‚97. And then we did that. Of course, we had bells ringing in the little classroom. How fast the time passed. That’s how meanwhile the time flees.

So what has happened is that a lot of people have contacted me because I think they’re afraid to ask you questions. Would you again sort of tell us why we should be listening to you? What is your background and your credentials?

Okay. Well, the answer would not be really that they should listen to me. I’ve studied for 10 years. Matter of fact, you see, while you were working, working hard for most of your life, I’m now 47, for most of my life, I didn’t work hard. Not in that sense. I’ve worked in factories, chemical industry, Germany, whatever. But I know what work is. But most of the time, instead of working, I was reading. If I had a better memory, then I would be much closer to perfection as far as my knowledge is concerned. But I have done my studies at the Angelicum in Rome, but that’s not the point. That’s a high school, sort of high school outfit. Pretty low level as far as the academic level is concerned, but I had the luck of having some of the old teachers who introduced me to Saint Thomas in the proper way. And once introduced to Saint Thomas, I started to, instead of studying most of the time modernist books most of the teachers at the Angelicum wanted me to read, I just spent my spare time, and I also spent my studying time with the writings of Saint Thomas and the famous book which is called Denzinger Schönmetzer, the collection of the papal magisterium in Latin. That’s a book that I’m studying now for 25 years. That’s the reason why there are certain things that I really know. And at the same time, I hope, at least, that I’ve not lost my common sense.

The reason why I say you’re not listening to me, but to the church teaching as much as I can remember it. Now, there are young people out there who will remember certain things much better than I do. At the same time, many people have not learned the theological method. That’s not only common sense. It’s also that you will never have all the answers ready all the time. See, we are doing a sort of live interview here, and I have not been prepared for this. I don’t even know what your questions are gonna be. But you may rest assured that whenever you face me with a question that I do not have the answer for, I will not give an answer. I will not give you a substitute for an answer.

One of the things today that is thoroughly misunderstood, also among traditionalists, is to think that who has the better argument has the truth. That’s not true. That’s what people may think about some idiotic TV discussions between presidential candidates. They might think that the one presidential candidate that has the better arguments and has the better, apparently the better reasoning and the better preparation, must be the better man. But that’s not true, because in public discussions, very often, the purpose of the discussion is that I am right, not to find out the truth.

The reason why I can answer your question, why should people listen to me in the first place, is that I will always try to the best of my knowledge to reproduce doctrine that is traditional with the church. One of the reasons why I’m not in all too familiar and good terms with the conciliar churches is because they want, they would want me to quote Vatican II, and after having stopped quoting Vatican II, to quote Paul VI and John Paul II. And they are highly embarrassed when you come up with quotations that are from the Council of Trent or Pope Pius X, and that proves them wrong, ’cause they’re not interested in the truth. Most of the time, they defend a certain political purpose, or they just want to be right. And unfortunately, even among traditionalists, it’s a widespread phenomenon that many priests just want to be right. They want to be able to say, „See, I was right, and you were wrong.‟ I’ve never been interested if I was right. I’m interested in what is the truth, what is correct, what is right. And the reason why I would never say you should listen to me, but the reason why there could be much worse things you could do than listening to me is because at least I try my very best not to make up things. I try to give quotations as much as my memory permits me to do so. The reason why I’m not sitting here with a prepared manuscript that I will read to you is because it would be useless. Latest on page two, you would be soundly asleep.

No, I have no idea. The point that I have to make a point about this. One of the reasons why I decided to do interviews like this live and not with prepared questions and prepared answers and prepared manuscripts is, God has given his talents freely. He gives them individually to each individual. He gives them differently to each individual. Somebody might be much better in reading than in talking freely. Some other person might be a lot more gifted for talking freely. I happen to know, and it’s not my merit, because I didn’t buy that, I didn’t work for that. It has been given to me. I have the merit that when I talk freely people stay awake. When I read a book to you, people fall asleep.

The best sermon in history, and you cannot challenge me on that, as you will see. The best sermon in history is Christ’s speech to the Apostles at the Last Supper recorded in the Gospel of Saint John. Read, by the way, you talk about spiritual reading. That’s spiritual reading. Read of what our Lord Jesus Christ had to say to the Apostles at the Last Supper. What Christ says here is of infinite value, of absolutely infinite value. And I consider it from all aspects, the literary aspect, not just talking about theology, revelation as a matter of fact, what it is. The revelation of God’s will and God’s thoughts and God’s intentions. But I also consider it the most beautiful speech ever done from the literary viewpoint. However, mind you, not in itself where it has infinite value. By circumstance, it can become worthless. Namely, when at night you come home from your work, you sit down. You’re tired, but you want to do something for your spiritual life. And there’s this guy in front of the camera and he’s reading the Gospel to you, and he goes on… „But I did not call you employees, but I wanted you to be my friends.‟ You will be sound asleep after the third line of our Lord’s, Jesus Christ’s own words. So that’s what you call a delivery. To deliver something. And I just can’t… I’d rather risk a wrong quotation before I read something to you with scientifically researched fixed quotations that will put you asleep solidly.

Yes.

When did you decide when you were up on that altar with the new Mass that, „I cannot do this anymore?‟

A few months after I was ordained, and mind you, there’s one thing that I have to say about that. I’ve never celebrated one single Mass in the vernacular. I started out from the very beginning, in 1976, I started to say the new Breviary, the Liturgia Horarum. For those who know Latin, I shall call it the Liturgia Errorum. Say you the Liturgia Horrorum, the Liturgy of Horrors and Errors instead of Hours. But I did it in Latin. One of the reasons why I needed several years to find out that it’s no good is because I did it in Latin. Not that I don’t understand Latin, that’s not the point. But once you are faced with translations of the new Breviary in English, you will understand why I say if I had done it in English from the very beginning, or in German, I would have stopped very soon, because I would have seen the blasphemies that come about in the translations. In the Latin original, usually you can find them.

Are you saying to me, Father, that to say the new Mass in Latin from Vatican II would be a valid Mass at that point?

I firmly believe so.

Okay.

