Now, I said the first and foremost duty of a priest is to the truth. But as a priest, I’m not only obliged to the truth, I’m also obliged to teach you. I’m obliged to save your souls more than teach you. And I want to say two little things here, two advice for your personal life.

The first one is, whatever I say in my lecture today or what I said yesterday is of no value whatsoever to you if you do not stay in the state of grace. You are here not to hear some nice stories, which I can provide, rest assured, but you’re not here to hear some nice stories. You’re here to learn on how to save your soul. So apart from the topic that I will deal with in five minutes from now, I want to tell you two things. There is two tricks to beat the devil to his awful game.

Stay in the life of grace and you don’t have to be afraid of the last punishment, the third world war, the doom that is near. What do you care? If you’re in the life of grace, you don’t care. Amen. If you’re in the life of grace, all you have to think about is to stay in the life of grace, to be able to escape hell when you die, and when you receive your personal judgment. Don’t waste your time with studying about when the last judgment is going to take place. Not even Our Lady knows that. Why would you know? God is not gonna tell you, promise. (laughs) Stay in the life of grace, be prepared, and if on the highway a truck runs you over, and you were in the life of grace, you escaped hell. That means you’re saved. You might have to go through a horrible purgatory, but you’re saved. Say the 15 mysteries, but remember that you do not have to kneel down for them, you do not have to use the beads. This is my rosary. God was gracious enough to give me 10 fingers, and I used them. That’s 10 Hail Marys. Get into the habit of constant prayer, because I don’t like switch on, switch off prayer. „Okay, people, it’s time for the rosary. 10, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.‟ Click. (laughs) Pater Noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum… It’s better that you say the prayer like this than you don’t say it at all. But get into the habit of prayer. Instead of wasting your time with finding out about visions, apparitions, and miracles, say another decade, say another rosary. The rosary and the sacraments is the only way that you can possibly survive in this swamp of a world. End preliminary remarks.

I am not today discussing the question if John Paul II is the pope or not, if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he has not yet been in formal heresy. Formal heresy, contrary to material heresy, even though there are different theories even on that distinction. But generally, the teaching of the church would say formal heresies declared heresy. When Herr Doktor Martin Luther said, „The church is wrong. I teach you the truth.‟ He went into formal heresy because he himself put his own statements in formal contradiction to the church teaching. Because, and I discussed this topic last year at the conference, because the present pope’s concept of tradition is warped and twisted, he most probably, and until we can prove it to the contrary, we have to presume that he most probably thinks that what he’s saying is in accordance to tradition, because he has the wrong concept of tradition. In a wrong concept of tradition, he’s capable and able of saying, „In accordance to tradition, I tell you this and this.‟ And what he says is in contradiction to tradition, because he has the wrong concept of tradition. Resulting from the wrong understanding of tradition, he thinks it’s possible that the truth apparently changes, while we know a truth cannot even apparently change. So the pope, according to what I think, mind you, that’s my theological opinion, that’s not church teaching what I’m saying now, is not yet in formal heresy. He has nowhere ever said that the church in the past taught the wrong thing and he’s correcting this. He never said that. He’s pretty close to saying that, but he doesn’t say it. However, the question if he is pope or not is something for another lecture.

Today, we have to talk about how far we are obliged to follow a pope, and this can only be decided after we understood the true concept of infallibility, of papal infallibility, and more than that, of papal authority. Needless to say, I will try as much as possible to refrain from uttering my own opinions and try as much as possible to stick to what the church herself, the mother and teacher of all churches said.

„This gift then of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all, that the whole flock of Christ kept away by them from the poisonous food of error might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine, that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this very age in which the salutary efficacy of the apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found to take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary, solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition receiving from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church as by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the church, irreformable.‟

„But if anyone, which may God avert, presume to contradict this, our definition, let him be anathema.‟ That means, in practice, the Pope says, „Virtue of my apostolic authority, I herewith declare, define, and state that this and this and this is to be believed by all the faithful forever.‟ Then he speaks infallibly, and only then he speaks infallibly.

Two centuries later, the heresy was the other way around. Now, there were heretics who said Christ is God, but he was not really man. Therefore, he had only one will and one nature. These heretics were called with the Greek term, the Monophysists and the Monothelists. Pope Honorius, who was pope at the time, did not really side with these heretics, but he didn’t do anything against them, maybe because he was afraid. However, he did not do anything against them. By his third successor, Pope Honorius was condemned. That means the future pope who had studied the case of Pope Honorius and the heresy he would have had to deal with, condemned Pope Honorius, said, „This was a miserable pope. He was a disgrace to the office.‟ As a matter of fact, they undug the corpse of the pope, vested him in pontificals in order to be able to perform the rite of unvesting a bishop and threw him in the Tiber. (laughing) I like that part. (laughing)

