Viel Feind, viel Ehr.

What’s that mean?

Lots of enemies, lots of honor.

Oh. Now, of course, you do not know them. You’ve never met these people before. Nor do they have questions they have said they’re going to ask you. So this will be pretty spontaneous.

One did?

One did.

We’ll throw them out.

No.

No? Okay. I forgot what he asked anyway. Okay. All right.

Do you think in the year that we met, this year, that the church has improved or going down?

Going down. Going down because I think that if you remember our last encounter last year, when we talked about the fourth secret of Fatima, that’s not exactly what you call spiritual progress. When the church, or let’s put it this way, not the Church of Christ, not the Catholic Church, but when these people in Rome start to lie about things like the Secret of Fatima, and they did lie most definitely as was proven in the Fatima Crusader, especially in the article by Andy Suzanek. If they start to lie about even things like that, then I can’t call that spiritual progress. So we’re going down. Humanly speaking, mind you, the Holy Spirit… When I say humanly speaking, I cannot tell the Holy Spirit what to do. I cannot tell Christ what to do. Humanly speaking, we are finished.

What prophecy?

Well, we’ve heard that Our Lady at Fatima told Lucia, Sister Lucia, that the pope was supposed to consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart, and all the bishops together.

Correct.

That has been done and it has not been done.

No, it has not been done in any way.

Well, whoever you want to listen to, it has been done and it hasn’t been done. All right. Listen to Sister Lucia.

You contend that it has not been done?

Absolutely not. Fatima Crusader proves that too.

So you’re saying to me Sister Lucia said that it has not been done?

Correct.

Yet other people say she said-

That was a hoaxed interview, I think it was in 1991, and it has been proven a hoax.

Do you think it’s suspicious, Father, there was a man, a priest who knew the message of Fatima, and it was Father Malachi Martin, is that correct?

Yes. Yes, I knew him.

Did you like him?

Yeah.

Is it suspicious that he didn’t come out with that until he died?

Certainly it’s suspicious. But that’s all I can say. I have no detailed information on the decision for the exact moment of publication. It is certainly suspicious. I’m used to seeing suspicious things coming out of the Vatican. Even the meat they sell is suspicious. I should know. I’ve been shopping there.

Father, you have not seen the secret.

No.

Do you know people who have seen it?

I do not personally know anyone who has seen it, really seen it.

In the second order then, you know some in the first order who knew someone who did see it?

In the second order, yes. Yes.

So could you sort of maybe clarify what you think… Not clarify, but tell us what you think the secret could have been?

It’s logically conclusive. There is no alternative. It has to be one thing. Our Lady knew. Now, you have to understand, Our Lady does not know the future. There is only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who know the future. Right?

Yes.

So Our Lady does not know the future unless she’s told. Our Lady knew exactly when First World War would finish. She knew exactly under which pope, and she named him, Pius XI, the Second World War would break out. She knew exactly that Russia would spread her errors. John XXIII was a great help in that point. She knew exactly that the pope won’t consecrate Russia to the immaculate heart, because she said, „Eventually the pope is going to do it, but it will be late.‟ She also knew that Russia was going to be the instrument of chastisement and that entire nations would be annihilated, which is exactly what the European Union, by the way, is doing now. And she knew nothing about Vatican II? Who’s gonna believe that? She knew about those 55 or 60 million people that died in World War II, and she knew nothing about one billion Catholics being deprived of the truth by what is going on since Vatican II? She didn’t know about that? That is impossible. It’s not improbable, it’s impossible. She was told the future in order to tell us at Fatima. She was told the future beyond 1965, beyond the 20th century as a matter of fact, because she said, „Russia will be consecrated to my immaculate heart, but it will be late. It hasn’t been done yet.‟ So she referred to an event that is most definitely going to take place in the 21st century. And then she knew nothing about Vatican II, the most revolutionary of all councils? If it was a council, which I deny. She didn’t know anything about that? That is perfectly impossible. The third secret of Fatima must, is bound to contain the crisis of the faith following Vatican II. Therefore, it must in some way mention Vatican II. There is no way around that.

La Salette did that. Am I correct, Father?

In a certain sense, yes, indirectly. Yes. La Salette spoke about suspicious popes.

Well, actually, La Salette used the term (French), in French, two worm-ridden popes, whoever they were.

Say that again, Father?

Worm-ridden popes.

Worm-ridden popes?

Worm-ridden popes. (French). Ooh. In French. Who wants to look it up in the dictionary? (French).

Why will not the Vatican consecrate Russia to Immaculate Heart? We hear that there were treaties signed or papers signed between the Vatican and Russia in order that certain bishops could attend a meeting. Is that correct?

I’ve only two explanations for it, but I don’t know if they’re true. This is guesswork, of course. The first is very clear. John XXIII made an agreement with Moscow that Vatican II was not going to speak about communism. He denied that in public, which made him a public liar, because we have proof that he did so, which means that his beatification is as invalid as somebody else’s. And then, the present pope is not exactly what you call a man entirely estranged to the errors of communism. If you read, for example, Laborem Exercens, which is a more or less Marxist viewpoint on work, and if you read some of the statements he does in other encyclicals, which are right now, you can shoot me down for what I say because right now I can’t give you the footnotes. I don’t have the memory to memorize everything that this pope said and which was wrong. He said too many things that were wrong that I could remember everything. To me, it is totally sufficient… if you want, I can give you at least two examples that are horrible to prove to you that this pope makes mistakes. And I’ve given them to you in our conversations, number one. And quite possibly…

Ecumenism, ecumenism you did also.

Yes. You did two. Yes. And quite possibly, the present pope simply does not want to consecrate Russia because it might offend communists. But don’t ever think there are no communists left in Russia. If you think there are no communists left in Russia, switch on the TV when they show up with their red flags and shout and scream at Putin, or whomever else they can get. So there are enough communists left.

Yes. Yeah.

And some people through this country feel that you should not be drinking wine.

Uh-huh.

And I know in the past we discussed this. And you have a phrase by Chesterton who is your favorite.

Yeah.

You want to give us that again?

Well, it might be an occasion to do that. The point about wine is, whosoever tells me that I’m not allowed to drink wine is a blasphemer. Because if he tells me that drinking wine is a sin, then he tells me that Christ was all of his life a sinner, because he had to drink wine back then. What is that supposed to mean?

We’ll turn that bottle around so we can see it. Go ahead, Father, it’s all right.

Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, and/or sucrose, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine. I get my caffeine in the coffee in the morning, by the way. I get my phosphoric acid in cabbage or cauliflower or Brussels sprouts. Wow. That’s 3-0. Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, and/or sugar. They don’t even know what it is. Caramel color, phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid, and natural flavors. I’ve been told there’s lime oil in there, and cinnamon oil, and caffeine from the coca leaves and whatever. Now, I think I must quote Chesterton.

„Feast on wine or fast on water and your honors shall stand sure. God almighty’s son and daughter, he the valiant, she the pure. If an angel out of heaven brings you other things to drink, thank him for his kind attention. Go and pour them down the sink.‟

(claps)

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, when he died, received the title Defender of the Faith, given by Pope Pius XI. Chesterton drank wine all of his life. He drank beer all of his life. When he lit his cigars, he lit them with a match doing the sign of the cross. He wrote a poem on giving thanks, not only when you eat, but also in the morning for having had a good night, and during the day for having had a good glass of wine, and during the day for having had a good pipe or a good cigar. He was a man who appreciated the gifts of God. And he was not this horrible kind of hypocrite who makes himself God by pronouncing an 11th, 12th, and 13th Commandment, „Thou shalt not drink wine, thou shalt not smoke,‟ and whatever comes in their perverted minds. Only God can give me commandments, and you better do some thorough research to find something in the Ten Commandments that tells me that I must not drink wine when Christ all of his life not only drank wine, his first miracle was asked by Our Lady to produce wine. And he chose wine to become himself, not Pepsi. Or Coke. Cheers.

Cheers.

(applause)

Rest assured, go ahead. Shoot me.

Uh, Scott?

Um, something John and I were talking about after last Sunday’s mass about what are the conditions in which the pope can speak infallibly, ex cathedra as you were, from the church in matters of dogma and faith? When does he say something that is infallible and when does he say something that is not considered fallible?

Well, that is a very difficult question in the sense that while we might have a pretty good idea on what is needed for an infallible pronouncement, it is still a matter of discussion among theologians. We have some of the doctors of the church that are very strict on papal teaching. We have some other doctors of the church that are kind of vague on it. I think you touched a weak point in church doctrine as such in the sense, not that church doctrine would be weak as such, but needless to say, many things have been deepened through the centuries. Not changed as Vatican II claims in Dei Verbum VIII, but many things have been deepened. When Vatican I, for example, quotes St. Vincent of Lérins on the point, how tradition can deepen over the centuries, the understanding of tradition can get a deeper sense, a preciser sense. And Vatican I quotes St. Vincent of Lérins saying this is true. Tradition does know a certain type of progress in the sense of a deeper understanding of a doctrine, but he says in Latin, always in the same sense and in the same judgment. That means it is absolutely impossible that something that has been church doctrine for many centuries will be changed, but it can be deepened.

I will give you an example. It needed until 1854 until Pius IX decided to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma. St. Thomas Aquinas, not because of denying the Immaculate Conception, but because of a misunderstanding over the two concepts of conception and animation, denied the Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas Aquinas, mind you. Now, since 1854, we know in the precise sense of the words that Our Lady was conceived immaculately, without a trace of original sin. It might be necessary, which would not contain any change whatsoever, that in the future a pope would have to explain the word conception as such a little bit better. It was none less but my old buddy Ronald Reagan who said, „As long as science cannot prove to me that animation takes place after conception, I’ll be against abortion.‟ And that’s very true. I wish an American bishop would’ve said that. It was Ronald Reagan who said it, and he was right. He said, „As long as science cannot prove to me that animation takes place after conception, I will be against abortion.‟ That’s what St. Thomas said. St. Thomas said, „If animation takes place after conception, abortion between conception and animation would still be a crime, but it couldn’t be murder, because you cannot murder something without a soul.‟ Today they tell you that animals are murdered. That’s ridiculous. You cannot murder an animal. You can kill an animal but you cannot murder it. You can only murder a person, and in order to be a person, you need a soul. So, Ronald Reagan, who sometimes had the wisdom of a simple person, and which I appreciated very much, he understood the problem that is still in context with that same dogma. So St. Vincent of Lérins said there must be obviously many times a deeper understanding, but always in the same sense and in the same judgment.

Now, to your question, what are the terms of infallible judgment? That is something where you will sometimes even within papal documents… I’m not talking about what’s published today. Waste of time. But talking about documents until, let’s say, until 1958, until Pius XII died. All right. You will find contradictions even within papal documents. For example, Pius XII says in Humani Generis that the moment a papal act is published about something, a papal decree… He doesn’t say a dogmatic constitution. He says a papal instruction… I think the word is instruction, but I’m not sure right now. Anyway, it is quite something less than a dogmatic constitution or a papal bull. And he says once that is published, the discussed subject cannot be subject of theological discussion anymore. Pius XII was not right on that. The church has always accepted that as long as something is not defined doctrine, either revealed doctrine, that means it’s in the Gospel, or of the faith of the Church. That means the Church has always believed it. Like the Church has always believed that Christ had the beatific vision from the very moment he was conceived in his holy mother’s womb. And I will come back to that maybe. And as long as something is not defined by a council or by a pope, what you call the (Latin), the defined, clear, defined faith. Of course, it was open to theological discussion.

Like, take certain documents on the sacraments. Can you imagine what would have happened when John XXII said that when people die, their souls do not go to hell, heaven, or purgatory until the Last Judgment? There was an outcry when John XXII said that. And he not only said it, he wrote a book about it, and he sent that book to the University of Paris. And the teachers in the University of Paris asked him if he was gone bonkers or mad or whatever. They were furious. „How can you dare say such a thing?‟ So it was quite open to theological discussion. As a matter of fact, thank God, John XXII, who was a profoundly good man, the day before he died, more or less, he repented, and he took it back, and he left it to the judgment of his successor. And his immediate successor made sure that this thing was cleared up.