For the simple reason that you cannot necessarily talk about the new sacraments, I’m talking about all seven sacraments in the new rite. You cannot necessarily call them Latin rite. As a matter of fact, I’m firmly convinced that they might be all kinds of things, but they cannot be of the Latin rite. The point is, the Latin has more than one rite. Now traditionally in the Latin Church you have the Roman Rite, which basically is nothing else but the rite that used to be celebrated in the Roman Curia. And that Pope Pius V in 1570 canonized it. You have the Ambrosian Rite, which is pretty similar. The Dominican Rite, which is pretty similar. But then you have the Rite of Braga in Portugal. You have the Primus Noltentium Rite. You have the Rite of the Carthusians whose founder we celebrate today, Saint Bruno, or Adruobis. And we have the Mozarabic-Visigothic Rite which is celebrated in Spain and which is quite different to the Roman Rite.

From the very fact that we have to consider different rites, and from the very fact that Pope Innocent III said that you shouldn’t change, that a pope who changes all the rites and all the sacraments and comes up with new ones put himself in schism with the church. And from the very fact that at the Council of Trent, seventh session of the Council of Trent about sacraments in general, Canon 13 says, „Whosoever says that the traditionally handed down rites that are used in the solemn administration of sacraments can be held in disdain or can be shortened, or can be turned into new rites by any one of the pastors of the church.‟ Any one just means whosoever, because the Latin word (Latin), doesn’t mean anyone, but it means whosoever. Doesn’t matter who it is, he can’t do it. Now, whosoever means the Pope is included. Who says so is outside the church. That’s why I think that the Pope doesn’t have a right to change all the rites. If he does so, at the least, he is committing a schismatic act because that’s against the unity of the Church. And I mean, just look around. There is no such thing as unity anymore here. Everyone does what he wants.

What do you do with a rite that you recognize not being the Latin Roman rite, as such, when you consider its validity? Now, for the Roman rite, we have a definition. For the Roman rite, the sacramental forms and the matters are defined. We know if we don’t use bread and wine for mass, it can’t be mass anyway. If you don’t use water for baptism but Coca-Cola, it can’t be Baptism anyway. We know these things. We also know if you baptize in the name of Christ, which Pope Nicholas I said would be valid, we know it’s not valid in any case. It has to be in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Trinitarian Baptism. At the same time, when we are faced with a schismatic rite, which is something the Church had to deal with extensively and intensively, latest after the great schism between the Eastern and the Western churches in the year 1054, the Church had to deal with the question, how do we determine which rite is valid? So they went according to the content. That means they examined the form of the sacrament and said, „Does this form express the essentials of the sacrament? Yes or no?‟ They didn’t say, „Is this form deviating in one or two or three single terms or words from what they are supposed to do?‟ No. They examined those rites according to, does it express the essence of the sacrament? Yes or no?

The last one to make these things very sure was Pope Leo XIII in (Latin) at the end of the last century when he established that the Anglican ordinations were not valid. And he established finally and forever that they were not valid mainly because of the defect of intention, not of the form. Originally of the form, but not back then. So when you deal with the question, are the Novus Ordo sacraments valid, you have to examine the matter, the form, and the official, mind you, and that’s the whole point, the official intention, the objective intention, the manifest intention. The Church has never tried to look into one’s soul. You can’t even do that in a confessional. How would I know as a priest if the guy who’s just confessing his sins is saying the truth or not? I can only pronounce a judgment on what I’ve heard. God knows his soul. The fact that Saint John Maria Vianney knew it was a special gift, another one of these aforementioned (Latin), the freely given gifts.

And according to that, we have to face the fact that in Latin, the fact that they leave out (Latin), mystery of the faith, is not a change in the essences of mass. The essence of mass is the double consecration. It’s very important to understand. The essence of mass is the double consecration. Twin, it should be called. The twin consecration. Bread and wine. Therefore, the essence, and this is something you can look up in the old moral theologists, is this is my body, and this is the cup of my blood. That’s the essence. And that is given in the Latin new rite. The question starts with vernacular translations that change the actual message of those words by saying, which has been given for all instead of for many. Those who expect Father Hess to be the judge on everything will be highly disappointed when I tell them, I do not have definite proof that new mass in English is invalid. I also do not have definite proof that the new mass in English is valid. Therefore, I have proof that it is doubtful. I have never had a doubt about the Latin new mass celebrated correctly, of course. Why correctly? There is big, big, big, great, great important mistake about that. People think they can judge a priest’s intentions. No, you can’t. But, and this is how the Church did it and does it, if a priest dressed in whatever the local vestments are, but obviously those vestments that are used for mass, approaches an altar, whatever that is, as long as people would commonly say, „Yes, that’s an altar.‟ Has the missal up there. Uses the official book issued by the church. Issued, I said, because when we talk about the Novus Ordo, we’re not talking about a promulgated law. Issued book by the church. Then they would say, „Okay, Father’s gonna say mass.‟ You see, again, I talked about the common sense on another occasion, and I have to repeat it. Common sense is the sense for the probable. You see that somebody has this makes it visible that he has the intention of doing what the church does.

It’s like when you have a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X, he leaves the sacristy. He is dressed as a priest is supposed to dress. He approaches an altar that looks like an altar is supposed to look like. On that altar, there is a missal, which you of course can only presume, they’re not gonna let you see it to check. But you presume this missal up there is a real authentic missal of Saint Pius V, therefore a missal of the Catholic Church, Roman Latin rite. And then he starts (Latin). There you presume, okay, Father’s saying mass. And that’s very important because this way the priest makes it manifest. Manifest means visible, almost tangible, if you were allowed to, that he’s saying mass. Therefore, if a priest in the new rite performs the way he’s supposed to, your point of departure will be the presumption that he wants to do what the church does. I’m not saying this is always the case. There are some people out there in this country who take everything that I say and then say the contrary and say, „Okay, Father, so you did not say that.‟ I’m sorry. Human language is not that simple or simplistic. After having been in huge European palaces, if I say to you, „John, this is a beautiful house,‟ and it’s a beautiful house, but I’ve been in bigger houses than this one here. Some of these theologians, so-called theologians will say, „Okay, Father, so you’re saying this is a small house.‟ No, I didn’t say that. I said, „I’ve been to bigger ones.‟ I didn’t say, „This is a small house.‟ And it’s not a small house. I don’t consider this a small house, but I’ve been to bigger ones. See, this is no way of arguing theology. In theology, you do not never ever try to hook somebody else to his own quotation. Real theology, the way Saint Thomas dealt with it, the way most of the greatest theologians did, you only want to find out the truth. You’re not interested in what the other one says. This is why I say you don’t listen to me. Hopefully, if I don’t make a mistake, I’m not infallible. If I don’t make a mistake, hopefully you’re listening to what the Popes say, but you don’t listen to what I say. You listen to what the Popes said, minus the faults of my memory.

