There are several things to be considered with sacraments: matter, form, and intention. The church teaching on the sacraments is not always clear, so there’s usually room for certain generosity. That’s what the church always said. Let us see how the church teaches about the sacraments.

Now as far as the matter of sacraments is concerned, there is reason for doubt nowadays with a few sacraments that involve oil. Because unfortunately, Paul VI has given the permission to use vegetable oil instead of olive oil, like canola, Wesson, all these things, which I hope nobody of you uses in the kitchen anyway. And that would make the sacrament invalid because, by definition, the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, the matter of the sacrament is olive oil, and it has to be olive oil. And no pope can change the matter of a sacrament, nor has there ever been an attempt by any pope to change the matter of a sacrament. I’m talking about the popes before Paul VI.

Until about the time of Leo XIII, there was no certainty either about the three major orders nor about the matter of the Sacrament of Priesthood. While the imposition of hands was always practiced throughout history, Saint Thomas Aquinas and many popes said that the matter of the sacrament is the handing over of the instruments. Both Father Perez and I were told at ordination to hold firmly to the chalice and the paten that were handed to us. So still today that means masters of ceremony, after Pope Pius XII defined dogmatically that the imposition of hands is the matter of the sacrament, masters of ceremony will still insist that just for safety’s sake we will really hold on tight to the paten and the chalice. Pope Pius the Twelfth’s argument is that in the Greek rite, and I will come back to the question of rites, in the Greek rite, the handing over of the instruments was never part of the rite of ordination. They only had the imposition of hands, and yet the Catholic Church has always recognized the Greek rites. So we have to consider the fact that until recently, we didn’t even know exactly, we didn’t know for sure if the episcopal consecration was a sacrament, and if the handing over of the instruments at priesthood ordination or the imposition of hands would be the matter of the sacrament. Now suddenly, a few decades after, there’s enough so-called learned people and self-appointed prophets and self-appointed doctors of the church running around in this country declaring all kinds of ordinations invalid. You can see there is a gap here, which I will try to close.

We have discussed basically the matter of the sacraments. There is little else to be said. The imposition of hands is always given, and there is no need to doubt on this part because the imposition of hands has always been kept. Even the Anglican heretics who do not ordain validly have always kept the tradition of the imposition of the hands.

The problem that we face is with the form of the sacrament and the intention. The form of a sacrament are without exception the words that are pronounced during the administration of the sacrament as such. In baptism, the form of the sacrament is and always will be, „I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.‟ Doesn’t matter which language as long as it means the same. It could only be a problem in the Papua New Guinea dialect. For example, the Papuans have a very primitive language and they’re not capable of saying, „Holy Spirit.‟ The sign of the cross in Papua dialect is, „In the name of the Father, the Son, and taboo taboo.‟ Now here, you could really ask yourself if that’s still valid, which is one of the reasons why I refuse to give the sacraments in any language but Latin. The form of confession is, „I absolve thee from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.‟ No matter what language, as long as it comes out to mean the same thing, it’s a valid absolution. The form of ordination is the words that the bishop, and the bishop alone will pronounce after having imposed his hands on the one to be ordained.

Now here, we face a few difficulties. I will, for simplicity’s sake not talk about the diaconate today. The Council of Trent did not want deacons to be deacons forever. And the fact that in the Novus Ordo Church there are deacons, married deacons and deacons forever is something that doesn’t concern us. So I will not talk about the diaconate ordination or the question of validity of the diaconate’s ordination for the simple reason that it is the teaching of the church that if say, somebody would have been ordained a deacon invalidly, then ordained a priest invalidly, and then he’s consecrated a bishop validly, he will be consecrated a bishop because the higher order always includes the lower. You can become a priest. Theoretically, you’re not allowed to, but you could become a priest without having been a deacon before. Out of respect, that’s never done. And even in the old days, like when Saint Thomas Becket became a bishop, he was a deacon. So they had him ordained a priest on one Saturday, and they had him consecrated a bishop on the next Saturday.

We will talk about the priesthood’s ordination, the form of the ordination, and the form of episcopal consecration. And here it is where the ones who will tell you that Father Perez and Father Hess are not really priests make their first mistake. They say that Pope Pius the Twelfth in his decree, Sacramentum Ordinis of 1958, dogmatically defined that the words of priesthood ordination and episcopal consecration must be exactly as in his document as to the validity of the orders conferred. Now, the mistake is not to think that Pius the Twelfth’s decree would be anything but infallible. It is infallible. Pius the Twelfth said, „In virtue of my apostolic authority, I herewith define and declare.‟ That’s enough. The mistake is to think that that would apply to the cases in question.

You have to understand that there is not just one rite in the church. There are several rites in the church. For example, the Oriental rites. The Oriental rites not only do not speak Latin, their words are entirely different from what we know to exist in the Catholic Church. So when Pius the Twelfth declared dogmatically that the words of ordination must be such and such, he was speaking about the Latin Roman rite. He was not necessarily speaking of the Latin rite in Portugal, the rite of Braga. He was not necessarily and certainly not speaking of the Latin rite in Spain that is called Mozarabic-Visigothic. They have a mass that you wouldn’t recognize. He was talking about the Latin rites that are more or less the same as the Roman Latin rite, like the Premonstratensian Mass, the Dominican Mass, the Carthusian. Basically, that’s it. He was in no way talking about either the Greek united liturgy nor the Ukrainian united liturgy nor the Byzantine liturgy nor the Syro-Malabaric nor the Coptic. And he was certainly not talking, as the pope would not really dogmatize things for them, he was not talking about the Greek Orthodox schismatic and heretics. He was not talking about the Russian Orthodox Church, which is schismatical and heretical. He was talking about the Latin Roman rite.

The Holy Spirit will not give his protection to anybody proclaiming a new doctrine. And Pius IX was asked before he proclaimed the dogma of infallibility, he was asked by the Bishop of Brixen, who disagreed, „Your Holiness, what happens if in the future a pope was to teach heresy?‟ And Pius IX, in his usual nonchalant way, said, „Well, you just don’t follow him.‟ So Pius IX was quite aware of the possibility that a future pope might teach heresy. But you will see that that’s not new either. The popes have always made mistakes. Pope Nicholas I, now, he was pope when he said that. He was not a cardinal. There were no cardinals back then. He was pope when he said, „’I baptize you in the name of Christ’ is a valid baptism.‟ All of you know that it is not valid. Whoever baptizes, doesn’t matter if it’s a layman, the only sacrament a woman can give except marriage to her husband, whoever baptizes has to pour the water so the water will touch the skin of the one to be baptized and say, „I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit,‟ or, „I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost.‟ Same thing. (Latin) Amen. And yet, Pope Nicholas I, first as a pope, in a letter to two bishops said, „’I baptize you in the name of Christ’ is a valid baptism.‟ Pope Nicholas I was simply, plainly, totally wrong. And he quoted Saint Ambrosius, who is a Church Father, who said the same nonsense. So mistakes occur. Pope Nicholas I was wrong. And that shows you that the pope is not necessarily infallible, even when he writes an encyclical or a papal document.