Take another example. Now, when Pope Gregory the Great… Now, Saint Gregory the Great was the last Church Father. I also believe that he was the greatest pope ever. Now, that is, of course, subject to discussion. When Saint Gregory the Great, who became pope on September 3rd, 590, and who died on March 12th, 604, somewhere in those 14 years decided he’s gonna put a few words into the Roman Canon of mass. (coughs) (Latin), he added the words (Latin), „So that You may dispose of our days in Your peace.‟ Very good addition. The people of Rome almost killed him for that. Said, „How dare you touch the Holy Roman Canon!‟ It was, in a way, a papal decree, as Pius XII says in Humani Generis. It was a papal instruction. Of course, the pope signed the piece of paper, which is an instruction if he signs it, saying that hence forward, in the Roman canon, all priests will use the words (Latin). It’s a papal decree, and it’s not subject to discussion, Pius XII says. Saint Gregory the Great never blamed the people of Rome for being angry with him. He never said a word about it. He understood it. He was a saint, and I only accept liturgical reforms coming from saints anyway, which says something about Holy Week reform by Pius XII. But the point is, as long as something is not necessarily to be believed, that’s what you call it has to be accepted with the ascent of faith. As long as that is not true, of course it’s a subject to theological discussion. It is a subject, however, to respectful, prudent, and careful discussion. You cannot simply say in something that a pope has stated, „Oh, I don’t accept that.‟ That you cannot do. But if there’s something a pope says which I find wrong, I have to prove him wrong because he doesn’t prove to me that he’s right. And in Church history, there have been several times when popes said things that were most definitely wrong. Pope Nicholas I said, „’I baptize thee in the name of Christ,‚ would be valid baptism.‟ Church Father Saint Ambrose said that. That doesn’t make it true. It is simply wrong. Popes, Pope Saint Gregory the Great disagreed with one of his predecessors on two theologians at the Council of Ephesus, and Pope Gregory the Great put them under anathema, or vice versa. I don’t remember. So there have been things like this. But there has never been an important contradiction in any important doctrine. And that gives us a hint for an answer to your question. If the pope pronounces something that the Church believes anyway as infallible, of course it is.

The reason I ask this is a lot of Catholics assume whenever the pope speaks, he’s either right or he’s infallible, and they blindly follow him or the council, whatever council may be.

You said it very well. They blindly follow him.

And that’s… And I have been guilty of that myself in my younger years.

Me too. Most of us probably were. Yeah, sure. Sure.

It’s a bull.

It’s a bull. So a bull would be considered dogmatic?

No, no, no, no, no. The point is this. In Quo primum, Pope Pius V says, also Saint Pius V. Pope Pius V says that this document can never be changed in itself, and it can never be abrogated. It can never be called back. It can never be changed. The document as such is irreformable, as he says. „This is an irreformable decree.‟ He also says that no one ever in the future can change this document. I’ve been told as a sort of counterargument that the same wording was used by Pope, I think it was Clement XIV when he abolished the Jesuit Order. That didn’t keep Pope Pius VII from reintroducing the Jesuit order. Now, if wouldn’t it be true that if Pope Clement XIV in his decree abolishing the Jesuit order says that this decree can never be reformed, ever, and Pius VII just simply didn’t care about that and reintroduced the Jesuit, that the same would be true for Quo primum? That would sound logical, unless you overlook the essence of it.

A legalist, which I was too. I’ve been many, many wrong things. But you learn! And if you don’t learn, you’re dead. A legalistic thinking very often overlooks the substance of something. Like you can be a legalist over the United States penalty code of law, but first you gotta know the Ten Commandments in order to understand if that law is a just law. Okay. So I made the same mistake here. I said to myself, „Okay, well if the decree abolishing the Jesuit law was an irreformable decree, and yet it was taken away by future pope, in that case, Quo primum should run under the same heading as a reformable or abolishable decree.‟ But there are two things against it. First of all, a pope usually has a very serious reason when he says, „This decree is irreformable.‟ The popes are not exactly… At least most popes in history were not exactly idiots. If they knew and presumed that the moment they were dead their successor could change the thing, then why would they say it can never be reformed? Why would they say that in the first place? As long as they live, it can’t be reformed anyway. ‚Cause he’s in charge. So first of all, when the pope says that, that means he has the firm intention of keeping this document forever, not just for his lifetime. So Pius VII needed a grave reason to reintroduce the Jesuit, but this is still not the essence of things. To abolish a religious order, no matter how old it is, is necessarily a matter of discipline. Obviously. The pope cannot take away the priesthood from anyone. God Himself cannot do that. So the pope couldn’t turn all those Jesuits into lay people, but the pope could tell those Jesuits, „From now on, you cannot be a Jesuit. Do what you want. I mean, do this or this or this, but you cannot be a Jesuit.‟ That’s a matter of discipline.

Isn’t the Roman Missal also a matter of discipline?

I would think so.

No, I don’t think so either.

No?

And I’ll tell you why. The oldest liturgical principle, and liturgy is something got to do with Roman Missal, right? So, the oldest liturgical principle is Lex Orandi Statuat Legem Credendi. The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. This has to be clearly distinct from the deposit of faith. Now in the deposit of faith, we have the Immaculate Conception, but we didn’t have it as a law to be believed until 1854. Until 1854, you were, let’s say you were doing risky business in denying the Immaculate Conception, maybe even sinful business. But you were not a heretic. Since 1854, if you deny the Immaculate Conception, you’re a heretic. Now, even Pius XII, who for some reason that I will probably never understand turns that principle around, even he says that Pius IX just followed what was there. The law of what had to be prayed laid down that any priest everywhere, anywhere on December 8th in the Roman Missal had to say the mass of the Immaculate Conception. That was a law of prayer. Lex Orandi. That Lex Orandi determined in 1854 the Lex Credendi, the law of what had to be believed, namely the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Now, that shows us something that, apart from the deposit of faith, the law of what has to be prayed, meaning the Roman Missal, is obviously not just discipline. As a matter of fact, it is not just not discipline, it is in a certain sense the foundation of not the faith, that would be the deposit of faith, but it is the foundation of the law of what has to be believed. That does not mean… Pius XII is again right on that. That does not mean that the pope cannot define a dogma that’s not to be found in the Roman Missal. There is no mass for the papal infallibility. So that doesn’t keep Pius IX from defining the dogma of papal infallibility. But if you define something, you better check if it’s in Roman Missal or not. So the Roman Missal is not merely disciplinary. The Roman Missal is concerning to faith. It is in the before mentioned sense a matter of faith.

Now, it is quite understandable, I think, that the pope cannot bind his successors in disciplinary matters. The pope, Pope Urban VIII, who gave me the privilege to wear violet buttons just like a monsignor, could not possibly write up an infallible decree that determines that the pope of 2011 has to adhere to this decree, or couldn’t take away my violet buttons. It’s obvious. Common sense will say that. At the same time, common sense will tell you that the moment the Council of Trent defined that no one of the pastors of the church can change the rites, no one of the pastors of the church can change that dogma. Because a dogmatic definition will always bind everyone to come, including, of course, the one who ought to be the number one in obedience, the vicar of Christ. We seem to forget sometimes that the pope is not in charge. He’s only the vice president.