Now wait, the point I’m making here is, we’re talking about probability. I consider the new mass properly celebrated in Latin or in a correct translation, which, for example, in the Polish language is correctly translated. I consider it as much as I have the authority to judge on that, I consider it valid. If you say there is the general instruction to the new mass which delivers a heretical definition of mass, I’m sorry to disappoint you on this point. It does, but that is the rubrics. Officially. And you have to read Apostolicae Curae, the document on the annual canonizations on that, where Pope Leo XIII says, „If the rite is shortened, if things are left out, with the obvious intention of changing the doctrine, and the doctrine is changed, then it’s invalid.‟ On paper, officially, ask the Vatican, write a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger. Officially on paper, the church is steadfastly holding to the real presence, the sacrifice of mass, and the priesthood. In practice, in real life, they don’t. But on paper, they do. I now come back to you.

But excuse me, there’s one thing that I finally have to add. These are my viewpoints. This doesn’t change the fact that I consider the new mass as such doubtful. And that, of course, puts it in a different light. Denzinger-Schönmetzer Quotation 2101 says, „You’re not allowed to frequent sacraments, not even for pastoral reasons, according to a probability.‟

Yes. Definitely yes to that. But I don’t doubt them. See, you talk about the sacraments. There are seven. As long as one follows the newly published rite on baptism, I’m only aware of the Latin edition. And so, those people who always like to book me on my own arguments, don’t quote me on the vernacular editions, thank you. I’m talking about Latin. I have no doubt about baptism, even though the exorcism is ad libitum. I’ve no doubt about confession, especially not about confession. All that’s needed for confession is (Latin) in whatever language, as long as it’s clearly understood. I’ve absolutely no doubt about ordination whatsoever. I will go into detail about this, obviously.

But before you go that far… Malachi Martin, who was, of course, someone you sort of liked, in his, I think it was Deserted Vineyard, said, „We don’t know at this point who is really truly ordained.‟

Yes, correct. That has a different background, this thing, which I will come back to. Now, when we talk about the new sacraments, I said, if the intention is manifested that the priest is going to celebrate mass… See, I’m not quoting myself here. I’m quoting a person that I consider to be a real authority on this and, quite frankly, I don’t care if people agree with me on this point. Archbishop Lefebvre said, „Basically speaking, the new sacraments are valid, unless…‟ And then he made the exception that I will go into detail with. But he said, „Basically speaking, it’s valid.‟ And Archbishop Lefebvre said that, as a point of departure, we consider the new mass valid, unless, and then he said pretty similar things to what I have said. And I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an authority. I do not consider 17-year-old self-appointed theologians who are not even in the priesthood, have never studied properly in anything, to be authorities. I do not even consider myself to be that much of an authority. But Archbishop Lefebvre, according to a church tradition, when things get rough, so to speaking, you trust the bishop rather than the priest, basically speaking. Now, this could be turned beautifully against me with the American Bishops Conference today, but at the same time would say, „Well, look at the priest then, worse.‟

The point I’m making is, we are dependent on a certain authority on many things, because even papal statements are anything but clear, at least sometimes. And as far as the probability is concerned, I exclude it. I have a problem with confirmation because I don’t think that Paul VI could validly allow anything but olive oil to be used for confirmation, which is the matter of confirmation. And therefore, if you go ahead and use some peanut oil or sunflower oil or whatever, I consider confirmation invalid. However, I’m not a pope and I have no final judgment on that. I consider it, it’s definitely doubtful. Definitely, from what we know, it’s doubtful. When we consider extreme unction without olive oil, I can’t see how it would work.

Well, today, the ordinations don’t have…

Oh, no, I’m sorry. The matter of ordination is the imposition of hands, not the olive oil. Now, as far as the ordination is concerned, Paul VI, I don’t know about, I have to be honest, I did not compare the old and the new rite on the ordination of deacons, diaconate. But I did only recently with a friend of mine in Austria, who’s a pretty erudite theologian, we compared the forms of ordination of the new and the old ordination to the priesthood and the consecration for bishops. I know the argument that’s looming in the background, quoting Sacramentum Ordinis by Pope Pius XII. If the infallible document that Pope Pius XII published under the title Sacramentum Ordinis, where he said that (Latin), „For validity, the form of diaconate has to be: colon, such and such; priesthood: colon, such and such; bishophood: colon, such and such.‟ If that was applicable for all ordinations, we would have, since then, no valid ordinations in the Eastern rites. Mind you, the United or the Schismatic. We would have no valid ordinations in any rite that doesn’t correspond to the Latin Roman rite in this point. Obviously, therefore, the document that Pius XII published is regarding the Roman Latin, the Roman Latin rite.

I said before, „What do you do if you’re faced with a rite that you cannot properly categorize?‟ Well, obviously you have to judge it according to contents. Now, Paul VI claimed, I have not checked up on it, so that’s another one of these things. A theologian who pretends that he will be able to answer everything correctly in a public discussion is not a man who wants the truth, but is a man who wants to be right. Beware of people who want to be right all the time. I have been wrong more often on more things than you… than in theology, than you ever knew that could be right or wrong. If I started to give you an account on everything that I have been wrong about in the old days, especially in theology, we’d be sitting here for another six hours with another three tapes.