There were several other mistakes made by popes which are of no interest to our topic today. And it was in the 12th century when Pope Innocent III said, „If a future pope was to change all the rites of the sacraments, he would put himself outside the Church.‟ Now, these are not my words, but these are the words of Pope Innocent III. „If a future pope was to change all the rites of the sacraments, he would put himself outside the Church.‟ At the Council of Florence 1441, Pope Eugene IV held the same. And at the Council of Trent, finally, this was made a dogma. In the seventh session of the Council of Trent, on the sacraments in general, the Canon 13 reads: „If anyone was to say that the traditionally handed-down rites used in the solemn administration of the sacraments can be held in disdain or be shortened or be changed into new ones by whomsoever of the pastors of the churches, may he be cursed.‟ If anyone was only to say that, he would already be outside the church and cursed. And the Latin word for whomsoever is absolutely without a second meaning. It is very clear. The Latin word quiscumque. You can look that up in the dictionary if you don’t trust me. The Latin word quiscumque, in classical Latin as in medieval Latin, has only one translation, and the translation is whosoever, brackets, no exception granted. Whosoever. Quiscumque is absolutely exclusive. Now, whosoever of the pastors of the churches includes the pope. The pope is the Bishop of Rome, the Archbishop of Latium, the Primate of Italy, the Patriarch of the West. That’s a lot of pastors in one person. So any one, whosoever, of the pastors of the churches includes the pope. Even my friend Thomas A. Nelson, Tan Books, has that translated wrong, probably not his fault. In the documents at the Council of Trent where it says every pastor, quiscumque cannot be translated with every. Every would be something like quisque or omnis. But quiscumque means whosoever. The Council of Trent fathers knew Latin. They were not like the fathers at Vatican II who didn’t know a thing about Latin. At the Council of Trent, the only language used was Latin. They didn’t speak anything but Latin. Of course they spoke Italian. They spoke Italian when they were running over for a coffee. But in the Cathedral of Trent, Latin was spoken, and everybody back then knew his Latin. And when they formulated that canon, believe me, they were, back then, they took the truth seriously. They were fighting over every single word. And if the word quiscumque was chosen, that meant the pope, too. To choose the word quiscumque was like saying right in the pope’s face, „That means you too.‟

And that’s absolutely in accordance with church tradition, as you will see, because Gregory the Great became pope in 590. Shortly after he became pope, he added the words, „Diesque nostros.‟ „May you dispose of our days in your peace.‟ The population of Rome almost killed him for that. Said, „How dare you touch the sacred canon?‟ That was 590-something. The church back then was very well aware of the necessity of tradition. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem said, „Is it tradition? Ask no more.‟ Means it’s tradition, fine. It’s not tradition, discard it, forget it. The Fathers of Trent therefore said that the pope could not change the rites. Is that my interpretation or is it papal teaching? It is implicit papal teaching because have you ever held a Roman missal in your hands? Well, if you get a chance, look up the first decrees at the beginning of the book. At the beginning of the Roman missal, you will find the decree Quo Primum by Pius V. And as the only exception in church history, you will not only find Pius V decree, but you will find three other decrees. All through church history, no pope published a book without canceling his predecessor’s document if there was one. The typical way, for example, of publishing the Code of Canon Law or the Corpus Iuris Canonici that was the predecessor before 1917 would be to authorize a new edition and put in one’s document. Like Pope Urban IX would put in his name and throw out his predecessor’s decree. The Roman missal, since 1570, is the only exception in church history. Why? Because Pius V did nothing else but respect the Council of Trent when he codified what was there. When Pius V, Saint Pius V, in 1570, published the Roman missal, he did not change anything. He changed a few little rubrics that were kind of, how you say? They were not clear. They were kind of confusing and so he changed them. But the book as such was the missal that had been used for centuries by the Roman curia, and he canonized it with the decree Quo Primum in which he says not only the book must never be changed in the future, this mass must be said by all priests in the future, but the decree as such is irreformable.

Some people now argue that a pope cannot bind a pope. They argue in what you call legalistic nonsense. They quote Roman law and they misquote Roman law, because they quote Roman law well, but they quote Roman law on the wrong level by quoting the old line (Latin). „An equal has no power over an equal.‟ The pope at first sight may seem another pope’s equal, but then how about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Can a future pope take that back? No, you know very well he can’t. So that means that the popes have to respect their predecessors. And as a matter of fact, that’s exactly what the old Oath of Incoronation says. Don’t be mistaken by the fact that the Oath of Incoronation was signed in writing by the popes only between the year 781 and 1302, but the text of the Oath of Incoronation is still today to be found in that singular collection of rites that pertain only to the pope called Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. The text is still there. No pope has ever contradicted that text. We are talking about basically 1,500 years’ approved theology. That means it’s the faith of the church that the pope cannot change things. There in the Oath of Incoronation it says, „If I was to betray the handed down tradition of my predecessors, God shall not be a merciful judge to me at the Last Judgment.‟ So tradition binds the pope, especially in liturgy. Why? The oldest liturgical principle that has been written down the first time in the year 250, exactly 1,750 years ago is (Latin). „The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed.‟ Do not confuse the law of what has to be believed with the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith is at the very beginning of everything. But the law of what has to be prayed, that is the Roman Missal for example, will determine the law of what has to be believed. What is the law of what has to be believed? The Creed, for example. Every time you recite the Creed at Sunday Mass, at the same time you recite what you have to believe in order to remain a Catholic. Now, in the liturgy, you always found the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. You talk about Lex Orandi, the law of what has to be prayed. In an ancient missal of the 14th century or in a handwritten missal of the 8th century, you will find the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. That’s the law of what has to be prayed, because the priests had to celebrate that feast. However, it only became the law of what has to be believed in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So you can easily see in history that the law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. (Latin). Until Pope Pius XI included, no pope ever misquoted that line. So for uninterrupted 1,600-something years, we had the popes quoting the same line in the same way, always saying the same thing. Then Pius XII in 1947 turned this line around, which I don’t think he had the right to do. It’s a theological mistake, but it’s not our topic today to talk about Pius XII.

You can see from this principle that the Roman Missal cannot be considered a mere disciplinary law. It is much more than that. It is way above any discipline. The Roman Missal is the number one law of what has to be prayed because Holy Mass is the number one prayer. Therefore, when Pius V said, „This missal cannot be changed, and this decree confirming that is irreformable,‟ he did in fact bind his successors. I ask you, is this my interpretation or is it the pope’s? Well, I showed you that is the papal interpretation, because even John XXIII did not dare to take out Quo Primum or the decree followed by Clement VIII or the decree by Urban VIII. He did not dare to replace these documents. That means even John XXIII visibly thought that he was bound by his predecessors’ decrees. That makes 400 years of popes being bound, who „failed,‟ quote/unquote, that they were bound. Of course, the popes didn’t just have a feeling about it. Leave the feelings in California. In the Vatican, you have theologians to discuss things like that. Every single pope before he writes a decree will ask his cardinals and his theologians on how to write it. Very few popes ever were proud enough to think that they could single-handed write decrees. And that shows you why the new rite, which Paul VI himself called Novus Ordo Missae, the New Order of Mass, is not a work of the Church. And it cannot be considered the Latin Roman Rite because the Latin Roman Rite is bound in the Roman Missal. So what do you call it? Well, I call it the schismatical new rite. Why? What does schism mean? Literally, in Greek, schisma means to cut, a cut somewhere. Schism, to go into schism means you cut yourself off the Church. You do not split the Church as John Paul II says or wants you to believe. You cut yourself off the Church. You leave the Church, in short. A schismatic act is not necessarily a formal schismatic act by declaration, so that you’re really to be considered a schismatic, but it is something that cuts off something of the Church. Now, against Church tradition and against the Council of Trent, against Quo Primum, and against the interpretation of 400 years of papacy, Paul VI wrote up a new rite. Therefore, that has to be considered a schismatic rite.

