This is why sometimes I will find myself in the condition of having to tell people in the confessional to use certain dirty words, but please don’t insult the name of our Lord. You never say „Jesus Christ‟ unless you want to pray. You never name the most holy name of Jesus Christ unless you want to pray. If you discover yourself naming Jesus Christ just because you’re frustrated, angry, or hurt, then you realize, I hope, that you just committed a sin against the second commandment. The name of God is sacred as God is sacred.

And Chesterton describes that very aptly in my favorite poem:

The vision of a haloed host that weep around an empty throne. Aureoles dark and angels dead. Man with his own life stands alone. ‚I am,’ he says his bankrupt creed. ‚I am.’ And is again a clod. The sparrow starts, the grasses stir. For he has said the name of God.

Those of you who understand poetry will immediately know what it means. It means the real name of God is „I am.‟ The name of God… So they tried to stone him, and he had to escape, because he had just named the name of God for himself. What you know and believe, and I know and believe, is that he is the son of God, the son of the living God, as Peter called him, and therefore he can say, „I am.‟ You cannot. I cannot say, „I am.‟ I will have to say, „I’m a man.‟ „I’m 45.‟ „I’m a priest.‟ „I’m this and this and this and that.‟ I cannot say, „I am,‟ period.

God is infinitely simple. He is only being itself. He is the one who is subsistent. We will come back to that. He is the one who is subsistent to everything that is. If it was possible that he would cease to exist, we all would perish in the same instant. Everything else would. There is nothing ever without receiving his being from God. If God was to talk about himself, without adding a lot of things in order to make himself understood to our primitive and complicated minds, all that God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could say about themself was, „I am.‟ God Father cannot say anything but, „I am.‟ God Son cannot say anything but, „I am.‟ God Holy Spirit cannot say anything but, „I am.‟ If there was anything to be added to it, it’s only for our benefit in order to understand qualities that are all the same for him. It needs the complicated, extremely fallible, and mostly stupid human mind to distinguish between justice and mercy. Some people believe justice and mercy are opposite to each other. They cannot be, because in God, they are the same. There is no such thing as God merciful and God just. It’s the same for him. He is. And if you ask him in heaven, „What are you?‟ He will only tell you, „I am.‟

There is nothing that can be without God. Christ said that to the apostles. He said, „Without me, you are nothing.‟ He said on another occasion, „Everything that you are, you owe to God.‟ Saint Paul said, „Everything that I am…‟ And Saint Paul was not stupid. He knew that there was a lot of things that he was, like intelligent, wise, educated, brilliant. He knew it. But he said, „It’s nothing, because I received it all from God. I cannot be anything without God.‟

It is, therefore… And this is the reason why I started my second part of the presentation talking about God himself…It is, therefore, absurd to talk about obedience in any other context but obedience to God first.

Saint Catherine Laboure, she was the one who was given the privilege to reveal the magnificence and the benefits of the miraculous medal of Our Lady to us. She also had the absolutely unbelievable privilege of having conversation with Our Lady, resting in her lap. She touched Our Lady. She was just having good conversation with Our Lady when, in her monastery, she said to Our Lady, because she was a saint, not a stupid human being, she said to Our Lady, „I’m sorry, I have to go to Vespers.‟ She left Our Lady sitting there, and she went for Vespers. The next day, Our Lady told her, „If yesterday you had not obeyed the bells for Vespers, I would not have come back again.‟ That is to tell you something about obedience. But Saint Catherine Laboure, whose body is one of the few still absolutely immaculately preserved, Saint Catherine Laboure obeyed something that was in perfect harmony with the church tradition, with the tradition of her own monastery. It is exactly according to church tradition that when the bell rings for Vespers, you go there. You don’t say, „I’m sorry, I’m just on the phone. I can’t come right now.‟ No. If you’re talking to the Pope himself, you say, „Sorry, Holy Father. The bell for Vespers just rang. I call you back tomorrow.‟ Click. You hang up, and you go for Vespers. That is church tradition. You follow church tradition in obedience, then you obey in the sense that our Lord was talking about obedience.

Today, they have a different concept of obedience. They are the people who tell you that no matter what you think, no matter what they said in the old days, no matter how you believed it to be, if the Pope tells you to do it, then you do it. As the old saying, „The Pope dyes his hair green, you better do it too.‟ With the present pope, I wouldn’t be surprised, but that’s not Christian or Catholic obedience. Back in Germany or Austria, they used to say, „The way the Pope clears his throat, you are supposed to spit.‟ That is a type of obedience that you will find in a military dictatorship. It’s a type of obedience that you will find in other types of dictatorship. It’s a type of obedience that even in the good old days, before Hillary turned it into a liberal outfit, would have been unthinkable in the Armed Forces of the United States. Unthinkable, even in basic training. It would have been unthinkable if the sergeant would get away with telling you, „Burn down the barracks.‟ Unthinkable. However, there is a multitude of people out there running around who, without even blushing, would tell you to do that if the Pope asked it.

Obedience itself can only be defined by the Ten Commandments and church tradition, not by some messed up, perverted philosopher of our century. And just like I mentioned the example yesterday, just like in the armed forces, the colonel cannot tell me to shoot my wife, because even if I was happy about that command and did shoot her, I would not get away with it. He does not have the right to tell me, „Shoot your wife,‟ as long as my wife is not attacking the bases I’m stationed in. And commands are, as such, subject to higher rules. If the Pope, in a state of absent-mindedness, or being drunk, or whatever, would tell you, you having the privilege of dining with him, and he would tell you to jump out of the window, third floor of the Apostolic Palace, you would have to say, „Excuse me, Holy Father, I don’t know why you’re getting off the rocker, but I’m sure not gonna do that.‟ And you do not commit a sin. On the contrary, you would if you followed him.

The Pope, just like any other human being, is bound to the Ten Commandments. The Pope is bound to the canon law that he published and signed. If he wants to, if he doesn’t like something in the canon law that he published, then he has to change the canon law around as much as this is possible. But he cannot say, „Yes, well, we assure. Yeah, right. I signed the canon law of 1983, but I’m the Pope and I don’t have to follow it.‟ Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Pope has to follow the Ten Commandments, the will of Christ, the tradition of the Church, and his own canon law.