Because of Quo Primum, the way people read it, we’re assuming Latin Mass is the only mass of the Catholic Church. The only mass…

The Missal of 1570 is the only rite of the Roman, the Roman Latin rite. Roman rite. Don’t forget, there’s an Ambrosian rite in Milan. There is the rite of Braga in Portugal. There is the Mozarabic Visigothic rite in Spain. The Premonstratensian monks have their own rite. The Dominicans have their own rite. In England, before that monster called Henry VIII came about, you had the rite of Sarum. And then we have the Eastern rites, of course, and they’re all legitimate rites and all legitimate worship of God. And we are united with them in the same worship of God, but not in the same rite. R-I-T-E. We are united with them in the same worship. So, for the Latin Roman Church, of course, there can only be one rite, and the only rite that is for the Latin Roman Church is laid down in the Missal of 1570, unchangeable forever. Therefore, what Paul VI did was schismatic because it concerns the unity of the Church.

So it was schismatic from Vatican II when they brought about the new mass?

Yes.

So, it is considered an invalid mass, and yet-

No, no, no. Don’t confuse things. No. If you bring about something that’s not allowed, then it doesn’t make that invalid. Look, I’m not allowed to run over you with my car at the red light. But I certainly would validly kill you. It would be valid, wouldn’t it? But it wouldn’t be licit, would it? There’s a question. I can only licitly kill you if I’m the henchman and you’re licitly condemned to death. Then I can licitly and validly kill you. Outside that situation, unless there’s war, I can very much validly kill you, but not licitly. So, when I say the new mass is not allowed, I don’t say at the same moment that it is not valid.

If I, as a Catholic, go to the new mass from Vatican II, and I receive Holy Communion and stay for the whole mass and go home, I had said my confession in proper manner, received Holy Communion in the new mass, was that a valid sacrifice in turning bread and wine into blood?

The question is not if it was valid or not. That doesn’t even concern us in a certain sense. It doesn’t. The point is, in the Council of Trent, the seventh session of the Council of Trent, Canon 13 on the sacraments in general, it says, „Whosoever says that the traditionally handed down rites used in the solemn administration of the sacraments can be either held in low esteem or can be condemned or can be changed into new rites by any one of the pastors, whosoever.‟ (Latin) And the Council of Trent, mind you, in those days, the Council fathers still knew Latin. At Vatican II, they didn’t know Latin. Trent, they knew Latin very well. They did not make a mistake when they used the word (Latin). In the literal sense, (Latin). (Latin) does not allow an exception. It includes the pope himself. Innocent III said, „If a future pope was to change all the rites of the sacraments, he would put himself outside the Church.‟ Pope Eugene IV gave the title of Defender of the Faith to a certain Spanish cardinal named Juan de Torquemada. He was the uncle of the famous Inquisitor, for having written the Summa de Ecclesia. In the Summa de Ecclesia, Juan de Torquemada says the same thing. He says, „If a future pope was to change all the rites of all the sacraments, he will put himself outside the Church.‟ Now, Trent says the same thing in Canon 13 of the seventh session as a dogma. (Latin) allows no exception. It includes the pope. And yet, Paul VI came up with a new Protestant rite that was also written by six Protestant pastors who were present. But the point is that he did it. And the point is that this way, he committed a schismatic act because that’s an act against the unity of the Church.

Now, publishing a schismatic rite is bad enough in itself. Don’t forget that until Vatican II, you were not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty attending a Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox mass. Now, ever since the Great Schism in 1054, the Church has recognized the validity of all seven sacraments in the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. So the Church has recognized, ever since the Great Schism, that every single Russian Orthodox mass presumably is valid. And you are still not allowed to satisfy your Sunday duty there for a simple reason. The Russian Orthodox deny the papal infallibility. They deny the authority of the pope. They deny the Immaculate Conception. They deny the Assumption. They deny all the councils except seven or four. They fight each other if they would accept the first four or the first seven ecumenical councils. They are heretics and schismatics, so you can’t go there. How can you fulfill your Sunday duty by attending an act that’s not pleasing to God? It’s absurd.

Now, the new mass, the so-called new mass of Paul VI not only is schismatic, as you can see from Council of Trent and from what else I said, it is also doubtful because of the translations, because of the translation of the consecration of the wine. It is a doubtful sacrament. Pope Blessed Innocent XI, you can check that in Denzinger-Schönmetzer 2101. I remember that because a famous Viennese streetcar got the same number. In that sentence, Pope Innocent XI condemns the theory that for pastoral reasons, you could go to doubtful sacraments. So you can’t go there because it’s schismatic. You also can’t go there because it is doubtful. And that’s why Archbishop Lefebvre of most blessed memory said, „You’d rather stay home than go to the new mass.‟ What does the third commandment say? Does it say go to mass? No. It says, „Sanctify Sunday.‟ The church determines that you have to go to mass, therefore, the church has to provide. Wherever the church doesn’t provide, you’re excused. You’re not excused from the Sunday duty. You gotta do something. Say a special rosary or read the missal, the Sunday missal of the people. What about somebody who does research in Antarctica? There ain’t no chaplain there. And once he’s there for the winter, he’s stuck for six months. Is he in mortal sin because he doesn’t go to mass? No, of course not. He can still sanctify Sunday. And that is, I guess a sufficient answer to what you asked, but there’s some… I’ll come back to you. Okay.

Yes, Joan. Okay.

Father, please, the sacrament of ordination. Are the priests, post-conciliar priests, are they validly ordained?

Presumably, yes. In, I think it was 1949, but anyway, Pope Pius XII published a decree, which is called Sacramentum Ordinis. Sacrament of Orders. In which with all the necessary formulation, „we hereby declare that this is to be believed forever by all Catholics,‟ and so on. That the form of the sacrament of ordination to the diaconate, priesthood, and bishophood has to be such, such, and such. He says, therefore, for the validity of becoming a deacon or a priest or a bishop, such and such words are absolutely required. If these words are omitted, the sacrament has not taken place. Signed by Pius XII forever. So that says if within the Latin Roman rite, somebody is ordained to the priesthood with different words, he does not become a priest within Latin Roman rite. And here’s the point. Does that document that Pius XII concerned, does that concern the Greek United Church? Not the Greek Orthodox, the Greek United? No, of course not. The Greek United have a totally different way of ordaining priests.