Before we examine the validity of ordinations, I will shortly tell you what I think about the validity of the new Mass. It’s not our topic, really, today, but as long as bread and wine is used, we have no reason to discuss the matter. How about the form? Now, in Latin, the essence of the words are still kept. Not in the translations. In Latin, it says, „Hoc est enim corpus meum,‟ in the old rite, and, „Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur,‟ in the new rite. For the chalice, the only thing that changed was that the Mysterium fidei is kept out, which is not essential to the transubstantiation. Moral theology has never held that in the days before the council. The problem is the translations. In the Latin original, it says, „Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.‟ Christ gave his blood for the many, not for all. In the English translation, it reads, „For all.‟ In the German translation, the same, „Für alle.‟ In the Italian translation, „Per tutti.‟ In the Spanish translation, „Para todos.‟ In all the translations except the Polish translation, the translation changed from, „For the many,‟ to, „For all.‟

How do you judge such a change? There are two ways. First of all, you look up old moral theologies. In the old moral theologies, you will find that many moral theologians say it is enough for the validity of mass to say, „This is my body,‟ and then to say, „This is my blood.‟ That is something to be looked at very carefully. What was the problem they discussed? When you find a moral theologian giving an answer to a problem, you also have to ask yourself, what was the problem he discussed in the first place? Now, the problem was accident. What happens if an old priest is saying mass? While he says mass, he gets kind of sick, but he continues with mass. At the consecration, he pronounces the words of consecration over the bread then he picks up the chalice and he starts to pronounce the words of consecration over the chalice, and all he manages to say is (Latin), in that moment, he drops dead. Now, that is a problem. What is it now? Wine or the blood of Christ? What is it? So moral theologians had to examine that problem, and within that context, they said with the utmost probability it is the blood of Christ. And that’s why you read in the old moral theologies that it is the blood of Christ. However, the point is we are talking about a problem within the frame of the traditional liturgy. We are not talking about a problem outside it. What if you talk about something outside the traditional liturgy? What if you talk about something outside mass?

Now, as you will see when we discuss the intention of the sacrament, the intention of the sacrament always has to be to do what the church does, not to do what the church wants or to do what the church did, or to do what the church will do in the future, but to do what the church does. What is it, what the church does? Well, what the church has always done is what the church does. What the church has always outlawed is what the church does not. In the Code of Canon Law, be it the new Code of Canon Law or the old Code of Canon Law or all the books before, it says, „To attempt to consecrate outside mass is nefas, sacrilege.‟ Nefas is a very strong Latin word derived from fas, F-A-S. Fas is divine law. Nefas, therefore, is not divine law, the contrary of divine law, therefore something extremely evil. So the canon in the old or the new Code of Canon Law should be translated, „To attempt to consecrate outside mass is extremely evil.‟ It is not the purpose of a law book to define if that is possible. It’s only the purpose of a law book to say if it’s allowed or not. Now, if the church for 2,000 years has called the attempt to consecrate outside mass a sacrilege, then you cannot say the church does it. That means if I was to play a terrible joke on our Lord, and if I attempted to consecrate the wine contained in this carafe, nothing would happen because it’s outside mass, except that I would be in mortal sin. But otherwise, nothing would happen. So you have to see the difference between the context of outside mass and the context of within the traditional frame of mass. Therefore, I side against those who say with the old moral theologians that it is sufficient to say, „This is my body and this is my blood,‟ in order to have the sacrament take place, and I side with those who say that the new mass in English is not valid because in the Roman Missal, in De Defectibus, it says so. I agree with that. In the Roman Missal, at the beginning of the Roman Missal, there is a decree, usually two pages, that speaks about what happens if something goes wrong at mass. (Latin) That decree was published and signed by Pope Pius V in 1571, one year after the missal came out. And there it says, „If the celebrant was to be distracted or interrupted at the words of consecration, and if these shortened or changed words of consecration contain a change of significance, and if the celebrant does not repeat the words of consecration fully and correctly, the sacrament does not take place.‟ Now, to change for the many to for all, as you can easily see, is a change in significance. And please do not say, like some learned scholastic scholars, pseudo-scholastic, pseudo-scholars say, that in antiquity they didn’t know the difference between many and all. That’s absurd. That is to deny reason to all antique cultures. In all the antique languages, you will find a word for all, like in Latin omnes, and you will find a word for many, multi. Therefore, those are two different things. The many and all is a different thing. Many people in this country are Democrats. Thank God not all. (clapping) So there is a difference.

Now, to change the words of consecration from the many to all is a change of significance. Now, the Roman Missal says in that case the sacrament doesn’t take place. Now, how about the consecration of the bread? It still says, „This is my body.‟ Well, we have to apply the principle of the intention again. The church does not consecrate outside mass, but if the words of the chalice are invalid and if the words of the chalice are invalid right away from the start, that means if the words for the consecration of the chalice are invalid in the book, then before mass starts, you know, or it is evident, you might not know, but it is evident that there will be no consecration of the chalice. If there is no consecration of the chalice, there is no mass. But as it is not possible to consecrate outside mass, in that case even the words of the consecration of the bread are not valid, not because of a defect of form, but because of a defect of intention. If the church does not consecrate outside mass, then I cannot have the intention to do what the church does if I want to consecrate the bread and not the bread and the chalice and communicate it. You see, to have mass it needs three things: consecration of the bread, consecration of the chalice, and communion of the priest, which is the annihilation of the victim, the completeness of the sacrifice. If it is guaranteed that that will not take place, then it is guaranteed it will not be a mass. If it is guaranteed that it will not be a mass, there cannot be consecration at all.

I have come to the conclusion that the mass in the vernacular is invalid. However, I cannot give you scientifically irrefutable proof for what I say. Neither could you altogether give me scientifically irrefutable proof that the new mass in the vernacular is valid. Therefore, we face certainty on doubt. We have the proof that the new mass is doubtful, and that’s why we are not allowed to go to the new mass, because Blessed Innocent XI condemned the following sentence: „For pastoral reasons, you may approach sacraments according to the probability as to its validity.‟ That was condemned. That means if there is doubt, you cannot go. Simple. For those who want to look it up, that’s Denzinger-Schönmetzer 2101. We cannot and must not approach doubtful sacraments.

As far as the new mass in Latin is concerned, at least if the priest follows the book, if the priest says the so-called Roman Canon, and if the priest says the whole mass in Latin, I cannot see any possible reason to doubt the validity of the mass, simply because we are facing the same problem that we have with the masses in the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church. Please do not forget, the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox deny the papacy. They deny that the successor of Peter is the supreme head of the church. They’re even much worse than that. They are real heretics. Some people today, because of their delusion with the new liturgy, lean towards the oriental rites. Well, that’s, first of all against tradition. Second, they lean towards heresy, because the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox fight each other if they would accept the first four councils or the first seven councils. Big deal. They’re heretics anyway. The moment you deny one dogma of the Catholic Church, already you cease to be a Catholic, let alone several councils. So, we have to consider the fact that even though the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox are heretics and schismatics, the Catholic Church has always accepted all the seven sacraments as valid with the Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox. The Catholic Church has always said, decided, and taught that all the seven sacraments in the Russian Orthodox Church and in the Greek Orthodox Church are to be considered valid. That means they take place, validity. They are all illegitimate because it’s schismatics and heretics administering the sacraments, but they’re all valid. That means they do take place even though it’s not allowed to do it.