Sorry, I have to come back. I’m talking about the Episcopal Ordination. See, with the Priesthood Ordination, there has been one word difference, UT, a conditional word in… And it’s not necessarily a conditional word in Latin. According to all traditional moral theologies I’ve ever read, even when an infallible papal decree defines that for the validity of a sacrament, the form has to be such and such and such. If a nonessential word is left out, that does not significantly change the sense of these words. Even according to the rather strict rubrics in the old men that talk about the possible defects while celebrating mass, would consider it sinful if it’s done deliberately, but would consider it valid. That means that even from the viewpoint of the Latin Roman rite, priesthood ordination cannot be considered invalid. And the bishop who ordained me a priest, by the way, was consecrated in the old rite in 1965, Archbishop Sovatani.

The thing that concerns us here is are the bishops that are ordained in the Novus Ordo Consecration Rite valid bishops? Again, under the condition that all the other necessary conditions are fulfilled, the form is definitely valid. Paul VI claims, and I said before I have not checked up on that, but Paul VI claims that he took that form from the Byzantine Rite. I don’t care. The point is, there are several different ways of consecrating validly a bishop. Now, the Church in Rome has always considered all the seven sacraments with the schismatic, heretical Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches valid. If you bothered to read translations of the Episcopal Consecration and the Priesthood Ordination in the Eastern Rites, you’d be surprised what you find. It’s not clear at all. As a matter of fact, I can tell you one thing. As I had to deal with this recently, I compared the Episcopal Consecration under Pius XII, the set in his Sacramental Ordinance, with the new one. And the funny thing I found was that the old Episcopal Consecration form is not as clear about the actual role of a bishop as the German translation of the new one.

So, we’re talking about something that is contained in the form of the sacrament. And as I said before, as I cannot consider the new ordinations to be necessarily of the Latin Roman rite, leave it open right now if the Novus Ordo is just plainly schismatic or if it’s a Gnostic sect, as Bishop or if it’s just a conciliar sect, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it. If it’s, let’s say it’s sectarian and heretical, then we have to deal with it exactly the way the Church dealt with the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox rites, which are all recognized, all of them. And they’re not necessarily as clear as the Novus Ordo rights on many things, but I have not yet found a theologian who will definitely prove to me that the new Episcopal Consecration misses out on the essences of bishophood.

The old one is anything but clear for the simple reason we are facing a phenomenon here which is quite amazing. When you read the old Code of Canon Law, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is something that some people in this country always love to quote against me in my face. But we have a problem there, because in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, it says that the major orders are (Latin), deaconate, and priesthood. Pius XII said, „Uh-uh, it’s deaconate, priesthood, and bishop.‟ Saint Thomas Aquinas said, and it was a tradition in the Latin Church, that the matter of ordination at priesthood is the handing over of the instruments, which had to be while the bishop was still holding them, chalice and paten, had to be touched by the candidate for ordination. I mean, guess what? The mass of ceremony at my ordination insisted that I do it. That, „You must touch it,‟ he said. „You must touch it.‟ He was obviously not all too aware of the Sacramental Ordinance Decree by Pius XII, who said, „No, the matter is definitely the imposition of hands, because with the Greek United, for example, you never had the handing over of the instruments.‟ Logical, clear to last point. However, Canon law doesn’t define things and never has defined things, and some people ought to get this in their head. It’s the purpose of papal magisterium to define things, not of canon law.

Nope.

What if he is?

According to the old code of canon law, he’s excommunicated. According to the new code of canon law, he has to be justly punished. That’s what the law says.

Question. Who consecrated Lefebvre?

Excuse me?

Who consecrated Lefebvre as bishop?

Uh, Cardinal Liénart.

I’m getting, someone asked me the question or told me that that person or that bishop, archbishop was a Mason. That’s going around.

Yeah, I know.

Can you clear that up?

Apart from the fact that it’s not that easy to produce proof for the fact that Cardinal Liénart was a Mason…

If he were, if he were. Supposition.

That’s what I’m saying. As it’s not the purpose of this conversation here to clear up the rather insignificant detail if Archbishop, Cardinal Liénart of Lyon was a Mason or not. If he was a Mason, then I would suggest to that person who suggested that Archbishop Lefebvre might not have been consecrated a bishop validly, to read up, to check up on the Rite of Ordination, which demands that it has to be three bishops. And all the three bishops have to consecrate. All the three bishops have to have the intention of consecrating. All the three bishops have to impose their hands. Therefore, if that person is able to prove to me that all the three bishops who consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre were most definitely Masons, then I would say, „Huh, that’s too bad.‟ That means that Archbishop Lefebvre has been illegally consecrated, but validly.

No one…

Oh, yes. You always get people who would suggest any kind of things, but the church has never said that one who is excommunicated cannot ordain. See, only a sacrament that in its validity, as to its validity is dependent on liceity, on being allowed, is doubtful in that case. Not a sacrament that doesn’t depend on it.

So, so your answer to them would be that there had to be three bishops?

That’s not the point. The point is not only there had to be three bishops, there were three bishops who consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre. But also, if all the three of them had been Masons, which is not easily established. Even if that had been the case, he would’ve been validly consecrated because the fact that you’re excommunicated means you don’t have your office. If Archbishop Liénart, which I am not that sure about… I don’t believe that if I buy at the local cash register, if I buy one of those black and white newspapers that tell me that a B-17 bomber fleet had been found on the moon and that Adolf Hitler was a woman, I usually don’t waste my time to check up on these things. And I have long ago stopped to check on every Mason that I supposedly have been made a member.

But you’re saying because, and even if someone were excommunicated…

He ordains validly.

Okay. Okay. All right.

Yes, definitely.

And who are they, and are they part of… what are they part of the Church again?