Just one example. Until Pius XII, it was open to discussion if the matter of priesthood… Every single sacrament has matter, form, requires matter, form, and intention. Baptism, the matter is the water, the form is I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Confirmation, for example, the matter is extra virgin Italian olive oil, and the words are whatever they are. In the priesthood, Pius XII determined the matter of ordination is the imposition of the hands. The bishop for the deaconess ordination puts one hand on my head. For the priesthood ordination, Cardinal Sabatani pushed my head into my rib cage, and I really felt the ordination. So the imposition of hands is the matter of priesthood, and then there’s a certain form. Until a few decades ago, it was open to discussion if that would be the matter of priesthood or the transmission of the instruments, as you call it. There’s a part of the rite of ordination to the priesthood in which the bishop will hand me the mass chalice with the paten on top, and I have to hold tight onto the chalice and onto the paten while he is still holding it, while he pronounces a prayer out of the book. Until Pius XII, you could, without being a heretic, say that this is the matter of ordination. The Greek never had that rite. You see? The Greek never had it. So that’s a totally different rite. Therefore, no matter what Pius XII said in his rite, this is valid for the Latin Roman rite only.

I was unfortunately and innocently, I never had to confess it because I didn’t know better and I had the best intention, I was unfortunately ordained in the Novus Ordo. As I have just proven to our friend here, the Novus Ordo is not the Latin Roman rite. It is a schismatic rite. So I was ordained in a schismatic rite, like as if the Patriarch of Moscow had ordained me. I’d still be a priest, but I’ll be ordained in a schismatic rite. The Novus Ordo is a schismatic rite. Therefore, you cannot apply Pius XII’s document. You have to judge the Novus Ordo according to the rules that have to be applied in any such like case. I’ll give you an example. In the 19th century, Pope Leo XIII had to examine the ordinations of the Anglicans. And in his document, Apostolicae Curae, he determines on how to go about to determine if a sacrament given by schismatics is valid or not. He arrives at the conclusion, which would be another topic. He arrives at the conclusion that Anglican ordinations are invalid. But the point that we need here is, how did he go about it? Well, he checked on the matter, which is there. If a Russian Orthodox bishop imposes his hands on an Anglican deacon, for example, the matter of priesthood is there. But then he determined the form is not there because the way they understand the words of consecration has nothing got to do with the Catholic faith, and the intention is not there. Cannot be there. Objectively, the intention cannot be there. We are not looking into the inside of a human being. We are not looking into another human being’s soul. We are looking at an objective intention, a manifest intention. If I dress like a Roman Catholic priest, if right here on an altar, there is a church, an altar, the missal, the chalice, and I start to say mass, I make it obvious that I want to say the Catholic mass. So, that’s what we’re talking about. And Leo XIII very rightly said that’s not the case with the Anglicans because they deny the sacrificial priesthood and they deny the sacrifice of mass. Therefore, they cannot use the missal in a proper way, whatever it says in there. And if they can’t do that, then they also don’t know what the priesthood is, therefore they cannot use the Anglican, the common prayer book of the Anglican Church to make a bishop.

What we need to know here is, how is it with the form in the rite of Paul VI? Well, of course I checked that. You wanna be sure, right? Better safe than sorry. I don’t want to find out at the last judgment that I never was a priest. I checked the form of the diaconate, I checked the form of the priesthood, and I checked the form of the bishophood. They are most definitely valid. Most definitely. And the funny thing about it is that as far as the bishop’s consecration is concerned, the German translation actually refers a little bit preciser to the bishophood than the old form would do. You couldn’t believe when you look into Oriental rituals on how the sacraments have to be administered in some certain recognized and united Oriental rites, what strange kind of forms and wordings they use for the sacraments. It is very audacious, just plainly to deny the validity of a sacrament without going into proper studies.

As far as the new priesthood is concerned, I can see the only danger lying in the fact that in today’s seminaries, the future priests are not properly trained. Now, again, I’m not referring to a subjective intention because that might as well be, „I’m gonna do what the church does. I want to do what the church does,‟ which is sufficient intention. But what if from early youth that boy has been told that there is no mass, there is no real presence, there is no Eucharist, it’s all symbolic, it’s all a thanksgiving, hooray, and there is no sacrificial priesthood, he’s only the president of a liturgical assembly, he’s the under-manager of the local branch of the Charity Trust Incorporation Limited, and that’s how he enters the seminary. He doesn’t know what a sacrament is, he has no intention of administering a sacrament because he denies the sacraments, and then he’s ordained a priest. Can he be ordained a priest? I doubt it. That’s a different thing. But if there is at least the appearance of the future priest knowing more or less what he’s doing, and if the bishop follows the book, I can also not doubt it.

Father, what language were you ordained in?

Latin, of course. I made sure that even the reading of the Gospel were in Latin. Better safe than sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Why is the Society of Pius X not the same as Martin Luther?

For being the exact opposite of Martin Luther. The exact opposite.

They, on their own, have their own rite, in a sense.

No.

Okay. Okay. They question what the pope has said.

Yes.

Okay. Didn’t Luther do that?

No.

He didn’t?

No. He started his Reformation out of entirely personal reasons. That has been proven in Protestant books, mind you. He got so much, he was a very, let’s say, temperamental and, let’s say, an indulging character. We discussed that yesterday. So refer to it if you ask that question. He, to cut a long story short, anyone who wants the detailed answer on what I’m saying might as well get that tape. But Luther was desperate about his own state of mind and soul. Chesterton says that the worst mistake you can do is when you realize that you are hardly able to reach the ideal, to just simply lower the ideal, instead of admitting that you’re not capable of doing it and trying again, and trying hard.

Let me rephrase it, all right?

Okay.

How can they… How can they be called Catholic? What gives them the right to say that they will not listen to the Pope and to ordain priests? How can they do that?

Simple. The Catholic Church needs priests, otherwise there is no Catholic Church. The Catholic Church needs Catholic priests. It is impossible, positively, definitely impossible to become a Catholic priest in any one of the conciliar seminaries. No exception. Because the two essential conditions for becoming a priest nowadays, except for being a man and unmarried, are to accept Vatican II and to accept the new liturgy. We have talked about the new liturgy. You cannot become a Catholic priest if you accept the schismatic rite. If you, from the outset, decide you’re going to celebrate the schismatic rite. You can even less become a Catholic priest if you accept Vatican II, which is heretical. I give you an example. It’s also a blaspheming council. I give you that example too.