The same I hold true for the new mass properly celebrated. I consider the new mass a schismatic rite. Therefore, it has to be judged according to the principles of judging a schismatic rite, and therefore I consider it valid because Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae says the following, „If a group, ‚a new kind of church,’ quote unquote, was to change the rites and abbreviate the rites so they would leave out essentials pertaining to the sacrament, and if they would teach the contrary of what is true for the sacrament, then even a validly ordained minister could not celebrate validly with their books.‟ That was the question that had been posed to Leo XIII, because some Anglican bishops secretly got themselves consecrated bishops by Russian Orthodox. They were just bribed. I mean, it’s easy. And so they had to answer the question, „If I am an Anglican bishop secretly consecrated by a Russian Orthodox bishop, then I’m a validly consecrated bishop. Can I therefore ordain priests in the Anglican rite?‟ No, because the Anglican rite, not only as such leaves out essentials of the sacraments, but the Common Prayer Book, in its first pages, defines heresy. In the first pages of the Common Prayer Book, in some editions in the last pages, it says explicitly that the real presence and the sacrificial priesthood are to be considered popish superstitions. So that’s direct heresy, explicit heresy. And that is the difference to the Conciliar Church. The sect that was a result of Vatican II never officially denied the real presence or the priesthood. Not officially. Well, most bishops don’t believe it, and I don’t know if the Pope believes it. It is very difficult to say what the Pope believes. It’s very difficult to say what a pope who kisses the Quran would really believe, except in himself. But on paper, and this is what concerns us, we’re not concerned with people here, we’re concerned with documents. On paper, the so-called Catholic Church, the counterfeit church, as Father Paul Kramer calls it, the New Church, the Novus Ordo Church, or the Church of the New Advent, as our dear pope calls it, on paper, that sect believes in the real presence and the priesthood. Therefore, one of the two conditions named in Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII does not apply because while Pope Paul VI, when he changed the mass and when he changed the sacraments, he left out some important things, he did not leave out the form and he never said it is not a sacrament and he never said it is not true and he never said it’s not a sacrifice. Paul VI was a heretic. He said, „Mass has the character of a meal.‟ That’s heresy. But he never said that mass does not have the character of a sacrifice. According to Pope Leo XIII, that would be needed in order to invalidate the celebration.

So when I asked Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, I asked Father Schmidberger, before that Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, I asked Bishop Williamson, I asked Bishop de Mallerais, not because I had doubts but because I’m a theologian and have to ask questions, they said, „What? You want to get yourself reordained? No way.‟ I never wanted to get myself reordained because I never had the slightest doubt whatsoever about my ordination. As I never had the slightest doubt, I did not receive a doubtful sacrament, therefore I did not commit that sin that we talked about first regarding mass. And if I have no doubt about it, then it is not legal to repeat it under condition. If you know you are baptized, you cannot ask for conditional baptism. Impossible. The church has always denied that. Also, the church has always given the benefit of doubt. The church in doubt usually will be in favor of validity. In the Code of Canon Law, it says, „If there is doubt about the validity of marriage, validity is presumed.‟ Only if you have positive reasonable doubt then it is not presumed. But if you go about and say, „I wonder if I’m really married?‟ the church presumes you are married. Period. So I never said, „I wonder if I’m really a priest.‟ And believe me, that might sound superstitious, but as much as I will never know what a mother is, you will never know what a priest is. A priest sometimes can feel his priesthood, and that’s not superstition. Many saints have said that. I know I’m a priest. I have no doubt. So I will never ask for conditional reordination, because that’s a sacrilege. And the reason why I will never ask for it is not only because I have no doubt, but I have theological evidence that as long, mind my words, as long as the one who will ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop is a bishop himself and administers the sacraments according to the books, old books or new books, but according to the books, he will consecrate validly.

We are talking in general, of course. There are cases in which the ordination is not valid, but then the condition I have just given does not apply. Example, recently, a priest joined the Society of Saint Pius X in Germany. He was, quote-unquote, „ordained a priest‟ in the Diocese of boom-boom. Not allowed to say. The bishop there changed the rite of ordination to a point that Bishop Fellay said, „We have to do a conditional reordination.‟ That’s different then. I’ve heard the rumor, I haven’t seen anything yet, I’ve heard the rumor that the American Bishops Conference has come up with a new rite of ordination that would be invalid. Possible, but so far it isn’t. Of course, we always had cases in the church that the sacrament would have to be doubted. That’s why the Holy Office had specialists on the validity of sacraments, not just for the last 50 years, but for the last 15 hundred years, because there were always borderline cases. We always had that. So that hasn’t changed. The only problem is, anyone who is ordained in the new rite usually is ordained validly, but illegitimately.

Now, when I was ordained a priest November 21st, 1981, in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, I did not know about this. I was still in the Novus Ordo Church and I believed everything was glorious and right. But now I know I have been ordained a priest very, very validly, if you could say that, but very, very illegitimately. I don’t mean on paper. On paper, I had everything that was needed. I had the permission from the arch-vicariate of Rome, and the one who ordained me a priest, he was ordained in the old rite himself. One who ordained me a priest was the vicar of the archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Peter’s, who would never ordain anybody illicitly. So on paper, according to the new laws, everything was in perfect harmony. But now I understand. I’m a priest for 19 years now, and now I understand that I was ordained in a schismatic rite. But I was ordained, and for you, the only thing important is when you come to confession to me or you receive communion from me if I’m really a priest, you couldn’t care less if I became a priest illegitimately or legitimately. It’s like when a bishop is consecrated illegally by a Russian Orthodox bishop, you will know he’s a bishop, the same time you will know that that was not right. So we are not talking about the law here, we’re talking about, am I a priest, yes or no? Well, you can see I am, and so is Father Perez, because Cardinal Stickler, who ordained Father Perez, was not only consecrated a bishop by the Pope himself, but also by the late Cardinal Siri, who received his consecration in the old rite in 1953. So Father Perez is as much a priest as I am, and as many of those priests are who doubt our ordination. And we are a lot more priests than many of those pseudo-priests who doubt our ordinations, because some of them have received their ordination from definitely non-consecrated bishops. There’s always crackpots running around who claim to be who knows what. I met a priest in Rome who was never ordained a priest and heard confessions. That’s not new. That happened in the old days as much as now, and Rome is jam-packed with crackpots, not just conciliar crackpots, but so-called traditional crackpots too. Psychoceramiker is a widely spread disease in Rome. Psychoceramiker, crackpot.

As far as confirmation is concerned, I already mentioned the problem with olive oil. If they use canola, there is no confirmation. And if the bishop says, „Receive the Holy Spirit,‟ then there’s no confirmation because receive the Holy Spirit for what? You always receive the Holy Spirit in the sacrament. And it has happened that bishops confirmed, quote end quote, using olive oil even, but just saying, „Receive the Holy Spirit.‟ Well, that’s invalid. He has to say something that pertains to the sacramental confirmation, like the German translation is, „Receive the Holy Spirit to your strength.‟ (Latin). Well, of course, confirmation is exactly that, so it’s valid. Mass, we have discussed. Ordination, we have discussed. Now, the extreme unction, if olive oil is used, will always be valid. Don’t forget that Lord is especially generous in the last rites. And as far as marriage is concerned, the new code of canon law, Canon 1116, paragraph one, two, three, make sure that you can marry without a priest. So again, the Church will protect your marriages. Well, it’s not as easy, as I said, right now, but we are not discussing marriage here, and marriage is as complicated as 700 other sacraments together, if there were that many. So the Church protects the sacraments, and therefore, we have usually no doubt. As far as confirmation is concerned, we do not need it. I do not run down confirmation. But if somebody dies without confirmation, as long as he in the state of grace, he will go to heaven without confirmation. What is needed for salvation is baptism, period. What is needed for our daily life is confession and mass. And what is needed for our daily life if we decide to enter the bondage of marriage, oh, excuse me, the bond of marriage, then the sacrament of marriage is needed. But that’s it. Extreme unction is not needed. It is of great help, and so is confirmation.