There are several theories. There is a very interesting group in, I think it’s Pennsylvania. It’s in Pennsylvania, yes. Who claim to be the true Knights of Malta, and who say that the Knights of Malta right now in Rome would not be the right Knights of Malta. And their argument is that when the order of the Knights of Malta sort of died with the grandmasters, was it treason or whatever? I don’t remember. My memory for historical details is unfortunately not good. They claim there had been a sort of serious vacancy among the grandmasters of the Knights of Malta, and then Leo XIII reestablished the Knight Order of Malta. They say that can’t be because if it is actually as the Italian license plate says S-M-O-M, SMOM, (Italian), Sovereign Military Order of Malta, it wouldn’t be sovereign if it’s out of papal graces. Now, they say that because the Roman Knights of Malta are dependent on papal grace, they’re not sovereign, and they can’t be the true Knights of Malta. And then they, I’ve never been able, however, to find detailed information on who after the tsar… which one, which tsar was it? Paul?

Paul.

I think it was Paul, who supposedly was the last grandmaster of the true Knights of Malta, how that succession would end up in Shickshinny, Pennsylvania. I don’t think…

The point, no…

Excuse me. The point I’m making is this: I couldn’t care less if the Knights of Malta in Rome are authentic or not. I know they’re not Catholics because they follow everything that Vatican II says and the pope says.

But I don’t think that was the intent of the other question. I think the intent of the question is that there are a lot of subversive secret societies…

Oh, the Knights of Malta have never been secret.

Okay.

Never. None of those groups, not that I’m aware of.

There is… Oh, you want a secret society? Try to find out the membership of all the members in the Opus Dei and you’ve got a secret society. Try it. The Escriva testimonies… Excuse me, the Escriva witnesses. That language mistake, beg pardon. The Jehovah Witnesses, the Escriva witnesses, try to find out a full membership list of the Escriva witnesses. Josemaria Escrivá de Balaguer, the founder of the Opus Dei.

Evidently, the Opus Dei, you think there’s something subversive with them or…

Yes, definitely.

Well, what… Can you expand on that?

Yes. The founder of the Opus Dei, who supposedly is verified, at the time when Pius XII… I believe that Pius XII was pope and was able to do it. In 1949, put the membership in the party, in the Communist Party under excommunication. And also, at the same time, put under excommunication any work done for the Communist Party. The founder of the Opus Dei, and this is something that the Opus Dei confirms in at least one of their publications, accepted members of the Spanish Communist or Italian already, I don’t remember that, but Communist Party into the Opus Dei. And when one of those communists, that’s a dialogue I read in one of the Opus Dei publications. When one of these party members of the Communist Party said to the founder of the Opus Dei, „But, Monsignore, in that case, I would have to leave the Communist Party,‟ the founder of the Opus Dei said, „Oh, no, there will be no need for that.‟ So what do you make of that? What do you call that? When the membership in the Communist Party was under excommunication, the founder of the Opus Dei admitted members of the Communist Party into the Opus Dei without telling them to leave the Communist Party. Can you beatify a man who was in public disobedience against the pope? And the time, mind you, when there was no church crisis like now. By the way, the founder of the Opus Dei said that he had a doctorate in not only in theology, but also canon law. I’ve never found anybody who would show me that. People have asked the Opus Dei to produce the document, and there’s no answer. I’m not saying he’s a liar, I’m just saying I would like to see it.

(laughs) Right?

In fact, years ago, someone got a picture down at the…

I need a gold coin for that. (laughs) Gold coins.

…of Martin Luther with a halo in one of the Catholic cathedrals.

Oh, a halo? Yeah. I don’t know. A hell. Oh, oh. That’s another thing, but… Now, you spoke about Martin Luther, and you felt he was a very evil man. He said things…

Tan Books and Publishers. Thomas A. Nelson. Tan Books and Publishers have an excellent book. The title is… I don’t remember the author, but Tan Books requires a title, a number, or an author, and they will be able to ship the book to you. In Tan Books, you will find facts about Luther. Read the book. Luther used names for our Lord that I refuse to repeat. And Luther admitted freely that he had his inspirations from the devil. Do we need more?

Nope.

Yeah.

There is a picture of the pope kissing the Quran.

Yes. Public act of apostasy. And he calls it a holy book. It’s a public act of apostasy. If I had scientifically irrefutable proof that that act of apostasy would be a formal act of apostasy, I would side with the sedevacantists. Sedevacantists, I’m sorry. Apologize.

All right, now there’s no doubt that he kissed the Quran.

Yeah, there’s no doubt.

Is there any doubt that he called it a holy book?

No.

Now, how do you make that the extension, that he was a formal heretic?

People who have studied recent American history are witness to the fact that a president can say a lot of nonsense. Does he cease to be president? I know. The argument is a president doesn’t lose his office by being a heretic. You could- In the church, you lose your office by being a heretic.

I would say for you, you can lose your office by being treasonous.

That’s an excellent argument.

He subverts the government. What would be the difference?

In this century, the 20th century, which will not, which has not ended last December 31st, but will end this December 31st, for those who have a spark of mathematics left in their memory, because it was called the 20th century, and the 20th century cannot end in 1999. Even if Kaiser Wilhelm der Zweite of Germany in 1900 decreed this to be the first year of the 20th century, doesn’t change the fact that the 20th century has given ample proof for treacherous people being heads of states without losing their office.

Now, we are here actually touching another question, which you might have in your list of questions. I don’t know. But we’re actually touching another question here. Do we have a pope? Yes or no? I have only one answer for this, and I will repeatedly give this answer. As long as I do not have scientifically irrefutable proof that this present pope is not pope, I will hold him as such. Why? Papal pronouncements on when a pope, not just when somebody loses his office, but when a pope loses his office, have been scarce, to say the least. Very few popes, unfortunately, because I do not believe it, but very few popes have contradicted the theory that the pope is above canon law. Mind you, I’m quoting even church fathers. Forgive me, I don’t have the page. I don’t have the author, and I don’t have the book, but it’s an old saying, „The pope is above canon law.‟ Pope Pius IX said about himself, „I am tradition.‟ Which is impossible. Of course, a mental error is no impediment to sanctity. However, Pope Pius IX said, „I am tradition.‟ I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that a single pope can be tradition. Impossible. The popes have unfortunately been very, very, even contradictory on this subject. When the Bishop of Brixham in 1869 asked Pius IX what will happen… They were discussing the infallibility to be pronounced as a dogma. And Pius IX was asked by the Bishop of Brixham, „What will happen if a future pope was to pronounce heresy?‟ Pius IX didn’t say he would lose his office. Now, this is in writing, and you can find it in the famous collection of papal pronouncements or papal private correspondence. The collection is, for those who like footnotes, M-A-N-S-I, Mike, Alpha, November, Sierra, India, MANSI. And it’s in the 5000s. I wish I had a better memory for things like this. It’s 5000, 5500 something if I remember well. The quotation, Pius IX says, „Or you just don’t follow him.‟ You don’t say this guy loses his office. You don’t say he ceases to be pope. You say, „Okay, then you just don’t follow him.‟

But isn’t there… Just like Saint Thomas Aquinas said…

But isn’t there another document that speaks of something like, if the pope does something heretical, he’s no longer pope?