In between those popes, there was Pope Nicholas I. Pope Nicholas I was nothing special. He was not a good theologian, he was not a bad theologian. He was nothing special. Pope Nicholas I was a nice man, and he read some of the things that Saint Ambrose, mind you, a church father, that Saint Ambrose of Milan had written. Saint Ambrose of Milan said, „When you convert a heretic and you find out that the heretic was baptized not in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but was baptized in the name of Christ, he was validly baptized.‟ Well, you know that’s wrong. Christ himself, in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, said, „Go and preach to all the world and baptize all the people in the name of the Father, the Son, Holy Ghost.‟ Saint Ambrose, who was a church father, was not a pope, and he didn’t have the infallibility guaranteed. He just was wrong. Pope Nicholas I, who quoted him, was wrong. That happened before us, you see. Some people pointed out to Pope Nicholas that what he said about baptism was baloney. I don’t know how he reacted, and it’s a mere historic question. He never defined the doctrine.

In the 14th century, there was a pope whose name was John XXII. Pope John XXII, in his sermons, preached, and in a book wrote down that the souls of the dead cannot have the beatific vision or the eternal damnation before the last judgment. The cardinal said, „Holy Father, you’re wrong.‟ The University of Paris, who received the pope’s handwritten book, said, „That’s baloney.‟ The pope said, „No, that’s the way it is.‟ The day before John XXII died, he took back that stupidity, and he left it to his successor in the papacy, who was one of the Nicholas Popes, I believe, to correct that. And indeed, the day after John XXII died, his successor rectified that doctrine. Said, „My predecessor was totally wrong on that.‟

In the 15th century, a pope, forgot his name, gave the power, that’s what he believed, gave the power to a French abbot. Now, mind you, usually an abbot does not have episcopal consecration. Gave the power to an abbot to consecrate, to ordain priests in his monastery. Until today, the question has not been defined by the church. So if you say that’s possible, you’re not a heretic. But I think you’re wrong. And the very fact that this pope empowered an abbot to ordain priests does not mean that that is possible. Papal authority does not extend to recommendations of toothpaste either.

The pope is not the supreme head of the church. That’s the most terrible of all mistakes. In the 1920s, a French priest named La Roche said, „Now that Saint Pius X has uncovered, unmasked the heresy of modernism, now that we can analyze and face the heresy of modernism, we are going to be confronted with the most terrible of all heresies: the heresy that the pope can do everything.‟ It is, as you will see, a heresy. The pope is not the boss. The pope is the vicar of the boss. He is the vicar of Christ. He is the vice president. He is the vice chairman of the board. He is not in charge. He is only in charge on matters of church government and discipline, unless he invokes infallibility.

In the very document that I quoted in which papal infallibility is, as I said, aptly described and explained, Denzinger-Schönmetzer number 3070, the fourth chapter, it says, (Latin). „For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation, they might make no new doctrine, but that by his assistance, they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the apostles.‟ When in the fifth chapter of the document, Ecclesia Dei of 1988, the 2nd of July, Pope John Paul II signed the following statement, he went into contradiction against this dogmatic definition because he said, „It would be nice…‟ I paraphrase, „It would be nice if people could attend the old mass, because some of the people have not yet got round to understand and accept the doctrines of Vatican II.‟ And now I quote literally, „Perhaps because some points of this doctrine are new.‟ If he had been shrewd enough to say, „Perhaps because some aspects of this doctrine are new,‟ I would’ve said, „Ugh.‟ But the fact that he says, „Because, perhaps because some points of doctrine are new,‟ that is heresy. No doctrine and no point of doctrine can be new. I explained yesterday and last year on many other occasions, there is a deepening in understanding of tradition (Latin), in the same sense and the same judgment. The sense of what is taught cannot change. There cannot possibly be new points of doctrine. When in 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Our Lady as a dogma, he did not tell Christendom anything new whatsoever. There was absolutely nothing new in that doctrine. In the dogma on infallibility, there is nothing new whatsoever. Whatever you find in this dogma has been believed by the Catholic Church ever since the last apostle died, which is the end of tradition. The Pope has received the Holy Spirit in order to, and as usual, the translation here is not good, in order to saintly safeguard the (Latin), the deposit of faith, and faithfully interpret it. You see that Pope Pius IX, with all the infallibility of a pope, says the pope has to be faithful to doctrine. He has to be faithful to the tradition of the Church. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, one of the most outstanding Church fathers, said, „What is all this discussions? Is it tradition? Ask no more.‟ If it’s tradition, okay. If it’s not tradition, forget it. And I quoted yesterday the symbol of faith of the Council of Trent, which until a few years ago, priests had to make a vow on, and which I vowed yesterday in public again. We will steadfastly hold true to the traditions of the Church. No changes.

