Matthew 5:18. „For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.‟ „I am the way, the truth, and the life.‟ John 14:6. And in the same Gospel of Saint John, our Lord says, „Sanctify them through Thy truth.‟

Yesterday, somebody whom I don’t want to mention complained to me that I’m too harsh. Ooh. And that I fight. I do our Lord’s will. Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium. „Think not that I come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword.‟ And that today is a .50 caliber machine gun, not a sword anymore. (applauds)

In the introduction to his document… Unfortunately, I don’t have an English translation of the document, so I have to quote by memory. Don’t shoot me if I make a mistake. In the introduction to his document, he says that the reformers, he still calls them the reformers, the liberals, the liberal reformers, hide their intentions behind a duplicity of language, behind ambiguous terms. They deliberately use weak terms, ambiguous terms, and incomprehensible terms to hide their real intentions.

Now, here’s one thing that’s very important. Most of the papal encyclicals are written to the bishops. All, as a matter of fact, all of the papal encyclicals that I quoted yesterday were written by the Pope addressed to all the bishops. So he’s straightening out, trying to straighten out the bishops, and he tells the bishops what they have to do. Now, it’s very important to know, to notice that Auctorium Fidei in 1794 was addressed to all of the faithful. So what Pius VI says in this document is not only ordinary teaching, but it’s directly addressed towards the faithful of the Catholic Church. And it tells them, he says literally, „The praise of a synod is in clarifying the terms, not in coming up with ambiguous terms.‟ That means without knowing what would happen in 1962 following, Pius VI in Auctorium Fidei already condemned Vatican II that is jam-packed with ambiguous terms, ridiculous terms, newspeak, and heresies, and blasphemies, and errors. Very soon I’m going to register a video in Los Angeles where I will tear apart Vatican II and put it where it belongs, in the trash can. (applauds) Thank you.

Now, it is a difficult document. You will find it difficult reading. It’s also the only long document that Pius X ever wrote. Now in those days, popes were precise and to the point. They did not overindulge in endless blah, blah like the present pope does. But Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis is a very long and lengthy document. However, if you find the time and, keeping the Catholic Family News article that will reproduce my speech today, it is worthwhile to study this document, because you really penetrate the heart and the core of Modernism with this. And even the excellent books that came out after Vatican II and tried to analyze the root for the mess, always had to quote Pope Pius X with this document. That’s the reason why I’m going to give you an abbreviated and an analytical reading of this document. I will proceed just in the same order that Pius X wrote it. That might be less entertaining, but it will be a lot more precise.

Pius X, first of all, explains the duty of the Apostolic See. Then he talks about the necessity of immediate action. Why? Because in those days, matter of fact, as a repetition of what had been said and requested at the false Synod of Pistoia, which sometimes is called the Synod of Robbers, (Italian). That means an unauthentic, non-approved, therefore illegal synod.

In number three, he talks about the characteristics of the Modernists. I quote, „Although they express their astonishment that we should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that we should do so if leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul…‟ This is what I said yesterday. You can never pronounce a personal judgment on anybody. We are judging facts. We are judging quotations and we are judging decisions. „If leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul of which God alone is the judge, he considered their tenants, their manner of speech, and their action.‟ So he calls them the enemies of the Church. We are not discussing here if they want to be enemies of the Church, as I said. They are the enemies of the Church.

Then he talks about the previous attempts by the Modernists that have failed. He’s talking about the Synod of Pistoia and what happened during the 19th century. He indirectly is also referring thus to the Americanist heresy, which has been condemned by Leo XIII in 1899. And then he comes to talk about the Modernist personality. I quote, „The Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality. He’s a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, and a reformer.‟ You will find if you waste your time watching TV discussions, as I have done in the past but don’t do anymore, that the Modernists are absolute and total know-it-alls. They know everything. God knows the rest. They know everything. They meddle within every single subject that could possibly concern the Church. They know how to organize a parish. They know how to teach philosophy. They know how to teach theology. They know how to interpret the scriptures, and of course, they know much better than any pope ever what the dogma really means. These people assume an authority that is not even given to the pope himself.

Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas says, „A thing is what it is. And a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. One and the same thing either is or is not.‟ This is what I explained yesterday when I was talking about act and potency. There are three stages of being, non-being at all, being in potency, being in act. See, in act, I’m a priest. In potency, I’m a pope, but in no way am I a mother. And this is an assessment of reality that will appeal to the common sense that God has given us. And if you see a car passing, you will say, „This is a car.‟ Either it is a car or it’s not a car, but it will not depend on its being car on what you think. The phenomenologists say it’s your decision. It is what it is appears to you, and this is what I call subjectivism because you look at an orange and you say because you don’t like it, „This is not an orange. This is trash.‟ That doesn’t change the fact that it is an orange. And if you use a beautiful Tuscany flower vase as ashtray, it doesn’t become an ashtray. It’s still a flower vase abused as ashtray. It doesn’t become an ashtray. But according to the phenomenologist, it is just what you use it for. Pure subjectivism. There’s no objective truth anymore. And this is exactly why Pope John Paul II believes that you can be saved in other religions. All you have to have is your feeling for the truth. For what truth? Your feeling for being good and nice.