No, no, wait a second. You can’t do something heretical. You can only pronounce it.

Oh, pronounce something heretical. Yeah, but he is no longer pope.

Yeah, the point is, canon law presumes that you’re a formal heretic. That’s canon law, anyway. Moral theology, like Primo for example or Verins or Vidal say that, discussing the topic, discussing the issue of a pope losing his office, say, only if it’s informal heresy. That’s a… We don’t have the time here, and we would have to go for five hours to discuss these arguments.

And what I have to say… No, no, I’m fully satisfying you because you’ll see that this is what you were asking.

No, it was not what I was asking.

No, I’m sorry, you said… Someone has brought up that you evade an issue, that there is a document that says that when the pope commits something heresy, all right? He is no longer pope, ipso facto.

No, I didn’t say that.

No, no, I am saying there is a document to that.

Yes, right. And people… Yeah, there are many, there are many documents to this point.

Okay. Saint Robert Bellarmine, who is at least a doctor of the church, right? Saint Robert Bellarmine says, „Even if a pope was to pronounce just material heresy, he would ipso facto cease to be pope.‟

Oh, okay, why doesn’t that hold?

The point I’m making is, there have been so many contradicting theories on this subject. Take for example this, even though I don’t accept it, it’s there. And if I accept it or not is not the point. It’s there. The old saying that the pope is above canon law. If the pope is above canon law, you cannot apply canon law on him. Who would do that anyway? Canon 333, paragraph three of the New Code of Canon Law, and that’s an almost literal copy from the relevant canon in the old canon law says, ’Contra sumum pontificem recursus non datur. There is no appeal against the Roman pontiff.‚ So, the oldest problem as to this topic, does the Pope cease to be pope when he becomes a heretic? The oldest problem is not to determine is he a heretic or not? But to determine if he’s pope or not. Who’s going to do that? You see, this is the whole point.

Archbishop Lefebvre, again, pronounced pretty well on this subject. He was asked, of course, you can imagine, the seminarians in Econe, they had the same problems. And they knew most of the arguments back and forth, against and for. And they asked him, and he said, Archbishop Lefebvre said very clearly, he said there, ‚They have excellent arguments. There are very good arguments to believe that he’s not pope.‚ But when you consider canon law, which certainly applies to us, obviously it’s not that sure if it applies to the pope, but it certainly concerns us. Then you have to consider the fact that the pope doesn’t have to prove anything to us. The onus probandi, this is called in Latin, the burden of proof lies with us. It might as well be, and I firmly believe, I’m firmly convinced that the sedevacantists have much better arguments for their viewpoint than we have for upholding the pope. They have much better arguments. But who’s going to decide on that? Who’s going to decide on that? Who decided on the arguments for Immaculate Conception and against Immaculate Conception? I don’t believe it was a priest from Vienna speaking to John Maffei in Philadelphia. You see? The point is, I have discussed this extensively with many theologians. I’ve discussed it with theologians who are really erudite. I’ve also discussed it with theologians who, especially on the telephone, try nothing else but to hook me up on my own lines by stating the contrary. I’ve discussed it with serious people and I’ve discussed it with less than serious people. I do know from my reading, some sedevacantists have gone through the trouble of writing excellent, usually theologically very erudite, thesis on this topic. The very fact that I’m not convinced is completely sufficient for my mentioning the pope in the canon, because even if I personally was convinced that he’s not pope, you think I’m stupid? If I mention John Paul II in the canon, and at the last judgment I find out he wasn’t pope, what is God gonna do to me? Nothing. But what if I firmly believe that he is not pope and I don’t mention him in the canon anymore, and at the last judgment I find out he was pope? Uh-oh.

The burden of proof is something of a very decisive nature in sensitive issues like that. This is one of the reasons we discuss the validity of ordination. The pope doesn’t have to prove to me that I’ve been validly ordained, and I don’t have to prove to you that I’ve been validly ordained. The other part has to produce the proof. The burden of proof doesn’t lie with the one that is presumed to be right by the law. The burden of proof lies with the one who challenges it. That’s not just true in canon law, it’s true in all logical civil laws. The pope, for example, of course, this is not a conclusive argument if he actually holds the office of being Peter and Vicar of Christ, but the pope is recognized as a head of state by a three-digit number of countries. Now, the one who challenges that is the one who has to present the proof. If the president of the United States says, „Okay, now I’m gonna appoint a new ambassador to the Vatican,‟ he doesn’t have to produce proof that there is a head of state in the Vatican. And he doesn’t have to produce proof that the Vatican is a recognized state or that the Catholic Church is a recognized institution. Some things are presumed. And if you do not follow the presumption, you have to produce the proof. Now, I say it again, the sedevacantists do have the better arguments than we have. But are they conclusive? I don’t think so. And even if they were conclusive, who’s going to establish by authority that this is the case?

Yeah.

This is mine. Do it. When a person is beatified, becomes a saint…

Uh, beatified or?

And also becomes a saint. Declared a saint.

Yeah, canonized.

Can there be a mistake there?

Whew. I have to be honest, I do know the answer for beatification. Beatification has never been considered infallible.

