint Pius V was kept, started in 1949. I would never say that 1962 is unacceptable.

I can explain to you very shortly and very simply why the Society of Saint Pius X, namely Archbishop Lefebvre, decided to use the 1962 missal. There are rules in the church. And one of the highest rules in moral theology is that self-defense will always be content with the minimum necessary in order to get rid of the situation you want to get rid of. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in 1988, he knew he was not gonna live for long anymore. He knew the moment he realized that Rome was gonna trick him, he decided on acting right now in self-defense. At the same time, if he claims the rules of self-defense, then he has to stick to the rules of self-defense. The 1962 missal, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, according to Father Schmidberger (who was his successor as the Superior General), and according to my own view, is the last acceptable book. Because after that, the changes were visibly too many and too drastic to make it credible that you’re talking about the same missal, and the same book, and the same mass.

However, I am not bound to these laws of self-defense. And what Pius XII did with Holy Week is something that I cannot accept. If a future pope was going to say, „Father Hess, you will say the Mass of 1962.‟ I would say, „Yes, sir,‟ and do it with a bleeding heart, but I will do it, because it’s acceptable. If he was to say to me, „You’re gonna celebrate the Mass of 1967,‟ or, „You’re gonna celebrate the new Mass,‟ I will say, „Your Holiness, you do not have the competence to say this,‟ because of what I explained earlier. The pope is bound, and I think he’s bound a lot more than what we believe him to be. When Pius XII allowed the Missa Praesanctificatorum, the Mass of the Presanctified of Good Friday, to be turned into the Liturgy of the Word, which is what happened, I think he exceeded the limits of his competence.

It was Archbishop Lefebvre who decided on the 1962 missal, not the pope. The pope came up with the so-called indult on the 1962 Mass only after Archbishop Lefebvre had decided that the 1962 missal is the last acceptable version. I’ve studied the different versions of mass. And some things in the 1962 missal strike me as almost unacceptable, but not entirely unacceptable. The 1965 version where you have all the propers in vernacular and the Judica me psalm (Psalm 42) at the beginning is gone, and the last Gospel is gone. Now that, I’m sorry, is too much. But the changes of the 1962 missal, as regrettable as they are, under the laws of emergency, would have to be followed, but I’m not under that law of emergency. A future pope will have to decide what we use.

Father Hess: Well, that’s a very difficult question. According to what most theologians say, canonization, not beatification, canonization is infallible. I therefore am inclined to agree with Pope Benedict XIV’s document, De Canonizatione Sanctorum, that the Pope enjoys infallibility in canonizing anybody. The question now is, if the present pope was to undertake not the beatification of Martin Luther, but the canonization of Martin Luther, would I have to become a sedevacantist? And to be honest, I don’t know.

There is another question involved. Does the present pope still enjoy infallibility without ceasing to be pope, I mean? Take an example. What if a pope was to say, „I personally do not believe in an unchangeable truth‟? If he was to say, „There is no unchangeable truth,‟ then he’s in formal heresy and he ceases to be pope. But what if a pope was to say, „I personally do not believe in any kind of unchangeable truth‟? Makes him a material heretic. We had three of them in church history before Vatican II. They didn’t cease to be pope. They were heretics, but they did not cease to be pope. But if a pope says, „I do not believe in unchangeable truth,‟ is he still able to define anything, even in his official capacity of being pope? And I think unfortunately, that’s a question that’s beyond me. I can only quote popes. I cannot decide on any issue. I can pronounce opinions as long as the church allows me to discuss a matter. When the church says this is now defined and beyond discussion, then I cannot discuss it anymore, I can only explain it. As long as the church does not say that this has been defined forever, I’m allowed to discuss it. I’m not decided, but I cannot decide on it. I personally believe it will not happen.

If the present pope canonizes Martin Luther, I will certainly take personal action. I will immediately cease to mention him in the canon. But I do not know if I would be able to preach that. I do not know if that would be enough certainty to become officially a sedevacantist. I can tell you that I have seen the pictures of Martin Luther with the halo already.