Pope Pius XI, who was a pretty good pope, I say, and who certainly knew his business, Pope Pius XI, when he celebrated mass, did not just choose what mass he was going to say today. You know, there’s quite some differences. You will have one saint celebrated in one diocese and nowhere else, and then you will have another saint celebrated all over the world. But then in your diocese, he’s not celebrated because that’s the Feast of the Dedication of the cathedral of your diocese and whatever. So there are differences. Now, Pius XI as pope had to choose what calendar he will use. He was sitting up there in the Apostolic Palace, which basically speaks as the jurisdiction of Vatican City. Sometimes he was celebrating in Saint Peter’s Basilica, which is the jurisdiction of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Sometimes he was celebrating in some churches in Rome, which is the jurisdiction of Rome. And later on when popes started to travel, they had to face the situation of celebrating somewhere else, which was the jurisdiction of so-and-so. Pope Pius XI, who was not foolish enough to fall for all these traps that they do today, celebrated mass every day, strictly, if you liked it or not, strictly according to the calendar of the Basilica of Saint John Lateran in Rome. Because as pope, he is the titular priest of that basilica. He is, so to speak, the archpriest of the Basilica of Saint John of the Lateran. That is his church. Like a parish priest has his church, and Father Bolduc has his church. He’s the boss in this church, and nobody else is. In the same way, Pope Pius XI, as a priest celebrating mass, he was the boss in Saint John Lateran, so he used the calendar of Saint John of the Lateran. That was a pope who understood the concept of obedience. The present pope grew up in a concept of dictatorship in Poland, and obviously hasn’t learned anything from it, because he expects us to do things that we must not do.

One of the questions is, „Aren’t we bound in total obedience to the Pope?‟ The answer is definitely not. What are the limits to the Pope’s freedom of decision? Well, the Pope:

1. Cannot go second.
2. He cannot contradict the Church Fathers.
3. Third, he cannot contradict the first four councils or any council as far, the first four councils as such, and he cannot contradict any further council as long as it is not dogmatically defined. Dogmatically defined things he cannot contradict. Things that the council decided forever, such as moral decisions, he cannot contradict. If we’re talking about disciplinary regulations, which always were issued at councils and which nobody bothers to put in a collection of church teaching, yes, of course he can. But not dogmatic and moral decisions of a council.
4. Number four, he cannot contradict what is called Status Ecclesiae, the state the church finds itself in. The state doesn’t mean the present situation, like the state you find yourself in right now. The state is something unchangeable.

See, I am in the status religionis, in the status sacerdotalis. The state of my life is being a priest, and no matter if I go to heaven, purgatory or hell, I will still be a priest. I am sacerdos in aeternum, a priest in eternity. God Himself cannot take away my priesthood because He has decided to give it to me, and He cannot contradict Himself. My good friend, the Italian composer, Antonio Vivaldi, most of you only know his Four Seasons, which is sad. He wrote 450 beautiful concerts and 30 operas. Antonio Vivaldi’s dead. Ever since the 28th of July 1741, Antonio Vivaldi still is a priest. Claudio Monteverdi, his predecessor in music, still is a priest today. Once a priest, always a priest. Like they say, „Once in the army, always in the army.‟ But that means as long as you live, okay? A priest is an eternity, always, always in the army of God. So I’m in the status sacerdotalis. That doesn’t change. It can’t change. Sister, right here, or a bishop are in the status perfectionis, in the state of perfection. If anybody offered me to consecrate me a bishop, I would have to think twice about it, because I would have to give up all my hobbies. I would have to give up my beautiful wines. Not this one here, but I mean, the vintage wines, the bottled wines, the expensive ones. I would have to give up everything, because I would join the status perfectionis, the state of perfection, which is aptly described by Saint Theresa of Avila, saying that, „In the status perfectionis, there is nothing but your belonging to God.‟ You become the total, absolute and total property of God. You replace your own soul and your own self with Christ. That’s the status perfectionis. That state of life, as you call it in English, is basically unchangeable once you’re in it. For the bishop, it is perfectly unchangeable. For sister, it is relatively unchangeable.

The state of the Church is something the Church will find herself in unchangeably forever. To show you what I mean, there are three steps, major steps in the sacrament of priesthood, diaconate, priesthood, and episcopal consecration. But there are the so-called minor orders. The highest of the minor orders is the subdiaconate. When Paul VI transgressed his faculties by making the subdiaconate optional… Another interesting thing, by the way, you remember when yesterday I said that the new Mass was never really published and that Vatican II was never really became obligatory, the same thing here again. The Holy Spirit is not dead. The Holy Spirit works in the Church. When Paul VI said, „We don’t need the subdiaconate,‟ he still left it up to the individual bishop to confer it or not. That’s interesting. However, he went far beyond of what he’s allowed to do when he said we don’t need the subdiaconate anymore. The subdiaconate is going back to the earliest apostolic times of the Church. Therefore, it is part of the status ecclesiae, the state the Church finds herself in.

Now, yesterday, I hope I have made it sufficiently and abundantly clear to you that Holy Mass, the way we know it here in this chapel, is part of the Church tradition, and that it is perfectly illegal and impossible to change that. So Holy Mass, the way you and I know it, is part of the state of the Church, status ecclesiae. If the pope tries to change that, you’ll say, „Sorry, Holy Father, but can’t follow that. Too bad.‟ If the pope tries to change anything that is part of the status ecclesiae, and you follow him, and you should know better, then you’re in the state of mortal sin, unless you don’t know better. But to follow the pope into error means not obedience, but sin. Remember what Saint Paul said, „If an angel out of heaven was to bring you another gospel, don’t accept it, even if an angel himself.‟

And for those of you who understand poetry and understand the depth of poetry, what Chesterton really means when he says, „And 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.‟ This is what he really meant. Chesterton himself drank beer, and quite barrels of it. So what he says in this poem that I quoted yesterday means, don’t allow anything to creep into the gospel in its purity as it was preserved by the Church. See, this, in a way, is the gospel, because Father and I up there on the altar, we’re not allowed to do that, but Father and I up there on the altar can turn this innocent-looking cup of wine into the blood of Christ if we used it for Mass. We’d be committing a sin, because we’re not allowed to use a glass chalice, and we’re not allowed to use this type of wine. We have to use Mass wine. Doesn’t matter if it’s white or red, by the way, but it’s practical reason not to use red wine. But we’re allowed to use it. The point is, we can do it. So this is representing the purity of the Gospel. And that’s what Chesterton meant. Anybody who dares to interfere with the purity of church teaching, to interfere with the purity of church tradition… kind of cookie, you know, and use a consecrated host, our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to prepare dessert for your guests. That’s an unbelievable and outrageous sacrilege.