The heresy in Vatican II, for example, is on religious liberty, to establish religious liberty as a civil law. Now, the church has always accepted religious liberty or religious freedom in the sense like a political agreement. The church is not allowed to teach that as a doctrine, obviously. Gregory XVI condemned that notion. So did Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Pius XI explicitly outlawed the participation in non-Catholic gatherings like it is happening today. And Vatican II, on another hand, says something that is of quite some juicy significance right now. Vatican II says, „The Muslims together with us, together with us adore one merciful God,‟ which is blasphemy and heresy because the Quran says that the infidels, which means you and me, have to be killed and rubbed out unless they convert, which means unless we kiss the Quran like the Pope does, we are supposed to be killed. Now, the Quran says not only that, the Quran calls the idea of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even though they misunderstand the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Trinity, they call that idea preposterous or, to quote it literally, excremental. That’s the term used in the Quran. A council that tells me that the Muslims together with us are worshiping one merciful God is a council that doesn’t tell me the truth.

The Society of St. Pius X rejects what is wrong in Vatican II, and they reject the new mass, not just because it’s not as nice as the old mass, but because the new mass is at least leading into heresy by obscuring the doctrine of Trent on mass, on the repetition of the unbloody repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary, at the same time, the real presence of the body and blood of our Lord on the altar, and which means nothing else that they are faithful to Catholic tradition while the Pope very obviously is not. Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes number 12 says, „Believers and non-believers unanimously agree that all the efforts of mankind are directed towards man as the center and summit.‟ That is what I call a godless statement. To accept that means you cease to be a Catholic. The only way to stay a Catholic is to accept tradition against what is against tradition. Vatican II is partly against tradition.

The present pope’s statements, I’ll give you one, are at least blasphemous, if not heretical. There is a blasphemous statement. In Dominum et vivificantem, the present Pope, that’s his encyclical on the Holy Spirit says, „The worst of all possible sins, the sin to kill the Son of God has redeemed us.‟ That’s an unspeakable, dirty blasphemy. So it is the sin that was committed that redeemed us. It is not the obedience of Christ like it says in the Holy Liturgy on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Saturday. And in the antiphon, the Obedientia Christi usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, the obedience of Christ unto the death, unto the death, death on the cross. It’s not Christ’s obedience, it’s not Christ’s suffering that has redeemed us. John Paul II without mentioning Christ’s sufferings, I’m not quoting out of context, I leave that to politicians. I don’t do that. I’m quoting within context says, „The most horrible of all sins, the sin of killing the Son of God has redeemed us.‟ Maybe he’s only misunderstanding it, but the way it stands, it’s a blasphemous statement.

The present pope also merits to enter the Guinness Book of Records because he managed to pronounce three heresies in one paragraph. On January 11th, 1989 he said, „The line of the creed…‟ He was referring to the Apostles’ Creed. „The line in the creed that says, and he descended unto hell has to be understood metaphorically, because they laid His body in the grave, while at the moment of death He received the beatific vision.‟ That is three heresies in one sentence. First of all, it is doctrine of the Church, dogma, that you must not interpret the creed or any dogma in a metaphoric sense. It has to be understood literally. Even canon law has to be understood literally. It says so in the new code. Fourth Lateran Council defines as a dogma that it says literally, the line, „And Christ descended unto Hell,‟ has to be understood as Christ’s soul going to Hell because His body was laid in a grave. So His soul descended to Hell, not His body. His body was laid in a grave. John Paul II understands it metaphorically, saying, „When His body was laid in the underworld, therefore that’s the descension to Hell.‟ And then he says because His soul at the moment of the death on the cross received the beatific vision. It is faith of the Church. The Church has always believed from the very beginning what common sense will tell you. Was Christ Son of God? Yeah. If He was the Son of God, if He was the second person of the Trinity, united with manhood in one person, how could He not have had the beatific vision from the very moment of conception in His mother’s womb? He had to have it. He couldn’t have received it at the moment of death on the cross. So here we have a pope who mentions three heresies. I don’t know if he wanted to be a heretic. We’re not interested in that. But in one sentence, he says three wrong things. In another sentence, he blasphemes.

In his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, he does not once mention the term Roman Catholic or Catholic Church. He talks about the Church of the Council, he talks about the conscience of the Church six times on one page, and he talks about the Church of the New Advent, whatever that may be. It is not the Church that I belong to, and that I was baptized into, and that I work for and I’m ready to die for. I’m not ready to die or work for the Church of the New Advent. I’m also not ready to die and work for the Adventists, and I’m also not ready and work for, due respect, the Southern Baptists. And as much as I’m interested in the Southern Baptists, I’m interested in the Church of the New Advent. But in his first encyclical, he names it the Church of the New Advent, the Conciliar Church, the Church of the Council, the conscience of the Church. He doesn’t call it the Catholic Church. Whose president is this man, or vice president? The point is, in his first encyclical, he says, „The astonishment and the admiration of the dignity of man is called the Gospel.‟ That’s interesting. I always thought the Gospel was about Christ, namely Christ God. „Before Abraham was, I am,‟ Christ said. Which means, He says, „I’m God.‟ Now comes this pope and says, „The real Gospel is the admiration and the astonishment of the dignity, about the dignity of man.‟ Well, he’s just referring to Gaudium et Spes number 12, where believers and non-believers unanimously agreed on all the efforts of mankind that directed God’s manners at center and summit. I reject that. The Society of Saint Pius the Tenth rejects that. Who’s the Catholic here?

Sure.

But one question that really bothers me a lot is, many years ago you had a statement that every human being who never heard about Christ, but does follow the natural law and does the best according to his ability is automatically a member of the Church. On the other hand, we have that dogma, no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Can you put any light on that? Because it is really so much misunderstood and very hard to find your way through that jungle.

Well, with the answer I’m going to give now, I’m certainly going to make a few enemies in this country on both sides. But as I said, (German), lots of enemy, lots of honor, as we say in German, right?

Right.