Okay, but, okay, the next step, of course, before…

Canonization, I have recently had the occasion to discuss this with one of my best friends, whom I consider a person more intelligent, more erudite than I am. And he said that even when you read Benedict XIV, Prospero Lambertini, Pope Benedict XIV, who most probably was one of the most erudite, most intelligent, most educated Popes in history, wrote the famous document, De beatificatione beatorum et canonizatione sanctorum, About Beatification of the Blessed and Canonization of the Sanctified. He decided on many of these issues. And even when you read his document, it does not become fully clear if canonization is to be considered infallible. I personally believe it’s infallible, canonization. I cannot say, look, I’m talking to people who, at least most people who are going to watch this tape, usually have trust in my information, and I don’t want to disappoint them, because I don’t have the right to do that. That’s why I underline the fact that I personally believe that canonization is infallible, but I’m open to facts. Sometimes you face a fact, and then you see it doesn’t hold up.

Why I bring this up… The indefectibility of the Church may be questioned here.

Yeah.

Because if sainthood… was this… There cannot be any mistakes in somebody being canonized.

Mm-hmm.

I now bring up this to you. We bring up John XXIII, and we bring up Pius IX.

Ah, yeah, okay.

Now, basically… Aren’t they contradictory?

No. (sneezing) Yes. Definitely.

So, therefore…

Yeah, but that’s two different questions here. Now, the indefectibility of the Church, those of you who have it already won’t have to order it from Tan Books, but the indefectibility of the Church is something that has been abused, especially recently, the concept of indefectibility. Tan Books and Publishers offer also an excellent English translation of the famous German book by Ludwig Ott. The family name is spelled Oscar Tango Tango, Ott, Catholic dogma. And Ludwig Ott is usually very reliable in quoting Church doctrine. Now, the indefectibility of the Church doesn’t mean that everything the Church does is all right. The indefectibility, like the unity of the Church, is basically the understanding that the Church is always one, always true. When you look at the Creed, it says, „Unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam‟ The one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That’s the indefectibility of the Church.

The greatest problem with infallibility is something that I will not sufficiently clear up in this conversation because unfortunately that’s not… I just can’t do it. I mean, I’m not… I don’t make the… I don’t cheat you. I’m not gonna pretend I know the answer if I don’t know the answer, okay? And the limits of infallibility, when does the Magisterium become infallible? When can you rely on the Magisterium? What’s the borderline between infallible and non-infallible? It’s something that today is of a greater importance than ever, but it doesn’t mean that it’s cleared up. The subject is not cleared up. It doesn’t?

Now, coming back to you, you asked about beatification and Pius IX. I will not disappoint you on this. As far as canonization is concerned, I honestly do not know if canonization is to be considered infallible. I consider it infallible, but I do not know that. I cannot say this with certitude. I’m sure there will be some very intelligent people who will come up with quotations. The problem with quotations is you can contradict Christ with the Gospel. So, careful with quotations, especially with single quotations, out of context.

You wanted to know about Pius IX and John XXIII. Here’s my answer. Pius IX, yes, John XXIII, no, and I can prove it. I cannot prove to you that Pius IX is a saint. How would I be able to? I cannot prove that to you. I believe it for one reason. But saint, beatified, okay, blessed. I had the privilege to know the promoter of the cause of Pius IX personally for many years. His name was Monsignor Antonio Fioritti. In his quality, Canon of the Basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome, we met at least 100 times in those years that I was in Rome. And he was the, is or was, at least… Honestly, I don’t even know if he’s still alive, but he was the promoter of the cause of Pope Pius IX. When in 1979, he presented to me a medal of Pius IX that had been printed out of the lead coffin in which Pius IX had rested before his body was recovered for the examination for the cause at the congregation for the cause of the saints. He told me that basically… Now we’re talking about ’79. John Paul II was pope for one year and had not yet had a chance to change all the rules and regulation of how to become a saint, okay? So that’s important to remember. And back then in ’79, Monsignor Antonio Pio Lanti told me that everything is ready for the beatification of Pius IX. So we are talking about facts that date back to a time before the present pope changed procedures. Now this doesn’t mean that that’s not proof that Pius IX is definitely blessed. I believe it, and I venerate him, and I celebrated mass in his honor.

But as far as John XXIII is concerned, the case is easy. Remember what I said about the founder of the Opus Dei and decree against communism? Okay. Now in the 1950s, when Pope Pius XII was pope, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, the later John XXIII, became after he had been nuncio in Paris, he became patriarch of Venice, archbishop patriarch of Venice. When he was patriarch of Venice, that’s a famous case that you can find in all the archives, and it was all over the newspapers back then. He sided with the local communist union, just issue or not is not the point here. Sided with the local communist union against the Italian state. And one of his famous, what do you call them? The pastoral letters that are issued for lent, he had to take it back because Pius XII angrily grabbed his white telephone and called him and said, „Take it back.‟ He did that, but he still sided with the communists against the Italian government. Now this… In a time when the decree that he later on as pope confirmed, was still valid. You cannot beatify a man like this. I’m sorry, because there are rules. We are not talking… This is one thing that has to be understood. Beatification or canonization mean that the man is in heaven. Yes. But beatification… But the failure to beatify or to sanctify or to canonize a person does not mean he’s not in heaven.

So I’m not discussing that. I’m coming to this point. It seems to me that someone is trying to make John XXIII a saint, and if he does, and they put it in with Pius IX, they both become saints and yet are contradictory.

Yes, of course. Doctrinally at least, not character wise.

No, no. But doctrinally.

Well, of course, Pius IX was not a liar, John XXIII was. There is a famous case that will soon be dealt with scientifically in a publication. I wish I could give you the publisher and the footnote. But I’m not allowed to at this point because it hasn’t been published yet by them. And we’re not talking about the Fatima Crusader or my personal friends with Father Gruner and the publishers. But we’re talking about somebody that I have no right to quote here before the publication is actually out. But the case of John XXIII will be dealt with individually and in detail. Now, there was this famous encyclical by John XXIII in favor of the Latin language. And when a few of the liberals whose names we know… Again, Father Hess’ memory is not what you think. So, I don’t remember the name, I don’t even remember the title of the document. But what I’m indicating to you here is, this is a conversation and not a scientific proof for everything I say. Pope John XXIII had published that decree on Latin. Actually, it’s not a decree, it’s an encyclical in favor of Latin. So some liberals confronted him with that. They were not alone. It was other cardinals present. John XXIII told them, „Oh, don’t worry about it. I had to do that.‟ Means it was for the show. Can you beatify a person like that?