So when Gaudium et Spes talks about the efforts of the Churches being directed towards man, it is pronouncing blasphemy because it is substituting God with man, for which you will find enumerable other examples on my video that is still up to come, God willing. And this is why they say revelation for them is at the same time of God and from God. That is to say, God is both the revealer and the revealed. And if we look for this revelation within ourselves, then we are revealing ourselves to us. Does that sound absurd enough? Well, Gaudium et Spes number 22 says so. „For in his becoming man, Christ has revealed man to himself.‟ Gaudium et Spes 22. And the Pope quotes this a couple of dozen times in his encyclicals and letters and whatever else he writes. The Pope has a disconcerting habit of concentrating his quotations on the worst parts of Vatican II. And because man is really revealing himself to himself, we have what Saint Pius the Tenth calls a religious consciousness. And as regarding the religious consciousness and faith from this venerable brethren. He’s talking to the bishops in this encyclical, as I said before. „From this, venerable brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous.‟ Consciousness means my being aware of what is revealed, and revelation meaning what is revealed. So my being aware of revelation is actual revelation to me. That means I don’t need the Church handing over a dogma to me. I have it within me anyway, which is the explanation why they believe that all religions lead towards God, including the voodoo magicians in South Africa, to whom John Paul the Second… He was addressing Satanists, to whom John Paul the Second was giving praise on religious liberty, as if he was talking to an acceptable and respectable religion. Now get this, the present pope is calling Satanism, indirectly, an acceptable and respectable religion that falls under the paragraph of liberty of religions proclaimed by Vatican II.

„From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation.‟ You see? What I feel inside is equal to revelation. Do you understand now how it is possible that they say that tradition is improved and will grow with our experiences and our studies? Yes, of course. If we are the ones who reveal the truth to ourselves, sure we can improve tradition. „And that to it all must submit even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher or in that of legislator, in the province of sacred liturgy and discipline.‟ That means what I feel is right, and if I feel that the new Mass is beautiful and right, then the new Mass is beautiful and right, period. This is total religious anarchy. It is beating by far and going by far beyond all the Protestant teachings we’ve ever had.

„It is thus that the religious sense, which through the agency of vital imminence, emerges from the lurking places of the subconsciousness.‟ Ah, there is God already. „It is the germ of all religion and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion. This sense, which was first only rudimentary and almost formless under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, gradually matured with the progress of human life.‟ See that? Gradually, it matured. The source of our religion is gradually maturing. „Of which, as has been said, it is a certain form. This then is the origin of all, even of supernatural religion. For religions are mere development of this religious sense.‟ (whistles) This is the explanation on why not only you can be saved in all the religions, as they say, but this is the reason why we are searching for the truth. I’m not searching for the truth. I have it here. Denzinger Schönmetzer’s A Collection of Papal Documents and Dogmas. I got the truth in this book. I’m not searching for it. „Nor is the Catholic religion an exception. It is quite on a level with the rest.‟ This is why we have to be ecumenical and all these ecumenical activities with the Protestant and the Eastern churches is because if you can be saved in them, within these religions and because of these religions, then why convert? This is exactly why missionary activities today are dead. And when recently, a bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, John Wynar was telling you this story, wanted to convert, he was turned down by Rome. And as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said very well, „If we call the…‟ As the developments, agreement, and the Vatican do, „If we call the Ukrainian Church the daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church is our sister church, then maybe we are the aunt of the Ukrainian Church, and this is our niece.‟ You see the absurdity of what they are saying? They call a Catholic united church the daughter of a heretical and schismatical church, which is the Russian Orthodox Church. How is that possible? Well, the logic is here. You can be saved in all religions, this process of vital imminence and by no, in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been nor will be. The consciousness of Christ. And in Ecclesiam Suam, Paul VI talks a hundred times over about the consciousness of the church. I told you yesterday that in his first encyclical, which is a programmatic encyclical as always, John Paul II, in his encyclical Redemptor Hominis, does not once, not even once mention the term Catholic Church or Roman Catholic. Oh, he talks about the Church of the Council, he talks about the Church of the New Advent. Yesterday I heard somebody saying that it was my term. God forbid. I use the terms the Conciliar Church gives to itself, the Church of the New Advent. And he talks in one and the same paragraph, in one and the same paragraph six times over about the consciousness of the Church. The Church is deepening, maturing, approaching truth in its consciousness. You see that? The Church is not the perfect society anymore. Matter of fact, canon law calls it a society. Canon law does not use the term perfect anymore. The Church is the pilgrim church on Earth. On a pilgrimage towards truth, the Church is maturing in its growth of tradition because of the maturing consciousness of the Church. The consciousness of the Church is deepening. You see the absurdities I’m saying here? This is what they teach.

But Vatican I said, this is Catholic doctrine now for a change, „If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but if he can and should by his own efforts and by a constant development attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be accursed.‟ This is what Vatican I said about the idea that we are capable of arriving at the truth without revelation. Now, the same Vatican I said, „The only thing we can recognize by the light of our reason is the existence of God.‟ But if anybody says that you can arrive at the understanding of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit just using your reason, let him be accursed.