Now, I hope none of you believes even for an instant that the Pope is incapable of doing that. Of course he’s capable of doing that. He’s a human being, and he could sin like you and me. He can do things wrong. Pope Alexander VI while he was pope had children. Is that the right thing to do? I don’t think so. I mean, sure it isn’t. The guy was enjoying himself, and he’s not supposed to. So he had children. He said, „So what?‟ And popes did other things, too. There are stories about popes murdering other people. Well, I don’t see why a pope couldn’t do it. He should not do it. He must not do it. But I don’t see why he would not be able to do it. So the pope himself could work, could do a sacrilege that puts himself in the state of excommunication reserved for the Holy See. How is that possible? Can he give absolution to himself like that? No. When a pope… You see, a pope has a confessor. Okay? Just like you and me. A pope has a confessor. So if a pope commits a sin that is under excommunication, strictly reserved to the Holy See, he has to seek his confessor and say, „Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I’ve done this and this.‟ The confessor will go, „What? I can’t give you absolution for that.‟ And he says… Pope will say… ‚Cause the pope knows what he’s talking about, I hope. He will say, „I know you can’t give me absolution on that, but you just go the regular way.‟ So the pope, without mentioning who was his penitent, will approach the office in the Vatican which is called the Apostolic… The Penitentiaria Apostolica, the Apostolic Penitentiary. And there he will anonymously denounce that sin and say, „Listen. Yesterday a guy confessed to me who said he did this and this and this.‟ And then they will examine the case. The confessor might have to ask questions about this again. And then without naming who it is, he will talk to the cardinal in the Penitentiaria Apostolica. And then the cardinal will most probably, if it’s the first time, say, „Okay. You can give absolution to this guy.‟ So in that case, this cardinal decides in the name of the pope, and that’s how a pope could get absolution for a sin that is punished with reserved absolution.

So the concept of a pope being outside the Church is old. Many popes talked about it. Pope Innocent III said that. Pope Innocent III said to all of his successors and all bishops, he said, „Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that because you have the graces, the power, and the dignity of the office, it doesn’t matter if you commit a sin like this.‟ And he reminded his successors saying, „Who cannot be judged by men will be judged all the more by God.‟ With God, there is only justice, in no contradiction to mercy. And the most culpable person on Earth is always the pope no matter what happens, because he’s the highest up. He’s the highest person on Earth. He’s not the head of the Church. He’s only the highest person in the Church. He is the highest bishop in the Church, the highest priest in the Church. He is the Summus Pontifex, the highest priest on Earth. Like in ancient Rome, the Summus Pontifex was the highest peacekeeper, the one who built the bridge between two hills in Rome that fought each other, namely the Palatine and the Capitol Hill. He was the one who guarded the bridge which was the symbol of peace between two tribes that fought each other almost to extinction. And then they found that a religious solution might be a wise one, and they found the guy who built the bridge, which was the symbol of peace where they could say hi to each other instead of wiping out each other, and that was the pontifex, the priest. And the Summus Pontifex was the highest of them all. That is what the pope is. He’s not Christ. He’s not the founder of the Church. He’s not even the head of the Church. He’s the vicar of Christ. And ever since Gregory the Great, Saint Gregory the Great, the highest title of the pope is Servus Servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God. The pope does a very bad service to you if he does not represent the Church doctrine in its entirety, and he does a very bad service to you if he lies to you about Church doctrine or the Gospel.

And I mentioned to you yesterday that in the Constitutio Dogmatica Pastor Aeternus de Ecclesia Christi of the 18th of July, 1870 at the First Vatican Council, in the fourth chapter it says, „The Holy Spirit has not been given to the successors of Peter so in order that with his revelation they can publish a new doctrine, but that with his assistance, they will saintly safeguard and faithfully interpret the tradition handed down from the apostles, the deposit of faith.‟ That is the pope’s duty. If he does not stick to this duty, you do not obey him.

Pope Pius IX, servant of God Pius IX, in a letter to the Bishop of Brixen in northern Italy, once upon a time in Austria… In those days, it was part of Austria. In this letter, which you can find on the number 5,500 something, forgot the rest, in the famous collection of papal letters and documents, Mansi, M-A-N-S-I, Mike, Alpha, November, Sierra, India. That’s how you spell it. In that collection, number 5,500 something, you find a letter written by Pope Pius IX that explains to the Bishop of Brixen, „If a future pope was to pronounce heresy, you simply disregard it and don’t obey.‟ So far, Pope Pius IX on the topic.

The present pope… And before anybody walks out on me now, you better hear and wait for my proof for what I say. The present pope is the most heretical pope in history. No pope ever in history was such a heretic. However, there were heretical popes before the present one. There were heretical popes before John XXIII, even. There was that funny little old pope, Liberius. When you look at the list of popes, for the first two centuries, all popes became saints. All of them. It is Saint Peter, Sanctus Petrus, Sanctus Linus, Sanctus Cletus, Sanctus Clemens, and so on. And then at a certain point you will find instead of Sanctus so-and-so, just simply Liberius. Liberius, period. That guy was a heretic. He joined in with a multitude of people and a vast majority of bishops at the time… sounds familiar… with the heresy that Jesus Christ was not really God Himself. I hate heresy. I have to have a gulp of wine with that. The church never said Liberius was not pope.

Then there was Honorius, another abominable creature on the throne of Peter, who said that Christ had only one will. If you really put your common sense to it, then you don’t even need dogma to understand what I’m talking about and why he was wrong, because remember in Holy Week when it says, „Christ was obedient, obedient to his death.‟ Obedient? With one will? Submitting one will to what? Impossible. Christ was, and is, the second person of God, divine will. And He is a full human being. There is no such thing as a full human being without a will, a free will. That’s a difference to the most intelligent animal. The most intelligent animal does not have a soul, therefore not a will, and it doesn’t have an intellect. It cannot reflect upon its own recognitions. The dolphin is known for being the most intelligent being around except for man. Some men are definitely more stupid than a dolphin, but basically a dolphin is the most intelligent animal. They have huge brains and they know how to put them to use. The military found out how, the Navy especially. The dolphin does not have the faculty of will, and it does not have the faculty of intellect because it cannot reflect upon its own thinking and thoughts. And I’ve never seen a dolphin painting or writing. All human beings do. The oldest human beings were the ones who painted in a cave. And Christ, as a human being, therefore had to have a human will, which is the only explanation for the otherwise absurd statement that Christ submitted to the will of God. How could Christ, not having a will, submit to the will of God? Impossible. Perfectly impossible. But this doesn’t keep Honorius, who obviously was not exactly equipped with an IQ of 120, from saying Christ has only one will. That heresy was called monothelism, which is coming from the Greek term mono, one, and thelema, the will.