Generally speaking, a priest cannot hear your confession if he doesn’t have the faculties, but the Church will give him the faculties, not only in emergency, but also in cases of doubt and in cases of difficulty, which means we basically got it, because Canon 144 of the new Code of Canon Law, which is a copy of the canon, forgot the number in the old Code of Canon Law, basically says, „In doubt about fact and in doubt about law, the Church substitutes jurisdiction in the internal and external forum.‟ What does that mean in proper English? Well, if you have a doubt, like, „Does Father Hess have the faculties for confession? Yes or no?‟ And you say, „I presume he will have it if he’s hearing confessions, then I presume he has received it.‟ So you’re pretty sure. Even if I didn’t have it, you would give it to me in that sense, because the Church would give it to me because you doubt. If I was in doubt about it, positive doubt, the Church would substitute. Or if I say, „We really face an emergency nowadays. Like, we are on a sinking ship.‟ And ain’t we? „We are on a sinking ship, and I do not even have doubt about that fact,‟ the Church will substitute the jurisdiction, internal and external forum. So when you go to confession with Father Perez, you don’t have to ask him, „Who gave you the faculties for confession?‟ The Church did. If you wanted to confess to Father Hess, I’m here. You don’t have to ask me, „Who gave you the faculties for confession?‟ The Church does. Canon 144, canon 844, several canons in the old Code of Canon Law, several canons in the new Code of Canon Law. One of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X has written a treatise on this subject, and he can show you that even if I was officially an excommunicated heretic, I could hear your confessions if there was a need. Because of difficulty, that’s another condition, what is called sub gravi incommodo. If it is gravely inconvenient to go elsewhere. That usually means if you have to drive up to San Fernando Valley in order to go to confession, you don’t have to. Any priest here can substitute, because to drive up to San Fernando Valley, that’s grave inconvenience. Officially, by the way. Not just cracking a joke on Los Angeles traffic. San Fernando Valley is more than an hour away. And the Church always said, „50 miles, one hour. That’s the border limit.‟ So you don’t have to. You can always, without asking where he received his faculties, go to confession to my dear friend, Father Benjamin, sitting right here, and go to confession to him. He’s a good man. So the Church will provide jurisdiction.

Now, is jurisdiction needed for the priesthood as such? No. I told you that all the Russian Orthodox priests are illegitimately ordained and they all are priests, as far as we know. So the question is not, „Father Perez, did he receive his ordination legitimately?‟ Well, according to the Conciliar Church, he did, but Cardinal Stickler didn’t, according to the old church. Are Father Hess’ ordination legitimate? No. Are they valid? Yes. Because ordination does not depend on law. If the bishop does it, it doesn’t matter if it’s allowed or not, it’s valid. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops, it was explicitly against the explicit wish of the Pope. They all four are bishops, definitely consecrated bishops, and even the Vatican has never dared to deny that. The Vatican fraudulently, and liars as they are, will tell you that those bishops are excommunicated, which doesn’t hold according to the new code. Canon 1324 and canon 1325 say the contrary. But of course, when it is convenient, the new law applies, and when it is not convenient, the new law does not apply. That’s the way the Conciliar Church handles things.

The point for you is, you have no reason and you have especially no proof or any positive reason to doubt our ordination, and it needs positive doubt even to be allowed to pronounce the doubt. That’s another thing some people in this country conveniently ignore. You cannot disseminate confusion by doubting things without having positive reason to do so. There are many, many things that I could tell you in another conference or right now that I would never tell you, because they are, A, not important, B, I’m not too sure of them myself, C, they would only contribute to your already overly stressed confusion. And that’s the reason why if somebody tells you, „You know, this man is not really a priest,‟ you just stop ’em short and say, „Who says so?‟ Simple. And then if you listen to him, you discard it anyway, because you got my tapes. No, that’s not because I’m saying it, but I gave you quotations. And if I forgot a quotation and if you ask Father Perez for the quotation, he will provide the quotation for everything I said today, because it’s not Father Hess speaking. Father Hess is only using his own words with a strong German accent to whatever I say. But I’m quoting papal magisterium and I’m not quoting self-appointed prophets out there somewhere on the internet and in another 47 states of this country. The point is, anyone says anything to you and somehow it seems either strange or somewhat lacking of proof to you, ask him, „Excuse me, who said so? Where can I find it? Would you help me to look it up myself? Thank you.‟ That’s how you proceed. Anything I left out? Good. Okay. Now, while I have another glass of my spritzer, here in California, at least you understand the term spritzer, which is coming from Austria. You can ask questions.

Um, I’m a little confused about… Could you go over again what, how something could be illegitimate but valid. I guess I’m a little confused about some things you-

Okay. Yes. How can something be illegitimate and valid? Because the church teaches illegitimate baptism is no. I start again. The validity of baptism, the validity of mass, the validity of holy orders, and the validity of extreme unction do not depend on licitness. If anyone who baptizes illegitimately, like the Protestant pastor does every time, will baptize validly if he follows the correct rite. If I was to celebrate mass illegitimately, like if I am in mortal sin or if the bishop has told me explicitly, I’m talking about the old days, if the bishop has told me explicitly that I must not celebrate or if I’m suspended a divinis, I celebrate validly. I told you already that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is always valid if properly done, even if the bishop doesn’t have the permission, like in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that the church gave him the permission. However, according to the book, the Pope did not, and as it is the case with the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church. There’s only three sacraments where you have, four, excuse me, where you might have a problem with jurisdiction. Now, the jurisdiction, as far as marriage is concerned, is very complicated and I cannot go into it right now, but if you read Canon 1116 of the New Code of Canon Law, you can find out yourself what the conditions are. As far as confession is concerned, I already told you that the church basically provides jurisdiction all the time. If she didn’t, it would be invalid, because in confession, validity depends on jurisdiction. And as far as confirmation is concerned, the same holds true. If the priest does not have the delegation and if nobody is close to death, he cannot do it, period. The bishop has to do it. Have I answered your question?

Mm-hmm. Do you want that?

To a certain ex- I mean-

Yes. These are very hard for me as these are legal terms, I know, but-

The legal terms I can explain. Valid means it takes place. Licit means it’s allowed.

Okay.

If something’s not allowed, but it does take place? Yes, of course, like murder. Sometimes you’re allowed to kill people. If somebody threatens your wife and children with a gun, you shoot him. That’s licit and valid. But if you want to rob out your neighbor just because you don’t like him, that’s valid, but it’s not licit. You got it?

Yes.

And if you use the wrong gun, then it might be licit, but it’s not valid because you don’t hit him.

I just wanted to touch on one thing that you brought up, which I wasn’t aware. Um, you said Cardinal Siri was present at Father Perez’s ordination.

No, Cardinal Siri was not present at Father Perez’s ordination, but Cardinal Siri was one of the consecrators of Cardinal Stickler.

Oh, okay.

But the Pope would be enough because don’t forget the pope became a bishop in the old rite, not that he needed to, but he not only became a bishop in the old rite, the pope’s bishops’ consecrations usually are published in Italian TV, I mean, they’re broadcasted in Italian TV live or at least in part afterwards in reruns, and you can see what the Pope is doing. And all he does is the imposition of hands, and then he reads more or less understandably the form of the sacrament out of the book. So that’s sufficient. Everything else is secondary. If he doesn’t have the faith which he proved by kissing the Quran, that’s secondary. The church never asked, went into these things. What the Pope believes is of no consequence to the sacraments he administers. That has to be understood. Next question.

So you’re saying when you go over to Mass and the priest raises the chalice with one hand, is that valid?

Yes, of course. What if he’s one-armed? Not if you’re armed. Of course. I had to do it once. Hurt myself in the left arm, couldn’t lift it. But I celebrated mass, believe me. Yes?