And I just refer to Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent. I think that’s sufficient. The Council of Trent says nobody can be saved outside the Church. Nobody can be saved unless he has received a baptism of water and the Holy Spirit, (Latin). The thing itself or in the vote of doing it. Like, usually the examples quoted are the catechumen in the old days you had the catechumen, right? The man who was ready to get baptized, who will put on his white suit, which is the reason for Whitsunday after Easter, the next Sunday, White Sunday, Dominica in Albis because they would still wear this dress. And Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks about what some people in this country violently reject. Well, if I have the choice between some people in this country or Saint Thomas Aquinas, my choice is made. Saint Thomas Aquinas goes to the point of saying, „In the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit, especially when administered to a child, there cannot possibly be the same merit as in the baptism of the blood.‟ That means somebody shedding his blood for our Lord. A non-baptized person wanting to become a Catholic, not achieving his, not reaching his goal, and being murdered before he can be baptized. Some people in this country know history to the last point and say that has never happened. Maybe it has never happened. I’m not denying this. I’m only saying what Saint Thomas says, and he says, „Well, the most noble form of baptism inevitably has to be if you are shedding your blood for Christ, wanting to be a Catholic.‟

When Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence in 1441, ‚42 said, „Nobody can be saved outside the church. If somebody’s outside the church, even when he thinks he’s shedding his blood for our Lord cannot be saved,‟ then that means people who do not have the intention of being part of the Catholic Church, heretics and schismatics. Somebody who rejects the Catholic Church, but doesn’t reject Christ, and thinks that is possible. Of course, it’s not. You and I, we know that it is not possible to reject the Catholic Church and to accept Christ in the true sense of the word. But, I mean, to err is human, and many people may think that is so. I cannot underline enough that first of all, I stick to what St. Thomas said about it because St. Thomas said that 700 years ago. No pope has ever denied it. No pope has ever condemned that question in the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas. No pope has ever condemned it. I have the right to stick to it, and I stick to it first. Second, why would I be bothered with what happened to somebody else? I gotta save my soul first and then yours. And you are baptized, so the question is of no concern to me. I leave it to God. That’s the old question, what happens to the unbaptized, especially the aborted children? We’ll find out. Rest assured, we’ll find out. St. Gregory the Great had a theory about it, which I share. Some other theologians have other theories about it. But as far as I’m concerned, my problems lie elsewhere. People always ask me what happens to that poor orange-dressed monk somewhere up in Nepal or in Bhutan? I don’t know. Am I concerned? No. I have to worry about my friends going to heaven. And first of all, I have to worry about myself going to heaven. Did I sufficiently answer your question?

I still don’t understand. Somebody who never had the chance to listen to Christ. I mean, there are millions of people dying and never heard about Christ. I won’t say nowadays so much, but years ago, and they try to live their best, to their best ability. You know, I personally don’t understand or believe that, but you know, this place pointed it out, and it must be before 1950.

Yeah, but we are dealing with a question that really doesn’t concern us. I have complete and total trust in God’s justice. He’s not gonna send anybody to hell who definitely doesn’t want to go there. Two people go to hell. The ones who want to go there, like Martin Luther, and the ones who don’t care if they go there, or don’t try hard to avoid it. God is not going to send to hell anyone who most definitely tried his best not to go there. My faith in God’s justice is infinitely higher than my faith in my fellow human beings.

The Society of St. Pius X is what? Schismatic.

Well, I’ve heard that.

Yeah.

But they are what? Chicken?

Yeah. Because they’re on the fence. They will not… They know that the pope is not the pope. And they-

The Society of St. Pius X has to save souls.

No, no, no. I’m getting to the point that they know that the pope is in error, but they still say that he’s the pope. And yet they put documents out that once the pope says something that’s against the faith, he’s no longer the pope. Right? But I think more so I’m trying to get at is a lot of people do not go to the society because they’re told you can’t go there. It’s… they’re schismatic, they’re not following the pope. Why would you tell people they should go… or not should go, but they can go to the Society of Pius X Church?

Well, you see these statements are not to be taken seriously. Nobody criticized the West for its financial systems and its systems of justice and injustice more than the communists. The worst capitalists in the 20th century was the communist hierarchy. So why wouldn’t it be logical if now the Vatican is full of schismatics that they would be the first ones to call the last Catholics… Excuse me, will you please keep that down a little bit? Now, why wouldn’t automatically… Think strategically, of course, which I know you do, but for the sake of argument. Isn’t it obvious that the greatest schismatics of our days, which are the ones that try to tell me that I should really say the new mass would call those who don’t schismatics? Obviously. I mean, most of the times it’s the greatest idiot who calls everybody else an idiot. So, that’s one thing that’s obvious. It is easily contradicted and proven wrong. It is easily proven wrong by what I said before. The ones who say the new mass are the schismatics, not the ones who say the old mass.

I think I would want you to expand on the thought that they use that because of the situation of church… that the society has that-

Canon Law defines schism very well and very clearly.

No, no. That the society, because of what’s happened in the church has to step in and do what they’re doing.

I said that, didn’t I?

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t-

I said… No, I said that the only way today to become a Catholic priest is to go through a seminary of the Society of St. Pius X, because you cannot become… Or maybe there are others, I don’t know, but you cannot become a Catholic priest in any one of the conciliar churches’ seminaries, because you would have to accept Vatican II, and you would have to accept the schismatic new rite.

And there’s another thing about The Society of St. Pius X. Now, they’re called chicken. The Society of St. Pius X are not, most definitely not a bunch of politicians. The Society of St. Pius X purpose very clearly stated by Archbishop Lefebvre… I happen to be the one person who has recorded on tape all of Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermons and speeches in the German language, on cassette tape. And I was asked to do so by the former superior general of The Society of St. Pius X, Father Franz Schmidberger, who asked me to record all of Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermons and speeches. So, I not only read Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermons and speeches, which are great, I studied them. And it is very clear from what he said, „We have to keep the people in the church.‟ That means give them a chance to go to confession, Catholic confession, to mass, Catholic mass, have their children baptized within the Catholic Church, not some church of the New Advent. The purpose of The Society of St. Pius X is to preserve the Catholic priesthood. The purpose of The Society of St. Pius X is not to fight for anything else. They are not politicians. They are not a political party. They are the group that has to preserve priesthood. Don’t forget, I’m not a bishop, so I will die out when I die, because I cannot have spiritual children. Therefore, I’m the last of my generation, be it as a man, be it as a priest, unless I become a bishop, which is highly unlikely. But in The Society of St. Pius X, through the bishops we have, the priesthood is continued. It can’t be continued in the Church of the New Advent. Even though it may validly go on, it won’t be a Catholic priesthood. Much less Catholic, as a matter of fact, than any Russian Orthodox priest I ever met.