As if we didn’t have enough heretics in Church history already, then came up John XXII, who was a frog, excuse me, a Frenchman, and he said that the souls of the dead cannot go to heaven before the Last Judgment. That means, what he was saying was, the moment a person kicks the bucket, the soul is suspended somewhere, who knows where, and you can’t go to hell and you can’t go to heaven before the last judgment. That’s against the explicit definition, dogmatic definition, of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which said, „The moment a human being dies, that human being will get the personal judgment from God. His soul will go to heaven, his soul will go to hell or purgatory.‟ So now we got Saint Pius X in heaven, we got a lot of people in purgatory, and we got the democratic presidents and… Oh, sorry. I’m not allowed to mention individuals. We got a lot of people in hell. And John XXII, until the day of his death, insisted that the souls of the dead could not go to heaven before the last judgment. The University of Paris, which at the time was a good university, now we won’t talk about it, told him, said, „Are you crazy? You can’t say that.‟ He said, „Of course I will say it. I’m the Pope.‟ He even wrote it down. He wrote letters in which he said, „Well, we all know that the souls of the dead cannot go to heaven before the last judgment.‟ The man was a heretic in writing and speaking until the day of his death. Yes, but when you look up the Annuario Pontificio, which is the yearbook of the Popes and the cardinals and the bishops in the church, it’s a whole list of all the Popes that ever were, a close description of the present Pope, of all the cardinals, and then you get the list of all the real bishops and the auxiliary bishops, and then of all the Roman Curia. And in there, you will find John XXII listed among the Popes, and another guy, forgot his name, who cares, listed as Antipope. So the heretic is listed among the Popes, and the other one was maybe not even a heretic. It goes to show you that heresy alone does not make a Pope cease to be a Pope.

And yesterday, or the day before yesterday, with all the distinctions I gave you, by now you should also know why. Because John XXII did not say, „I am not the least interested in what the Council of Constantinople said on the subject. I tell you they were wrong and it’s the other way around.‟ No. He just said, „No, no, no, no. Don’t come on. I don’t want to hear this. The souls do not go to heaven before the last judgment.‟ That’s all he said. But he was wrong. He was pronouncing material heresy, but he was not a formal heretic because he did not want to put what he said in a direct, clear, published, and declared contradiction to church teaching. He personally was stupid enough to think that this was the way to interpret church doctrine. He did not want to change church doctrine. At least that is not to be proven. We have no proof that he wanted to change church doctrine. He thought that’s the way to interpret it, and did not declare the intention of becoming a heretic.

This is the problem with the present Pope, except the present Pope is obviously not satisfied with one heresy like the other ones, Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII. No, for the present Pope, that’s not good enough. He has to dwell in at least a half a dozen of heresies. I’ve just called the present Pope a heretic. If I don’t give you the proof right away, then I am in the state of mortal sin, and you are not worth it to me to be in the state of mortal sin, if you understand what I’m saying. So you will get the proof.

When you say the creed, not the creed at mass, which is the long, the extended Constantinopolitan Creed, but when you say the Creed of the Apostles, you know what I’m talking about, the short creed, the Creed of the Apostles, you talk about Christ dying and descending to hell. That’s what it says in the Creed. He descended to hell. Now, the term hell is not in discussion here. There’s no question about it. We’re not talking about the hell of the damned souls. We are talking about that part of hell, that non-heaven, to put it in politically correct talk, the non-heaven, where the just and the saints of the Old Testament in a perfect state of natural happiness were just waiting to be let into heaven. They’ve just been waiting there. It was a perfect state of happiness. So that’s not the point. Now, church doctrine says the moment our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross, his soul descended to hell because his body was in the grave. Death is defined as the separation of soul and body. That’s the definition of death. Your soul and your body do not separate, you’re not dead, period. So the moment Christ died, the council says, this is the Fourth Lateran Council in a dogmatic definition, dogma, the moment Christ died, his soul descended to hell because his body was in the grave.

Not so for John Paul II. He said on the 11th of January, 1988, „The line in the creed that Christ descended to hell is to be understood in a metaphorical sense, meaning that his body was laid in the grave while his soul, at the same moment, received a beatific vision.‟ That is just ever so slightly opposite to what the council defined. If he says, I repeat, and I mean there’s not even a political reason to say this, so this is what puzzles me. The moment Christ died, He descended to hell. That is to be understood in a metaphorical sense, because the body was laid in the grave, in the underworld, the grave, you know? It’s below the potatoes, as we say, so the underworld, in the grave. „At the same time, His soul receiving beatific vision.‟ This pope really never ceases to puzzle me, because in one line he pronounces a double heresy. The first heresy is that he says, „The fact that Christ descended to hell is to be understood in a metaphorical sense.‟ That very formula has been condemned by Pope Pius X, and before him, Pope Pius IX, and before him Gregory XVI, who called such a formulation madness. That very concept has been explicitly condemned by Pope Pius X in his Lamentabili document. But anyway, because Christ was laid in the grave, the underworld, while his soul at the moment of death received beatific vision. So here he is contradicting directly, undoubtedly the dogmatic definition of the Fourth Lateran Council. At the same time he is contradicting sacred tradition. Do you, in all earnest believe it possible that the human nature of Christ in the same person as the second person of the Trinity would not have beatific vision from the moment of conception? The same person? Jesus Christ is the same person as the person, second person of God, the Son of God. They only have two different natures, but it’s the same person. Now, is it that somehow in that same person the beatific vision just never made it into Christ human being? Or is it that the second person of God somehow ceased to have the beatific vision for a while? Well, both is blasphemy, heresy and absurd. The church never even bothered to make the issue of the beatific vision of our Lord Jesus Christ a dogma, because everybody would have said, „I don’t need the church for that. I know that.‟ If the human nature of Christ and the divine nature of the second person of God are united in the same person, how would it be possible, conceivable, thinkable that there’s no beatific vision for Christ? But no, for John Paul II, he received a beatific vision on the cross dying. Great. That cannot be error, you see? That cannot be error, because even with the lousy cardinals and bishops in the Vatican around today, you can bet your life that somebody, at least the good old Cardinal Chapi, Dominican house theologian of the Pope, would have pointed all of this out to the Pope. I mean, this was printed in the Osservatore Romano. I’m not making this up. This was in the newspaper. And so many hundreds of people heard the Pope saying this in an audience, and the Pope is reading the Osservatore Romano. I mean, if he finds this in there and he doesn’t like it, it’s not sufficient for a pope to say, „I don’t like this.‟ He will have to call the editor and say, „Hey, what’s the matter with you, bum?‟ But no, the Osservatore Romano for the last 20 years is packed with heresy almost every week once.