So you’re saying that the elimination of the word ut in the new form of ordination is not reason enough to invalidate it?

No, I told you why. Because the document of Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, doesn’t apply because the new Mass obviously is not the Latin Roman rite. Obviously, because it’s a schismatic rite. Council of Trent would say that.

Okay, but-

Therefore, we have to examine the form as to its contents, as to its message, as to its words. And ut doesn’t change the message. Not sufficiently. And the entirely newly written up form of the Episcopal consecration is totally different from the old one, but it says the right thing. Don’t forget that in the eastern churches, and I must remind you that all the eastern sacraments are recognized valid. In the eastern churches, you sometimes have weird forms, believe me. Right now, my memory fails me and I couldn’t give you one, but you have things like… Now please, be careful with what I say here. Things like, in confession in some rites, the priest will say, „Our Lord Jesus Christ absolves you from your sins in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.‟ And it’s valid. So, the point is not what it says. The point is not how it says it, but what it says. And that’s the reason why we are priests. If the people who apply Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis to today’s sacraments, they put themselves in a trap. They deny that the new Mass is really the right thing, and then they apply what is to be applied to the Latin rite. Well, what now? Okay. Now, the new Mass, if the new Mass is really the Latin Roman rite, then why don’t I say it? If it’s the Latin Roman rite, then why don’t I say it? It was the Pope who published it. He’d never promulgated it, but that’s not the point. He published it and he said it himself. And if it’s the Latin Roman rite, then why don’t I say it? Then Sacramentum Ordinis by Pius XII would apply. But you see, we are in a, what do you call in Italian, a strada senza uscita, a dead end. But the Italian word’s better. Strada senza uscita, a way without exit. Okay. But I said it cannot be considered the Latin Roman rite, therefore whatever Pius XII said about it doesn’t apply. Okay. See, sometimes, and that’s why I doubt the wisdom of the whole thing, sometimes something can be infallible and yet impractical. I mean, Pius XII went to great length of trouble to define the form of diaconate, priesthood, bishophood as a, in an infallible document that only applies to the Latin rite. It doesn’t apply to the Coptic rite, it doesn’t apply to the Syro-Malabaric rite, it doesn’t apply to the Greek United, it doesn’t apply to the Ukrainians, it doesn’t apply to the Mozarabic Visigothic rite. So how about them? Totally different forms. All invalid? No, of course not. Church has always recognized it. Okay.

Then does it mean that any priest that’s validly ordained in any of those other rites can come and say the rite of the Roman Latin Mass?

Now, that’s two different questions. Um, if ordained in a valid rite… I have to return the question to you. If ordained in a valid rite, he is a priest. But what about those so-called priests in the Anglican rite or the Episcopalian Church? Well, they are not.

Right.

Because Leo XIII said so. And it’s evident why they are not priests. If he can celebrate the Latin Roman rite, that’s a different question. One of the oldest traditions in the church is you do not choose your rite. God will give you your rite. You are baptized into a rite. Depends on where your parents are at home, where you’re born, where you grew up. And generally speaking, I’m giving you the principle and the exceptions. Generally speaking, a priest of the Greek United Church is not supposed to say the Roman rite. He’s not supposed to. He’s supposed to stick true to his rite. Of course, with today’s emergency and lack of priests, you can also understand that exceptions are willingly granted. And if exceptions are willingly granted in the conciliar church, then you might as well presume they don’t have half the emergency that we got. Okay? So you might presume that God will grant it. If I had to celebrate a mass in a Dominican Catholic, real Catholic Dominican, there are two of them, monastery, let’s say they all eat the same fish and they all are in the hospital and they got no priest and I am the only one around, I do happen to know how to celebrate the Dominican rite. I wouldn’t hesitate for one minute to do it, of course, in an emergency. But I’m not supposed to celebrate a rite that I don’t even know, like the Greek United or the Byzantine Liturgy. I don’t know it. I wouldn’t know how to go about it. Mozarabic Visigothic, I would have to study that missal for about three days before I could really attempt to celebrate mass in that rite. But as far as the validity concern, all I can tell you is all valid rites are valid, because we cannot go into a detailed examination of all the rites that exist in the church. Also, I couldn’t because I haven’t ever seen those books. But generally speaking, the rites that have been recognized are still recognized today. Good question.

Yes. What is a rite?

That’s a very good question. Rite. You don’t spell that R-I-G-H-T, Romeo India Golf Hotel Tango. You spell that R-I-T-E, Romeo India Tango Echo. Rite, ritus in Latin, is just like, there’s a difference between waltz, tango and cha-cha-cha. That’s a rite. Different way of formulating the prayers. Like, I forgot to mention the fact that the unity of the church, I’m glad you, John, by getting my thoughts back together here. I talked about the new rite being schismatic, and I said schism means to cut yourself off the church. Now, a schismatic act is an act against the unity of the church. What does the unity of the church consist in? Same faith, same worship, same leader, the papacy. Not talking, I’m not going into the problem if John Paul II is pope or not. I’m talking about the papacy as such. Okay? And what does same worship mean? Now, the same worship does not mean the same rite, and that’s why I’m grateful for your question. The same worship can be in different rites, but it is what these different rites have in common. Example, all recognized rites in the church will mention the fact that the holy sacrifice of mass is in honor and glory of the most blessed trinity. In the Latin Roman rite, it’s the Suscipe Sancte Trinitas at the offertory and the Placeat Tibi Sancta Trinitas after communion. Those two prayers. Those two prayers you will find in all rites that are recognized, but in most rites they are formulated in a different way. So the difference in rites is about words, vestments and movements. Like in the Dominican rite, for example, which I said before I know, the Dominican rite is a lot more simple than the Roman rite, even though it’s got the same canon. But in the Dominican rite, the priest will fill the chalice with wine and water before he starts mass. He will go up to the altar, uncover the chalice, fill it with wine and water, cover the chalice, come back down again, take off his hood… He’s a Dominican friar, okay? Take off his hood, say the same prayer I usually say in the beginning of conferences, (Latin). Then say (Latin). You can see the difference. There’s no Judica. So different words, different gestures, different vestments even. The Byzantine rite has completely different vestments to what we know. Their altars are different, their sanctuaries are different, their chalices are different, but the same worship. It’s all for the greater glory of the blessed trinity, for the forgiveness of sins. And all the churches recognize, define mass as the repetition of what happened in Calvary.

Father, if I heard you right, you mentioned that your ordination was valid but illegitimate. So what makes it illegitimate?

The fact that I was ordained in the new rite, and the whole new rite is schismatic and therefore illegitimate. We’re talking about what Archbishop Lefebvre rightly called the neo-Gnostic sect of the council. Don’t forget that Vatican II is an unacceptable council. I give you one wonderful quotation of Vatican II which will prove to you that you cannot possibly call that council a work of the church. Now, how about such a statement as „Believers and non-believers unanimously agree that all the efforts of mankind are directed towards man as its center and summit.‟ That’s blasphemy. Gaudium et Spes number 12. You can look it up. Gaudium et Spes number 12. In English, the document is titled The Church in the Modern World. GS12.

Wasn’t the Second Vatican Council only a pastoral council?

Thank you. I was asked if the Second Vatican Council was only a pastoral council. Yes, definitely. John XXIII said so, and Paul VI said so, but never in the history of the church before has a council being called for anything but defining the truth and avoiding errors. And John XXIII, when he called the council, he said, „We do not want to condemn errors in this council.‟ Therefore, it was no council.