Could you also speak about when Lefebvre consecrated the bishops? He was told by the pope not to do that.

Obviously for political reasons. He had to do it for the reason that I gave you. If he had not done it, who would make Catholic priests now? Christ said, (Latin), „And the gates of hell shall not prevail.‟ The gates of hell would have prevailed if in a few decades we’d had no Catholic priests no more. Right? That’s what Archbishop Lefebvre did. That’s what he had to do. That was his mission. That was his special calling. At the time when everybody else retires, he started his greatest work. He was 65 when he started his greatest work in 1970. He had to keep the Catholic priesthood surviving. One day, all Catholic priests, more or less, at least the vast majority of Catholic priests, will have Archbishop Lefebvre as their ancestor, I think, if things continue the way they do. But I ain’t no prophet.

Definitely.

Without the mass, then there are no graces?

I cannot remember ever a pope having spoken about mass in an encyclical without mentioning that fact. Especially Pope St. Pius X made it explicitly clear that the mass is the center of our Christianity, the essence and the heart.

Without graces, can anyone achieve heaven?

Impossible.

If, therefore, the mass is the only means of receiving graces, those who do not participate at mass, then do not receive graces?

The mass is not the only means.

Okay.

The mass is the heart of Christianity.

Okay.

There are other ways of receiving graces. The mass is the heart of Christianity, and the mass is the highest of all sacraments. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, „All sacraments are directed towards the Eucharist as the greatest of all sacraments.‟ But what good is the Eucharist to you if you are not baptized? You cannot receive sanctifying grace in any sacrament whatsoever before you’re baptized. If you’re not baptized, you cannot go to confession. Impossible. Now, again, I’m not talking about the fate of somebody who was never baptized. I leave that in God’s hands. He knows a little bit more about these things than you and I together, and all saints together, and all popes together. The point I’m making is, first, you have to be baptized. That’s absolutum, as we say in Latin. That’s necessary for salvation. You have to be baptized. Once you’re baptized, you lose the faith if you do not stick to the sacraments. How long can a man stay outside mortal sin without grace? Well, some people longer, some people shorter, none of them for a long time. Christ gave us the sacrament of confession, not because to make it easy for us to sin, but to make it possible for us to commit less and less sins. Because the most important part of confession is not the fact that our sins are forgiven. The most important part of confession is that we receive sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace, no one ever will go to heaven. No one ever. It is absolutely impossible. There is not a single human soul in heaven without sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace, the fire of God will burn 10,000 times hotter than hell. Hell is an act of mercy. God gave hell to those who hate him out of mercy. Their pain would be 10 billion, 10 to the 99th potency higher if they had to face him without wanting him, so he shut the door.

Yeah. The same we can do about the Southern Baptist Church or about the Mormons in Salt Lake City.

Nothing?

I have answered your question, and it interests me as much as what the Mormons in Salt Lake City do. At least the Mormons in Salt Lake City have built one of the most beautiful towns on earth.

Yes.

And they have an excellent streetcar system running there, and that’s all I’m interested in. No, but what an American bishop does not do because another American bishop does not do because another American bishop does not do, is none of my concern. I hope that the 2001 will be a good wine in California. That’s of my concern.

But I have children, Father, and I understand. You have to try to convert them to the Catholic faith. They cannot be Catholics in the Conciliar Church of the New Advent. But again, I am not presuming God’s judgment. I’m talking objectively. I’m not talking about your children, whom I do not know, and even if I knew them, I wouldn’t know them. Do you think a confessor knows a penitent? No. A confessor knows what he hears, and maybe that’s not even true. Only God knows your soul, only God knows my soul, and God knows my soul better than I do. So, how can I talk about other souls if I don’t even know mine well?

I think maybe I got you a little misguided, because my efforts have been toward the one thing that you mentioned earlier tonight, and that was, I forget what it exactly what it was, but you said, anyway, this bishop spoke right over the anchor to all his congregation if they were listening, and we’re supposed to listen to our bishops.

Yeah, but Andrew Greeley even publishes books.

Yes, I know.

Does that concern me? Tom Clancy’s books are infinitely better. So, in the same catalog, then?

I don’t receive a fee from Tom Clancy for that. Tom Clancy’s books are excellent. Amen. Andrew Greeley’s books are lousy. That’s how you treat those bishops, like Andrew Greeley. That’s where I treat ’em. If Andrew Greeley wants to sue me now, he’s welcome.

Okay. Well, I’ll get sued with you, then.

Right.

And we’re running out of tape. But I would like you to speak to the Catholics of the United States. I think the US is in some serious position right now. A lot of us are gonna be tested in the coming year. I know you love the United States.

Yes. I know that.

So, could you give us some parting words so that the Catholics of the United States might hear what you have to say for them?

Yes. Pope Pius XII said, „You cannot be a Catholic and not a patriot.‟ I agree with Pope Pius XII. The people who try constantly to run down this country are my enemies. I’m not talking about governments. Show me one country in the whole world where you have a holy government. The Vatican doesn’t have one. How would another one have one? The Vatican has a government that’s anything but holy, so why would you expect a holy government in this country? I don’t. To be a patriot means that you are willing to fight and to die for your country. It doesn’t mean you’re willing to fight and die for your government. The armed forces in this country, be it the US Army, the US Navy, the US Air Force or the Coast Guard or the Marines, they do not fight for the government. They might sometimes be tricked into fighting for something that looks like fighting for their country. But I know that anyone who, in his heart, is fighting for his country and anyone who, in his heart, is dying for his country is pleasing in the eyes of God. And that’s why we should have respect for our flag. We should condemn the people who burn it. I hate them not as individuals, but in what they are doing. I hate their acts. You always have to show respect for a flag, even if it’s the enemy’s flag. You can take it as bounty, but you cannot burn it. And the people who burn America’s flag are just simply living in a primitive kind of hate. Hate is from the devil. Patriotism means to love your country, and love is coming from God. God decided for every single American that he’s going to be born in America. Therefore, God expects every single American to love his country. Amen to that.

Father, would you bless the United States for us, please?

Yes. And all Americans, all Americans who love this country.

(Benedictio Dei omnipotentis Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendat super vos et maneat semper.)

God bless America.

(clapping)

Thank you, Father.