We get, just gave you another example. Now this is now, I mean, real, the writing of the Pope, his signature. I told you yesterday that it is not possible to be saved outside the church. You know that anyway. The Pope says that the efforts of the Protestants will be rewarded by Christ giving them salvation, so the efforts of the Protestants. For those of you who like to check on things, Catechesi Tradendae number 32 says, „Spiritus Christi… Quorum ope Spiritus Christi non abnuit salutem ferre.‟ For whose efforts the Spirit of Christ does not deny salvation. Okay? Whose efforts refers to the sentence before where they mention Ecclesia Protestantia. I don’t want to go into the fact that to call the Protestant Church’s churches is a heresy in itself, because it’s secondary to what we are talking about. It’s collateral heresy. But he says that Christ does not refrain from giving salvation to the efforts of the Protestant Church. I explained to you in my last presentation that even if the little innocent child dies and goes to heaven because he was baptized by a Protestant church, by a Protestant pastor, excuse me, by a Protestant pastor, that that Protestant pastor administered the Catholic sacrament of baptism illegally, illegally because a heretic and a schismatic must not do that. So that’s not really Christ giving salvation to the efforts of Protestant churches, but it’s Christ giving salvation according to his own promise to the Catholic sacrament of baptism, even though it was administered illegally. German idiom that I find brilliant. (German).You can insult God, but not diminish him. If God promised salvation for baptism, the Protestant pastor cannot take it away. But God does not give his salvation for the efforts of that guy. That is heresy. But there, again, the Pope is only quoting Vatican II.

Then the Pope says… Yesterday we talked about that. That tradition is something to be… That knows progress, and progress comes about through the studies and meditations of the faithful. We have discussed that abundantly well the day before yesterday, and there were no questions on it, so I don’t have to mention it again. I gave you… Within something like 20 minutes, I gave you three examples of heresy in one and the same pope. I also mentioned the fact already the Pope says the moment Christ died, he saved all human beings, and he did not add the necessary term, „in potency.‟ So the way it is written, as is, as you say, it is heresy.

Now why is it that if the Pope is a heretic, he’s still pope? Well, that’s one of the reasons why I mentioned the three examples before John XXIII. John XXIII was a heretic too, and so was Paul VI, but this is why I mentioned the three popes before. Liberius is recognized as pope. I mean, you can hardly get more heretical than by saying Christ was not fully son of God, was not fully God. Honorius is considered pope. It is perfectly stupid to say Christ had only one will, and yet Honorius did. He was considered pope. John XXII pronounced direct heresy and wrote it down against the Fourth Council of Constantinople, and he’s considered pope. That’s because it’s not easy for somebody just to cease in his office. That’s what I told you the day before yesterday. If I was to tell you heresy by mistake, you can bet your life on the fact that it was a mistake and not my intention to do so. I do not cease to be your teacher just because I made one mistake. If every teacher that made one mistake would cease to be teacher, there would be no teachers left on earth. I mean, look, this country now, thanks to the government, is in a pretty bad state of a mess. But you cannot even start to imagine the mess it would mean if a President of the United States would cease to be president, simply because he pronounces heresy against the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold and protect and defend. If he ceased to be president just simply because he made a mistake in upholding, defending, and protecting the Constitution, then I think I have not the slightest idea how long the White House would be vacant already. Who was the first president to go against his duty to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution? That’s a nice question for historians. But surely this one is not the first. That goes without saying. So, the moment the president ceases to protect the Constitution, to uphold it, and to follow it, he does not cease automatically to be president. If he betrays the country, which the present president does all the time, if there is betrayal of the country, she does not immediately cease to be president. You have to impeach her. Now the only difference here is the Pope cannot be impeached. So if a pope was to proclaim heresy as a dogma defined with all the necessary formulas, the canon lawyers almost agree that he would just simply cease to be pope, the bishops would have to be called in to do something about it. But we’re not sure about that because it never happened, and I don’t believe it ever will happen, because then I would start to doubt about what the Holy Spirit was doing at the moment. Right? And we don’t want that.

Like when in Redemptor Hominis, 1978, his first encyclical, he defines the unity of the church as a unity of synods and episcopal conferences and parish councils and priest councils and diocesan councils. He does not once mention the unity of the church as it is dogmatically defined, a perfect society united under the same leader and united in the same faith and the same religion. That means the worship, the rites, R-I-T-A-S, the rites, the liturgy. No, he doesn’t mention that. No, it’s the parish council, parish Soviet, diocesan Soviet, priest Soviet in the diocese. It’s the bishop Soviet in the country. It’s the bishop Soviet on the continent, and it’s the synod Soviet in Rome. Soviet means council, nothing else. A pope who defines the unity of the church as such does not know what the church is. He doesn’t even know what it is. And this explains, at the same time, to you why he is a schismatic but doesn’t cease to be pope. Objectively, he’s a schismatic. He’s not in unity with the church because he rejects what unites the church, namely liturgy and faith. He doesn’t celebrate the mass. He celebrates a crummy new rite that belongs in the trash can, and he doesn’t uphold the faith because he pronounces heresy. But at the same time, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, quite obviously. That doesn’t make him cease to be pope. That only makes the poor guy a heretic and a schismatic that God will judge, not you and not I. We do not judge the pope here, but we have to clarify our state in the church. When we say we do not obey him, we have to add the most important and vital distinction. We do not obey him as long as he’s a heretic and schismatic. If we were to say, „We do not obey him, period,‟ then we are the schismatics. No, we must be precise on that. I do not obey the pope as long as he’s a heretic and schismatic. As long as the pope does not take his heresies back publicly, I will not listen to him. It’s against the will of Christ. I will not obey his commands on that subject. No way. I do not obey illegal commands. If I was an officer in the United States Army, I would follow army regulations. I would follow, even if it hurts, and believe me, today it hurts more than ever, I would follow what my superior legally commands me to do. But if my superior was to tell me, „You will go to the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated by our chaplain next Sunday.‟ I will say, „No, sir.‟ In the army, he can’t do anything about it. That’s the difference. (laughs) In the conciliar church, you’re finished the moment you say that. But obedience is subject to dogma, not the other way around. Obedience is never more important than faith. And if anybody says to you, „You’re a schismatic,‟ you say, „Uh-uh, not me. You.‟ (laughs) „You go to a mass that’s against the will of Christ. I don’t. I go to Father Bolduc’s mass. He doesn’t do anything against the will of Christ.‟ Of course, there are personal sins with Father Bolduc. There are personal sins that I commit, and we have to go to confession like anybody else. But what he does, not being Hector Bolduc but being Father, as it says out there on the note, Father, but being Father, what he does here is what the church wants.