Well, what else did I hear was that the First Vatican Council was never officially closed. Therefore, you can’t have Vatican II, because the first Vatican Council-

Well, John XXIII, when he proclaimed the new Vatican Council, so-called council, he officially closed Vatican I. Now, if John XXIII was pope, then he did officially close Vatican I. If it turns out that he was not pope, then he did not close Vatican I and the next one will do it. No problem here. Yes?

I often hear a problem with the Trinity Missal of 1962 versus an older version, since the Novus Ordo has authorized the old mass in their churches. Do you know what I mean? And they used the missal of 1962.

I was asked about the liturgical problem of the differences between the 1962 missal and the, let’s say the 1950 missal. Um, that would be the topic for another conference and an entirely different tape. But right now, I will only give one short answer that might be the number one question about it. Why did Archbishop Lefebvre choose the 1962 missal to be used in the Society of Saint Pius X? Well, I’m not saying that what Archbishop Lefebvre did here was the right thing, but I know why he did it. Now, Archbishop Lefebvre correctly considered himself in the position of somebody who has to act in self-defense. Self-defense, according to moral theology, requires a minimalistic principle. Even the United States code of law will define that if you act in self-defense, you cannot overact in self-defense. If somebody calls you an idiot, you do not yet have the right to shoot him. So the measures must be to avoid the situation. And Archbishop Lefebvre thought that the last acceptable version of the Roman missal was the one of 1962. That was his theological opinion, and I would not accept that he would be condemned for that. It’s a theological opinion. My theological opinion is that you cannot go beyond 1950 because of what Pius XII did to Holy Week. But that’s a theological opinion. I cannot dogmatize and I cannot condemn the people who do not believe it.

In the one missal that… The old missal, it says that if an angel from Heaven comes down, it changes one word.

No, that’s not… That doesn’t exist.

No, no, no. It doesn’t exist.

Can you explain that?

It doesn’t exist. No, no. That doesn’t exist. Another question? Yeah.

You’ve called into question the validity of Pope John XXIII. Uh, could you elaborate on that?

Um, the… It’s not just a question of if John XXIII was pope. Um, it’s also the question if Paul VI was pope, and if John Paul II is pope or not. The point of proving that the pope is not pope lies with us. In Latin, this is called the onus probandi, the burden of proof. The pope, whether he’s pope or not, as long as he runs around in a white cassock and is recognized the head of state by several hundred states and 3,500 bishops, he doesn’t have to prove to me that he is pope. If I think that he’s not pope, then I have to find scientifically irrefutable proof that he’s not pope, first. Second, who am I to publicly declare him not pope? See, Innocent III warned his successors by saying, „It is true that a pope cannot be judged by man, but woe unto you if you use that fact, because the less one is judged by man, the more one will be judged by God.‟ And as I cannot give scientifically irrefutable proof for John Paul II not being pope… Mind you, the sedevacantists have much better arguments than I have. Much better ones. But I do not consider it scientifically irrefutable proof. As long as I do not have it, I will not say it. Also, it’s a question of prudence. If I mentioned the pope at the Roman Canon every day of my life, and at the Last Judgment I find out he was not pope, what’s gonna happen? Nothing. But what if he was pope and I did not pray for him? Our Lord might decide to zap me. Another question? We got another 20 minutes, if you want it.

Uh, can we attend these other rites, Catholic rites?

That’s a good question. Um, generally speaking, the principle in the church is that you always try your best to attend your own rite on Sunday. However, if we are dealing with a legitimately recognized rite, like the Byzantine or the Greek United or the Mozarabic Visigothic, which you will hardly find around here, then if time and space do not allow you to go to the Catholic mass, you can go there. Not to the Novus Ordo, though, because the church always outlawed substituting Sunday duty by going to the Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox mass. That you cannot do. The Russian Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. The Greek Orthodox are heretics and schismatic, and the conciliar counterfeit church, the Church of the New Advent as the pope calls it, are heretics and schismatics. You cannot fulfill your Sunday duty in something that is rather unpleasant in the eyes of God. Something that, to put it in the phrase of the Queen of England, something that we are not amused about, cannot fulfill, you cannot be considered as a fulfillment of Sunday duty. But if you live next to a Byzantine church, then you can go there. But if you are 10 minutes away from the Byzantine church and 30 minutes from Father Perez, then I hope you know where you will have to go, because as far as I can see, most of us are members of the Roman Latin rite. And the oldest tradition of the church is that you stick true to your rite. That is not just my opinion, it’s in the Lateran Council, one of the four Lateran Councils. Now, I don’t always have all quotations ready for you, okay? One of the four Lateran Councils said that each single faithful in the whole world is supposed to attend the rites according to his, excuse me, to receive the sacraments according to his own rite. And the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent defined that as a dogma. Nobody can take away your right, R-I-G-H-T, to receive the sacraments in your own rite, R-I-T-E.

Can a Catholic be a Democrat? Can a Catholic be a- Can a Democrat be a Catholic? Can a Catholic very well be a Democrat as much as a Democrat can be a Catholic. No way.

Are the Byzantine rites, like, in the neighborhood schismatic?

Are the Byzantine rites in the neighborhood schismatic? No, but I mean, you know-

How would I know what they are?

Well, because they have changed too, haven’t they, after Vatican II?

I don’t know. Honestly, I’m a non-expert on Eastern rites.

Oh, okay. But I mean, they’ve changed a lot of stuff too, yeah?

Ask Father Perez. Please ask Father Perez. Uh, Father, if I’ve understood all this correctly, when you say that these rites are valid but ille-… Does that mean that in a case of an emergency, somebody could receive the final rites, like validly?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

If there were no priests to begin with?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Mm-hmm.

So we could call the rescue 911 first?

See, in the old, it’s one of the oldest principles in the church, in articulo mortis, it’s called, in the article of death, that means a real, true emergency. In a real, true emergency-

An accident on the freeway.

… you just… Yeah, yeah. You just grab what you can get hold of. After three days in the California desert, you usually don’t look at the liquid before you taste it.

What about there’s no salvation outside the Catholic Church? Only in the Catholic Church?

Different topic. I’m serious, because that has to be dealt with very carefully according to the teaching of the church. Can’t do that today. We can’t do that today. Yes?

Two of my family members, um, now belong to the Byzantine rite. Yeah. Two of my family members now belong to the Byzantine rite, although they were born into the Roman rite. And once in a while, there’ll be a priest there who is bi-ritual. Yeah. Roman and Byzantium. Yeah. How, how would you explain that?

I can’t see a problem. I would have to know the individual case, but I can’t see a problem generally speaking. There are several bi-ritual priests. Uh, I mean, there’s many bi-ritual priests today, and I explained that we’re living in an emergency, a lack of priests, and I don’t see a problem with that generally speaking. Okay? What else? Yes?

Um, with regard to Father Perez and the topic of this conversation, um, you indicated that the schismatic church, this new church, this bishop who was made bishop of this new church utilized… He’s a schismatic bishop now. Is that correct or am I incorrectly understanding that?

There’s two different papers nowadays, the ones that are written by John Paul II and the ones that are written by God.

Yes, but-

According to conventional wisdom, which is very conventional and very little wisdom, all the bishops in the United States are the true bishops of their diocese. But canon law defines that somebody who is a public and a formal heretic cannot hold office.

Okay. So you want to ask… Uh, why don’t you directly ask me if Mahoney is the Archbishop of Los Angeles?

I have no concerns about Mahoney. Yeah. My concerns are Father Perez. Again, you indicated that this bishop that consecrated Father Perez was now made a bishop of a schismatic church. When he utilizes the old rite and for the priest that he consecrates, are those priests then not consecrated a schismatic priest?