Father Hess: The church has answered the question in the past when the church did not allow you to fulfill your Sunday duty in a Russian Orthodox mass. Now, the Russian Orthodox mass is recognized as valid. The church has never, as a matter of fact, doubted the validity. Validity means it takes place. It doesn’t mean it’s allowed to go there. Most people confuse valid and licit. Valid means the sacrament is actually there; it happens. Licit means it’s also allowed to do so. I could celebrate a valid mass in a bathroom, but I’m not allowed to do so. It would be valid, but it would be illicit. The church has always recognized the sacraments of the Russian Orthodox Church as valid. Always. The church has not allowed you to fulfill Sunday duty. Why? Because objectively, these sacraments are illicitly administered by somebody who does not believe in the infallibility of the pope and who rejects his primacy. Faculties in the church are usually, unless we are talking about error, derived from superiors, that means from the pope down.

According to that rule, you cannot attend the new mass. Now, the new mass is not celebrated by formal heretics and formal schismatics, but the new mass is against the will of Christ, and I showed you why: because of the definitions of the Council of Trent, because of Quo Primum, because of the profession of faith, Iniunctum Nobis, of the same Council of Trent which says, „We must hold steadfast to all the traditional rites.‟

So to answer the practical question, what do you do? Well, exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre said, „Don’t go.‟ Period. You must not confuse a church law with divine law. The third commandment (sometimes in this country called the fourth commandment) of sanctifying Sunday means exactly what it says: sanctify the holy day. It doesn’t say how, it says, „Sanctify the holy day.‟ That is a precept that not even God Himself can dispense from. If you’re in a hospital, unless you’re comatose, you have to dedicate Sunday to the Lord, even if it’s only a short prayer. The church, not God, not Christ, the church decided that we have to fulfill our Sunday duty by attending mass. That, therefore, is a positive law rightfully given by the church, as is her job to explain the commandments to us. But it’s nevertheless the church and not God Himself who says, „You must attend Sunday mass.‟

If God tells me I have to do something, I know that God will provide me with everything needed to do it. That’s why the Ten Commandments are not, „Do this and do this,‟ but, „Do not.‟ I don’t need any special provision in order to not do something, but I need sometimes special provisions in order to be able to do something. Now, if the church says, „You will go to Sunday mass,‟ the church has to provide Sunday mass. If the church does not provide Sunday mass, I cannot possibly attend Sunday mass. If I’m a member of a scientific team down in Antarctica and the church does not provide me with mass, I cannot go to mass, period. And the church always said, „In that case, you’re excused.‟ If I’m living out somewhere in the country and we get 25 inches of snow and I cannot get out of my house, I cannot go to Sunday mass, period. Nemo ad impossibilia tenetur. Nobody’s obliged to do more than he can.

If the church does not provide me with holy mass, then I can’t go. And the Conciliar Church does not provide me with holy mass for the simple reason that it is my divine right, God-given right, to receive all the sacraments in my rite (R-I-T-E). My church happens to be the Latin Catholic Church. The rites of the Latin Catholic Church are the ones confirmed by the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V and his successors. They are not the changed new rites. Paul VI called it the Novus Ordo, the New Order of Mass. The New Order of Mass, I don’t know to whom it belongs except the devil. But it’s not my liturgy, it’s not my rite, and it doesn’t belong to my church, and I cannot go there. Period. If the church does not give me an old mass, I cannot go there.

I asked Father Schmidberger of the Society of Saint Pius X, „What’s the limit? Do you have to drive four hours in order to get to an old mass?‟ He said, „No.‟ He said, „An hour, an hour and a half, 15 miles, whatever.‟ Catholics should be generous. It depends, is there an icy road or a nice summer day? The church never said you have to risk your life for going to mass. The church said, „Sanctify Sunday by going to mass.‟ If you can’t go to mass, then you can’t go. Try to make it for Easter and Christmas and the most important feasts if you have nobody in reach. But you cannot fulfill Sunday obligation at the new mass because the new mass in itself is schismatical, against the will of God, against divine law, and against eternal law. How can I fulfill eternal law by going against it? It’s absurd. You can’t. Archbishop Lefebvre was completely right. Better the old mass once a month than the new mass every day.