A certain Doctor Martin Luther got quite confused in the 16th century when he found out that the pope who reigned between 1490 and 1503 had children. He was scandalized. I’m talking about Pope Alexander VI, who had children while he was pope. And Martin Luther made a terrible mistake, he said, „The Church is not indefectible. The papacy, therefore, does not represent the Church. The papacy is not infallible, because an infallible pope could never, ever have children.‟ I don’t see the logics. The fact that I would have the Holy Spirit guaranteed to me if I was a pope does not make me impotent, excuse me if I name it in these terms. And it certainly does not make me cease to be a sinner. And the Holy Spirit does not lock the doors to the papal apartments. The Holy Spirit does not keep a morally degraded woman from approaching the pope. There’s no logic in that. It has nothing to do with the indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Church is a perfect society. The Church has never said, „We have only perfect members.‟ You know that there were priests and bishops who said, „Only the perfect members are members of the Church‟? Do you know that that was condemned as a heresy? (laughs) Jansenism and Donatism, two heresies. In the old days, when the understanding of the Church was much better than now, whoever said that the Church can only have perfect members was a heretic. The Church is composed of an awful lot of sinners. But as such, it is indefectible and a perfect society.

Americans are law by nature, by education. They are the best-educated people in the world. I know what I’m talking about. Don’t run down your country or you will run on the fighting side of me, like Merle Haggard, „Haggard Sings,‟ exactly like that. Don’t run down your country. Run down your government in eternity. They deserve it. Don’t run down your country. There’s a difference. Your government does not represent your country. Your government sabotages your country. Your government is about to make your country perish into the United Nations. Your country… your government is about to destroy, and absolutely destroy this country. But in this country, people are still the most polite and well-educated people in the world. They have what is called good manners. They have what is called civilization. If you don’t believe me, waste your money on traveling abroad, and you’ll be in for a lot of surprises, I tell you that. So at the same time, there is no coin without two sides. There’s always two sides to a coin. You have been taught to obey the law, and that is the cause for a lot of papalism in this country. Many people in this country are not capable of distinguishing between the lawful authority of the Pope and his dictatorial omnipotence. Well, there is no such thing as a dictatorial omnipotence with the Pope. The Pope tells you to dye your hair green, you will say, „Ha, ha, ha, good one.‟ (laughs) So the Pope is not in the power to tell you things that are not backed by the church government, by the church tradition, and by the church teaching, on morals especially. And papalism in this country is one of the major causes for so many people attending that boring, stupid, idiotic, and imbecile rite called the new Mass. This does not change the indefectibility of the Mass. Therefore, when Michael Davies fights the district superior of the Society of Saint Pius X in Australia publicly in that abominable paper, The Remnant, then Michael Davies is wrong, and the district superior in Australia is right. The new Mass is bad in itself. And I explained this to you in my last session.

The Sacrament of Confirmation today is practically invalid all over. Not only because Paul VI granted them to use vegetable oil, peanut oil, and similar atrocities that no elevator or car would ever accept as sufficient. For baptism, when for 2,000 years the only valid matter was olive oil. Also, the new form of confirmation is, „Accept the Holy Ghost,‟ or, „Accept the Holy Spirit.‟ That’s not sufficient. It doesn’t mean anything. You accept the Holy Spirit in all seven sacraments. It’s impossible to receive confirmation validly if it only says, „Accept the Holy Spirit.‟ Leo XIII says that in the same document I mentioned before that condemns Anglican ordinations. Okay?

Then, if you take confession, if the priest in confession does not say, „I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and Holy Spirit,‟ but says to you, „Well, see, what you tell me here is all very interesting but it’s not really a sin, so go home in peace.‟ Or if he says, „Well, Christ our Lord would absolve you of your mistaken actions…‟ Politically correct speech, there’s no sin, it’s a mistaken action. „In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit,‟ you leave the confessional without absolution. Invalid sacrament. He has to agree to the sins confessed and absolve them with the necessary minimum of formula, which is, „I absolve, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and Holy Spirit.‟

We discussed already the validity of mass. Then, with the ordination, we discussed that too. I gave you the example of that Dutch bishop who was not consecrated by the Dutch cardinal, and which had a fact that needed a conditional repetition of the whole rite. And then with extreme unction, if you run around with a bottle of Superveg 2000, best for your salad, for extreme unction, it won’t work because again, there’s the olive oil to be used. And if a priest says, instead of giving you the extreme unction says, „I’m going to make sure you will get healthy again,‟ there’s no sacrament. They do that all the time, things like this. You won’t believe what happens. I told you about the priest in Switzerland. No, this is a real happening. I don’t make up things like this. My fantasy’s not good enough for the things that actually happen, believe me. Facts are stranger than fiction. And there was a priest who said, instead of the words of consecration, he said, „Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the prettiest of them all?‟ Then he had the most beautiful girl present elected as the queen for today’s mass, and they went all down to the swimming pool that’s under the sanctuary. No kidding. That happened in Zug in Switzerland. Z-U-G you spell that. In Zug in Switzerland, 1975, and the local bishop was all too happy to be present. So, I told you that Blessed Pope Benedict XI said, „You in no way may approach doubtful sacraments.‟ So, I do not have to prove to you these sacraments are invalid. It’s completely sufficient to prove to you it’s doubtful. You may not go there.