That’s my problem with defectibility.

Correct. And the problem with defectibility is simply because of a wrong definition of defectibility. The church has been jam-packed with idiots for 2,000 years.

Do you think there are people who were saints that were really not saints?

Quite possibly. One of the reasons why I think that everyone who has been canonized is in heaven, is because the declaration that somebody is a saint might not be true as to his virtues, to his life, to the example he gave. But why wouldn’t the Pope be able to use his keys for the person as such? He’s got the keys. I’m gonna have to jump back to you on this. That’s not a doctrine. That’s a theory of mine. Let me come back to this. Actually, it’s a suspicion. It’s not even…

Hmm. Maybe as a punishment.

Now, who started Vatican II?

John XXIII.

Now, if he’s made a saint, could it be Vatican II was wrong?

Yes. Well, that’s the issue I’m talking about. Well, that’s no contradiction anyway, not even in the old days. Is Saint Ambrosius a saint? Yes. Saint Ambrosius, the church father, Saint Ambrosius said that if a heretic who has been baptized in the name of Christ converts, he doesn’t have to be re-baptized. Saint Ambrosius said that. That’s nonsense. It’s baloney. Why, well, who said that a saint cannot pronounce baloney or do baloney?

I am saying that it seems to me they’re trying to authenticate Vatican II by making John XXIII a saint.

Correct. Because just like everybody else, almost everybody else today, infallibility is the fashionable error of the century. There was a priest, his name was Abbe. Abbe is the title. (French). Reverend Father Le Fouque, F-O-Q-U-E. French. He was director of the seminary, of the French seminary in Rome when a certain young seminarian called Marcel Lefebvre attended the French seminary in Rome. (French) said in… We’re talking about the ’20s. Now that Saint Pius X has uncovered and dealt with the modernists, we are facing the worst of all heresies, the heresy that the pope can’t do anything. Even if Pius IX said, „I am tradition.‟ Now, Pius IX was a joker. If you read a detailed biography of Pius IX, which I had bothered to do 30 years ago first time, you will find out that Blessed Pius IX was a man of great humor. And just like Father Hess on his tapes, Blessed Pius IX would not always say something that’s immediately to be taken as infallible statement or doctrine, because when Pius IX talked as a regular normal human being, he was exactly as infallible as I am. Zilch, zero, nada, nothing, niente. Oh, yeah. And so I’m not… Contrary to some people whose tactic it is all the time to do that, I’m not gonna hook Pius IX on his statement, „I am tradition.‟ It’s a very dangerous statement, but then I have other more dangerous statements.

Pius IX said when you talk about infallibility, he not only said if a pope was to pronounce heresy, you just don’t follow him. If you look up Denzinger-Schönmetzer, you will find Denzinger number 3050 following up to 3070-something, you will find the solemn dogma of infallibility. After that, in the Denzinger collection, you will find a document that had been written by the German Bishops Conference because the German Reichskanzler, the Reichschancellor, Bismarck challenged that dogma on totally absurd grounds. So, the German bishops got together. In those days, they were Catholic. The German bishops got together and came up with a document explaining papal infallibility. Pope Pius IX saw the document, read the document, and signed it, so it’s his. And in that document, listen to the terminology of Pope Pius IX. Now, this document originally is in German, so I don’t know. I read Latin as I read German, but I grew up with German. The document doesn’t say, it explains that Bismarck said, „Does that mean the infallibility that now the pope is the Bishop of Berlin and the Bishop of Dresden and the Bishop of Cologne and the Bishop of Munich?‟ Which some people today seem to believe. But Pius IX just had the German bishops answer it by saying, „No. If for some reason the Bishop of Berlin does not take care of his diocese, the pope…‟ And mind you, this is a literal translation I’m giving you. „If the Bishop of Berlin for some reason doesn’t mind the business of his, doesn’t take care of the business of his diocese,‟ and now comes the literal quotation. „The pope has to interfere.‟ Look at the wording, has. You find it twice in the same paragraph. That means the German bishops didn’t say, „If for some reason the bishop of so-and-so and such-and-such does not take care of his diocese, it’s in the judgment of the pope if he will do something about it or not.‟ They didn’t say that. They said the pope has to react. The pope has to interfere. Twice in one paragraph. He has to do it. And Pius IX signed it. (car horn honking)

Pius IX did nothing else but what his predecessors did, who believed in the old oath of coronation, papal coronation. It was an oath. The last time was signed by the predecessor, forgot who it was, but Pope Bonifacius VIII, who became pope in 1302. He was signed uninterruptedly by 600 years of papacy between Paschalius I and Bonifacius VIII, Boniface VIII. And that oath of incoronation says that he swears he won’t change anything that has been handed down from his predecessors.

When was that changed?

It wasn’t ever changed.

No, no, none of it was changed, but the pope does not say that anymore.

That’s… Oh, because that was just a guarantee of orthodoxy to the Holy Roman emperor and kings. And that’s why after Boniface VIII didn’t sign it, it doesn’t mean that it’s out of, how do you say, that it has been… That’s a piece of the past. If 600 years, for 600 years all the popes signed it, that means it’s something accepted in Church tradition. There’s no need the pope signs it. You ought to know it. We know that the present pope doesn’t know it, but he ought to know it.

The point I’m making is papal infallibility, what does it mean, papal infallibility? I wish I could give you a sufficiently detailed answer, because the available quotations will not. Even the dogma as such, because the dogma, for example, in 3070 says, „The Holy Spirit has not given to the successors, had not been given to the successors of Peter that with his revelation, they will pronounce a new doctrine, open up a new doctrine, (Latin)‟ But that with his assistance, they will faithfully, saintly guard and faithfully explain a handed down tradition from the apostles.

(music plays)