No. As little as if out of courtesy, a Russian Orthodox who is a schismatic and a heretic, just because nobody else is available, would use the old rite of the Catholic Church. We are not discussing the individual who ordained him. We are asking about the question, what rite was he ordained in? And was it valid?

My point would be more directly, the bishop, by his faculties as a bishop, has the power to make a priest. Uh, if you-

No.

… had a bi-

No.

… went into the law-

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no. Any bishop who is validly consecrated can ordain priests. Only a diocesan bishop is allowed to issue the permission, according to the law.

Okay. Yeah, I’ve, I’ve -

Or a religious superior.

I have, I have no difficulty there. Uh, if though, he’s… See, where my difficulty is, why a bishop of this new rite would utilize the old rite. Why would he-

That’s my difficulty too. Why would a bishop of the new rite use the old rite without joining the old rite?

Exactly, why-

That’s the question which I can’t answer. After 25 years of friendship with Cardinal Stickler, I still don’t understand that point. Why can’t- Why is he so generous in helping tradition with the old sacraments, but still, on a daily basis, does the new thing?

And this now would not constitute to you a proving impractical doubt as far as does he have the power to make a priest?

No, of course not. I told you that that is not dependent on the person. He may be an open heretic and he still has the power to ordain. If he’s a bishop.

Yeah.

Which he is. He is a bishop, so he can do it.

Of a schismatic church, you indicated.

That’s not the point. The point is he can do it.

Thank you.

You’re welcome. Yeah.

Does this mean that before the thing that happened in Washington, that Schuchardt, who was ordained a bishop by an American-

I don’t know the case.

I know, but he was a-

I don’t know the case. Mm-hmm. He was an old Roman Catholic bishop.

He was an old Roman Catholic bishop. There are old Roman Catholic bishops that are invalid, and there are old Roman Catholic bishops that are recognized valid. I don’t know who is he. Next question. Okay. Yeah.

They were talking about the Pope retiring or abdicating or whatever it is at the end of this year on some program on TV this morning. Is he allowed to do that?

You mean if the Pope is allowed to retire?

Yeah.

Yeah. The Pope is allowed to retire. We had one Pope in history who did, and he became a saint.

Oh, okay, all right.

That’s a difference, by the way.

I guess I’m just misinformation I had.

Yeah. Well, I don’t know if he’s going to retire because I have to repeat what I say at almost every conference, I ain’t no prophet.

Who retired? Who? Who was the saint?

I forgot. Right now, I forgot. Petrus Damianus. But don’t ask me which pope he was. I forgot. We celebrate him in the breviary, and yet I can’t remember.

There was one a pope at the age of 15, and he had the-

There was no pope at the age of 15 ever.

At the age of 15?

There was no pope at the age of 15 ever. Read the Guinness Book of Records. I’m serious. It, you’ll find it in there. The youngest cardinal ever, if I remember, was eight. The youngest bishop, if I remember, was 12, and the youngest pope ever was 18. That was in the 10th century when a wicked woman in Rome decided who was gonna be pope. They’ve always been recognized, by the way.

Well, there’s been three popes at one time.

Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah. There have been three popes at one time and historians still fight who was the real one. Oh, okay. Okay? Next one. We’re running out of time. Maybe one other question. Yes.

Um, Father, where do we differentiate between the sin of human respect and treating someone with courtesy?

No, uh, that, I’m sorry. Can you repeat this?

Where do we differentiate between the sin of human respect and-

Sin of human respect?

Yeah.

Oh, I understand. I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that. Where do we differentiate between the sin of human respect and common courtesy?

Well, first of all, courtesy means how you immediately deal with a person in personal contact. You’ll always be kind and nice, I hope. As far as human respect is concerned, to be kind and nice does not mean you tell him he’s right.

That’s right.

So if baloney Cardinal Mahony asks you why you do not go to his mass, you will courteously and in all politeness and with a heavenly American smile on your face tell him, „Because I believe your mass is illegitimate and I believe you are a heretic and a schismatic. And I also believe you are a demonic help to the Democrats.‟ (claps)

Um, you characterized your ordination as valid but illegitimate, I believe you said.

Yeah, I’ve explained that.

Um, what process, if any, would you want to or would you need to go through to cause your status to become legitimate?

None. And what would be-

None. Zilch.

… a reasonable-

I didn’t know any better back then, so I’m not guilty of anything. And it is a valid consecration, and a future pope will clear up all these details, I hope, but I can’t tell you if he will.

And would you have any characterization of that sort of-

Oh, yes, that I can… Yes, yes. That I can answer. Now, I don’t think that many of you are familiar with the papal document by Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei. In Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI condemns a so-called Synod of Pistoia. One of the Austrian archdukes, who at the time was in the Bourbon family in Florence, and a bunch of renegade bishops got together and opened up a so-called Synod of Pistoia. In that Synod of Pistoia, we’re talking about the 1780s. And in that so-called Synod of Pistoia, they came up with a lot of liberal proposals. The kind of proposals that you will find printed in Vatican II now. And because of political circumstances, Pius VI couldn’t react immediately. He immediately condemned the synod, but only in 1799 he wrote the document which, what is very rare, was not written to his fellow bishops, but to every Catholic, and it’s called Auctorem Fidei. And in Auctorem Fidei, he says, in an introduction, he says, „While the purpose of a synod is to clarify terms, not to make them more complicated.‟ Hear, hear. And then he condemns every single condemnable line in the Synod of Pistoia. He says, „When the Synod of Pistoia says, ‚Baba, baba, da da,’ that is to be considered heresy. When the Synod of Pistoia says, et cetera, that’s to be considered offensive to Catholic ears,‟ et cetera. So he’s censoring the Synod of Pistoia. For example, at the Synod of Pistoia, they demanded a change of liturgy, a simplifying of liturgy, and Pope Pius VI called it, „Offensive to Catholic ears and rather daring.‟ So that will have to be done with Vatican II and all the sacraments that came out of Vatican II, and all the schismatic rites. A future pope will have to say, „Vatican II was no council, and in addition to not having been a council, the following quotations of Vatican II are to be condemned.‟ Mm-hmm. Lumen Gentium 1, Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 15, Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 20, Unitatis Redintegratio 3, Dignitatis Humanae 2 and 3, Dei Verbum 8, Gaudium et Spes, the whole document. You understand? So there will… If God gives us the time, there will be a future pope who will nullify Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and who will censor all the lines in Vatican II that are particularly offensive to Catholic ears.

And I assume that would also include all the new rites and sacraments?

That’s what I just said.

Oh. So he would specify-

Yeah. All the new rites.

Yes. … them entirely?

Yes.

Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Uh, we’ve got a lot of young families in this group, and I think there’s probably a lot of potential vocations here. You have a worldwide view. Where can a young man seek a proper training for the priesthood?

Well basically, with the Society of Saint Pius X. And if that for some reason is not possible, um, there can always be personal circumstances. Uh, it doesn’t have to do anything with the Society, but the Society has a very strict seminary, and the Society of Saint Pius X is a society with what is called Life in Common, Vita Communis. Not everybody’s made for that. I mean, look at me.

It’s just, does the form matter when the priest’s hands are consecrated? I mean does it mat-

Neither nor. It doesn’t mat- No, it’s remote.

And when the-

Remote matter.

When the words are said that they are given the power to dissolve-

Remote. Not necessary.

Not necessary?

No. Unfortunately. Mm-hmm. Well, fortunately, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, a little bit.

Unfortunately, they have been canceled, but fortunately they are not needed. Otherwise, I’d be sitting here as a layman. Okay. I think tape has ended. I’ve been given the sign by the director. Being in Los Angeles near to Beverly Hills, you know what that means.