But then, you see, Father Bolduc is not just an individual who runs his own business and whatever like that, but he is a priest of the Catholic Church, and he does not have to prove that to you, because you would have to prove to him that he’s not. And you certainly can’t do that, because he can easily prove to you that he represents the church in his personal opinions, as in his teaching, as, and this is very important for the visible Church, his actions up there. You confess with Father Bolduc, you get Catholic doctrine in the confessional. You get the Catholic sacrament of confession, because he will follow the old rite in the absolution. You approach him for baptism, you get the Catholic sacrament of baptism, with the exorcisms for the child. Exactly. With the exorcisms for the child, with the necessary consecration of the child, with the chrism tradition. And that makes the church visible and makes him automatically a visible member of the church, as I am. Because you ask me questions. I give you the answers the church gives as much as I can. And you ask me for a sacrament, you will get what the church granted you as a dogma by divine right. Remember, I talked about it. That is objectively the church.

Subjectively, we cannot pronounce judgment. Subjectively, there might be a heretic sitting here. I hope not, but might be. Subjectively, there might be somebody sitting here who says, „All of what Father Hess says is very interesting, but I don’t believe a word.‟ In which case, you don’t believe church doctrine, which I’m representing right here. Subjectively, we cannot pronounce judgment. Subjectively, you cannot say Mrs. So-and-so who goes to the Novus Ordo every Sunday is not a Catholic. Well, maybe she isn’t. Maybe she doesn’t know better. Maybe she just has had the bad luck of being born imbecile, or she might have the bad luck of never having met Father Bolduc, or she might have had the bad luck of never meeting any one of you who’s capable of explaining what you heard here. You can’t judge. You don’t know if she belongs to the Catholic Church or not. Who belongs to the Catholic Church subjectively? There’s only one who knows. Three persons know it. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I’m not even sure how far Our Lady knows these things, because as we know from the apparitions in Fatima, Our Lady is not informed about everything. Our Lady does not know when the last judgment will take place. Christ said that. Christ said, „Only the Father knows.‟ That means Father, Son, and Holy Spirit know, of course, but God knows, and only God knows many things. And among those things that only God knows is the present state of the soul of Father Bolduc, Father Hess, and all of you. It’s very nice and kind of you if you think that Father Bolduc and I are presently at the state of grace. Father Bolduc may think about himself that he’s in the state of grace, and so do I. But only, only God knows. You cannot know. I cannot know about him. He cannot know about me. And if I ask Father Bolduc to hear my confession, he hears what I say. He does not know if it’s the truth that I tell. He presumes. And I won’t lie to you anyway, so. But only God knows that. So where does the church exist? Only where you see it. Period. Here, you see 8 o’clock in the morning, 8:30 on Sunday, 6:30, 6 and all these ungodly hours. (laughs) But there you see the church. You see the church. And if God wills and Father Bolduc does not die, and I do not die, and Sister does her job, you might have me here for Easter next year, and then you will see the church, and you will see the glorious old church, how it was before the popes messed it up. That is where the church is, where you see it. Does it only exist present in the Society of Saint Pius X? No, I answered that. It exists where you see it. And the Society of Saint Pius X priests will be certainly careful in not telling you anything else. They might be kind of partisan for their society. That’s fine. They have to be. But they will not tell you, „The church does not exist outside our society.‟ Some of them might think that, that’s bad enough, but they will not tell you that. ’Cause if they did, they would be in heresy.

Question: I know that in the old Code of Canon Law it mentions a lot about not being a Freemason if you’re a Catholic. In the old Code of Canon Law there is a paragraph that says if you are member of the Freemasonic rite, you’re excommunicated. In the new Code of Canon Law, it does not mention that. Still, were there absolute rules or anything? Answer: In the new code of canon law, there’s a paragraph that says, „If you belong to an institution that is explicitly against the church and you’re excommunicated, an excommunication reserved to the Holy See.‟ However, the observation is very accurate and necessary because in the new code of canon law, it does not define anymore who is against the church. And as the constant stupidities of ecumenism today are really confusing people about who belongs to the church, who is part of the church, and who is against the church, I consider this one of the most dangerous aspects of the new code of canon law. Because many people will say, „Okay, I’m only a low-degree Freemason. I’ve never heard my lodge pronounce anything against the church, so why shouldn’t I be a member?‟ And according to the new code of canon law, they would not even be culpable in that case. The new code of canon law basically is the best part of the conciliar church, but it’s still liberal and dangerous.

Question: So, what about Freemasons is bad? Answer: Objectively, the Freemasons are enemies of the church. They still hold to the old doctrine of Voltaire who said, Écrasez l’infâme. „Erase the infamous.‟ Meaning the Catholic Church. Many and majority of Masons will deny this to you, but then their code of honor says you must. So, there cannot be any doubt that objectively speaking, whoever belongs to the lodge is an enemy of the church, and as such, excommunicated. But with the new code of canon law, this has become something rather vague.

Question: If I understand you correctly, a traditional independent priest does not need jurisdiction? Answer: A very good question. I’ve been asked if a traditional independent priest does not need jurisdiction. Of course he does, but the church grants this jurisdiction because if you study canon law on the subject of jurisdiction granted by the church, first of all, it’s pretty easy to remember. You have to remember the canons with 44 at the end, 944 and 344 and 144, something like that. In those canons, there are several things mentioned. First of all, in an emergency, the church will confer jurisdiction. That was in the old code, too. Somebody dies in the street, even a publicly excommunicated priest may administer the sacrament of confession, validly. Church grants jurisdiction. Somebody is a priest on a ship. On a ship, you cannot choose. There might only be one priest, unless it’s a pilgrimage to Rome for a clergy group. Then jurisdiction, any priest on the ship has automatic jurisdiction. If we… With that Novus Ordo Church out there, if we are not in a sinking ship… I mean, in a ship, and the sinking ship as such, I don’t know who is or who has ever been. Then, in the situation of error, error facti, the jurisdiction’s granted. And the church is very generous on that and always has been, because otherwise the church could not have possibly said that the Russian Orthodox have jurisdiction. The church recognizes the validity of Russian Orthodox confession and marriage. That would not be possible because marriage and confession, as it rightly says in the questionnaire here, are dependent on jurisdiction. So I do not receive my jurisdiction from my archbishop in Vienna or my actual bishop in Australia. I receive my jurisdiction because if one of you approaches me and says, „Father, can you hear my confession?‟ You’re not coming up because you find me such a lovable person or movie star, but because you face a traditional priest who will give you what the church gave me. Therefore, you just follow the divine law-granted right to the old rite and approach me. And you approach me or Father Bolduc because nobody else around. If that is not an emergency, then what the hell is an emergency? Of course we have jurisdiction, but this jurisdiction is not granted by the local bishop who is not a Catholic anymore. It is granted by the church that will always be Catholic. Ecclesia supplet. Ecclesia supplet, the church supplies for what we do not get from the rightful authority.