In other words, wherefore for any, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that modernists should regard them so lightly, and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. How is it possible that, ecumenically speaking, we put the Protestants on the same level with us? „Well, because why, listen, first of all, it’s rude to talk about religion in politics. Don’t offend the Protestants. See, we can talk, we can share our beautiful religious experiences with them, and we can talk about the things that we share and the things we have in common.‟ You think I’m making fun? No, I’m quoting our Pope. In his directory of ecumenism, when he says, „We should underline the common, the things we have in common.‟ That means forget about all the dogmas they don’t accept. Forget about real presence in the Eucharist, forget about the real priesthood of priests, forget about one religion only that can save. Forget about everything Protestants don’t like, and remain with what we share in our religious feelings.

That explains why the Church and the state have to be separated. You know that that doctrine has been condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos. It has been condemned by Pius IX, by Leo XIII, by Pius X, by Pius XI, by Pius XII. John the 23rd wanted it, Paul the VI wanted it, John Paul the First wanted it, and John Paul the Second’s practicing it. Pius the 10th knew that in 1907. „The state must therefore be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he’s also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders. May even, in spite of its rebukes, for the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action on any pretext whatsoever is to be guilty of an abuse of authority against which one is bound to protest with all one’s might. Venerable brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by our predecessor, Pius the VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorium Fidei.‟ You know what Dignitatis Humanae says in Vatican II? The state does not have the right to impede other religions from practicing publicly. That’s in Vatican II, and that’s a sentence that has been explicitly condemned by Pius the IX in his Syllabus of Errors.

Listen very carefully. „Evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces: one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition. Tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition.‟ So it’s not because it’s coming from God, but because it needs each other. „And in fact, since authority raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly or not at all the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them, especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life.‟ You heard about the bases knowing everything and the bureaucrats up there knowing nothing? Talking about the Church, mind you, not Washington. Well, there it is true, eh? You heard about that, right? So, „As they are more close and intimate contact with life, they know it. Already we observe, venerable brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity de facto a progress in the Church. Now, it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say, between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place.‟ So if anybody calls me a conservative, watch out. In politics, I’m a diehard Republican and conservative. In religion, I am not a conservative, I’m a Catholic. I’ve never been a progressive, I’ve never been a conservative, because you see, this is the Marxist principle of dialectics: you create discussion, and with that discussion, you bury everything else. The Church does not discuss. The Church does not dialogue. The Church teaches, period. And Christ said, „Who can take it, take it.‟ (Latin) If not, go to hell, as the Irish say. You don’t want it, you lost. I will come back to this paragraph before I conclude a little bit late, but this is very important.

The rest of the encyclical talks about methods of healing the great problem, and before I conclude this with another quotation that will offend many of our enemies, I go back to the progressive and the conservatives. I read again, „Hence by those who study more closely the ideas of the modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces.‟ So Cardinal Ratzinger is the conservative who believes in authority, therefore affirms everything the Pope says, and wants everybody else to think the same way. But at the same time, he does not condemn anybody, except Lefebvre. And then we have the laity as the basis of the Church. They are the people out in real life. They are the ones to know what our consciousness and our conscience needs. So only if those two forces are in dialog, the conservatives who know all the rules, who are the sticklers to paragraphs, who are the sticklers to canons and rubrics, only if they dialog with the simple people, the laity who know everything because they’re out there in real life, not behind the closed walls of a monastery where you can’t know anything, only if they dialog, changes and advances can take place.

Now, Saint Pius the Tenth here condemns the idea of the laity as the basis of the Church. A certain so-called blessed, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of the Opus Dei, sees the basis of the Church in the laity. He said so, and I’m quoting books by Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, not by all the many enemies of the Opus Dei. Can somebody who taught something that was against what Saint Pius the Tenth teaches in this encyclical be canonized? Well, rest assured, in the Church of the New Advent, everything is possible. I’m not discussing the fact if poor Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer is in heaven or not. I don’t have any problem with seeing him in heaven. But we’re talking about the objective beatification and canonization of somebody whose life has to be in correspondence with what tradition demands of somebody to be canonized. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer always insisted on the laity. He speaks about the vocation of the laity. There is no such thing. Anything you, as laypeople, are called to, you’re called to by priests. If not, it’s not a vocation. I asked you yesterday to stick to your Sensus Fidelium and to stand up against the Church of the New Advent, so a priest told you to do so, and inasmuch as I have the right to tell you so, and inasmuch as I am right in telling you so, you have, therefore, a vocation to do that given to you by me as a simple and humble instrument of God, the source of all vocation. But there’s no such thing as a vocation of the laity itself. But the so-called blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer says so. Saint Pius the Tenth… I read that line again. Saint Pius the Tenth says, „Now, venerable brethren, here we see the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine…‟ Some people complain about my being explicit. Pernicious doctrine in 1910 was a very strong term. „… which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church.‟ Now for the modernists, progress is everything, so the laity is the basis of everything.