Question: I find it a lot easier to make a good Act of Contrition since my Seder Actum, the Act of Faith, Hope, and Charity. And then my question is that how does the church stand on cremation? Answer: I don’t understand your comment. What do you mean it’s easier for you to do an Act of Contrition? Instead of going to confession? No. So in order to make the Act of Contrition, to make a good Act of Contrition, you almost have to say the Act of Faith, Hope, and Charity slowly so that you don’t want to cry. The perfect Act of Contrition does not mean that you get into some state of ecstasy about the abominable sins that you committed, but an Act of Contrition is nothing else but realizing and having the intention of not committing sins anymore, and feeling sorry for the sins that you committed, not because you’re deadly afraid of hell. That is an act of attrition. But because you offended God, who is the first object and the first person of your love, the first three persons of your love. The act of contrition means, you do not want to sin because it offends God. You are sorry for your sins because they hurt God. They at least hurt Jesus Christ on the cross 2000 years ago. Your act of contrition means, you love God that much that you really are not interested in the fact of you might go to hell. You do not want to offend God. That is the priority, and that means an act of contrition. But many people only go to confession because they’re deadly afraid of going to hell. That cannot be contrition. That is attrition. You realize that your life is in permanent eternal danger, and you avoid that by just consuming the sacrament, so to speak. The act of contrition means you realize that you are in disharmony with God, and you want to get back into harmony with God, not because it hurts you, but because it hurts him. Never forget that love does not know the word I. And then the second question was, how about the church about cremation? That’s not a dogma. The reason why I detest Paul VI’s decision that you may have your bodies burned if you like, is because of a lack of respect. See, Paul VI did not have respect for anything but himself. He showed that, and he made that abundantly clear. Paul VI was a blasphemer who said, „Glory to man in the highest‟ when Neil Armstrong… calling the mass as something as having a character of a meal, which is heresy. So Paul VI had no respect for anything, and he said, „Okay, you want your body burned? Go ahead. Enjoy yourself.‟ Instead of saying, „That is something to be left for public emergency.‟ In the old days, if there was a plague and you had all the corpses lying around, that is a dangerous thing. In that case, the danger in public good is more important than the respect for the body. Like you always have been allowed under church law to dedicate your body for medical research because that helps benefits mankind. But it’s a lack of respect to have your body burned after your death, just for the heck of it.

Question: The other one was, donation of organs. How does the Church feel about that? Answer: Church has always agreed with it. How can you find out what the heart is like if you do not dissect it so you can donate your body to something? Then, the moment you’re dead and somebody else’s life depends on getting your heart, which is the only part left in your body that still works fine, maybe, then why not? The same Pope Paul VI who understood so little in many other things, understood moral theology very well when he sanctioned, positively sanctioned the emergency case of those poor people who had crashed with their plane in the Andes in South America, and survived because they only ate the flesh of their dead travel passengers. They did not kill them in order to survive. That’s murder. They just cut up their bodies and survived eating. Well, listen, I might be too fat, but that’s not the point. But I’d be happy in my hour of death realizing that some other people around me could only survive eating me up. I’d be happy to tell them, „Don’t forget the salt and the pepper.‟ (laughing) The public good stands above the respect for the human body. But to ignore the respect for a corpse just because of personal preference, that is not acceptable to the church.

Question (rephrased from initial comment): On confirmation, do you want to say anything? (The speaker then discusses the validity of the New Mass, likely mishearing „confirmation‟ for „consecration‟ or relating it to the changes in sacraments.) Answer: Well, I can only repeat what I said the day before yesterday. I’ve just been asked if Father Bolduc mentioned several times the fact that the words of the consecration of the chalice have been changed in the new Mass, and therefore the question arises if the new Mass is valid or not. I told you that I cannot prove if it is valid, and I cannot prove if it is not valid. I can only prove to you that it is doubtful, that the very fact that these words have been changed make the validity of the new Mass doubtful. And Pope Benedict XI, Blessed Benedict XI said, „You must never approach doubtful sacraments.‟ That settles the practical question. As for the theory, I repeat, many theologians say the mass would still be valid, but then the Roman missal says it’s not. The part of the Roman missal that speaks about it is not dogma, but the theologians who say it’s valid are even less dogma. So I only believe it’s not valid, but I can only prove to you that it is doubtful.

Question: When I talk with the, when I talk about the Latin word magisterium… (rest of question inaudible) Answer: When I talk about the Latin word magisterium, I’m talking about something that is defined as everything the popes have decided in extraordinary magisterium dogma or ordinary magisterium, that’s their encyclicals and letters and bulls, about how tradition is to be interpreted and understood. That is the magisterium. The magisterium contains, therefore, all the papal decisions that are non-contradictory to each other, all the papal decisions on how to understand the gospel, on how to understand the oral tradition of the church, and how to understand the 10 Commandments. I think that’s pretty much in a nutshell.

Question: Would you explain how people are losing their faith in the churches? Answer: Well, I did yesterday, before yesterday, explain that by saying, „As the new Mass (audio cuts out) nation of the faith, the new Mass does not represent the faith in its entirety. As a matter of fact, the new Mass deliberately leaves out essential parts of the church doctrine on the Mass and on salvation and many other things. The new Mass as such, not by circumstances.‟ This is what Michael Davies doesn’t understand. The new Mass as such will by and by lead you off the faith because you believe what the mass says, not the other way around.

(paper rustling) (Latin) Amen. (Latin). (Latin) Amen. (Latin). (Latin) Amen. (Latin), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, descend upon you, and stay with you always. (Amen). (Latin)