And the distinction between what the pope may change or may not change is again found in the dogmatic definition that I just quoted in the third chapter. This document says… Sorry, I lost the quotation here. Happens when you put in reading marks and you take them out. Very clever. I can’t find it right now, but I know the whole thing by heart anyway. The council makes a very, very important distinction when it says, in the third chapter, the dogmatic definition is talking about not infallibility, which is only in the fourth chapter, but about the papal primacy. The dogmatic constitution is easily remembered as four chapters. First chapter, Peter had the primacy. Second chapter, all his successors have the primacy. Third chapter was that, what does the primacy mean? Fourth chapter, what is infallibility? Now, in the third chapter, the primacy is distinguished. It says… And look at the way they formulate the definition. Not only has the pope the primacy in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline and church government. That’s a very clear distinction. It says, „Not only has the pope the primacy in matters of faith and morals…‟ Because that was understood. Everybody knew that. Nobody had any need whatsoever to be told that the pope has the primacy in faith and morals. The important part of the third chapter of this definition is to tell the people that he has the primacy also in matters of church government and discipline. This distinction is to be remembered as an essential one in theology. The pope, obviously, if he has the possibility of infallibly declare a doctrine of the Church, binds his successors. That goes without saying. I mean, it’s unthinkable and impossible that the future pope would say Our Lady was not immaculately conceived. That’s impossible. He’s bound, because those are matters of faith. The faith doesn’t change because Christ doesn’t change because God doesn’t change. Infinite simplicity cannot change, therefore God cannot change. Therefore, Christ, who is God, cannot change. Therefore, Christ, who is the truth, cannot change. The truth cannot change. If Pope Eugene IV in 1441 said that even those who share their blood for Christ, if they are heretics, will go to hell, they cannot be saved, then this is true still today and it will be true in the future. No pope can change that. As much as John Paul II wants to change that, and as much as John Paul II is constantly uttering heresy against that doctrine, he cannot change it. He’s bound. It’s just a disobedience in matters of faith. He cannot change it. Impossible. If I tell you that the Trinity has four persons, you will know this is baloney, because you will know immediately I cannot change it. The Trinity has three persons and one nature. Period. That’s it. Nothing and nobody can ever change that. Not even God can change it because God is unchangeable. So what God cannot change, man must not attempt to change. It’s nothing got to do with the Almighty God, because Almighty is to be understood in a logical context, not in an absurd context, not in a contradictory context.

The Pope cannot change the doctrine, but in matters of church discipline, in matters of church government, he can change things. The new code of canon law, make no mistake, as long as we cannot prove to John Paul II that he is not the Pope, which I said before, I cannot prove, we have to accept the new code of canon law as long as the new code of canon law does not contradict church doctrine, which it does. The canons in the new code of canon law that contradict church doctrine, I will not accept. Of course not. I’m not a heretic and I don’t want to become one. But if the new code of canon law says that a Roman court of justice has to answer within three months, the Roman Court of Justice is bound to it. That’s a matter of church government and discipline. If the new code of canon law says the priests should wear clerical habits, and if tomorrow morning for traveling, I put on my black (censored), I’m in a technical disobedience to the new code of canon law because this is a disciplinary matter, because the new code of canon law, as long as it does not go against tradition and church doctrine is binding. Of course it is. Unless I can prove that the pope who published it is not a pope. Very simple. If I cannot prove that, then I might as well take the safer course and follow it unless I cannot follow it because like the definition of marriage in the new code, it’s heretical. The definition of the church in the new code of canon law is heretical. But a definition in a code is not of any interest whatsoever because the code says you must do this and you must not do this. If the code says the church is this and this and this, I don’t care anyway. The Pope has the right to change the law of papal election. The law of papal election, the conclave has been changed by Saint Pius X. It has been changed by Pius XII. It has been changed by Paul VI. It has been changed by John Paul II. No problems with that. John Paul II might as well lay down the rules of a mere act of administration. But John Paul II not being Christ, mind you, some people think he is. John Paul II not being Christ, but only number two. If John Paul II does something which is against the explicitly defined will of Christ, commits a sin of disobedience, if not heresy, and at least is not binding.

Pope Innocent III said, „If a future pope was to pronounce heresy, the world cannot judge him. He is judged by pronouncing heresy, and you must not follow him.‟ Saint Thomas Aquinas said, „If your legal superior issues an order that is against a higher law, you not only may not obey him, you must publicly correct him,‟ which is what I’m doing here. If the Supreme Commander of the United States Armed Forces Hillary Clinton (laughter) issues an order saying that all officers must shoot their wives, many officers have waited for that chance for many years. However, the command is patently absurd and illegal and may not be followed by any officer. There is no such thing as a binding illegal command. It’s contradictory. I will not follow any command whatsoever, and if only out of stubbornness, if it is not coming from the legal superior as a legal command. Period.

If John Paul II was to tell me that I should celebrate a mass on the evening of the Feast of the Assumption with a special rite of mass for that day in the old mass, I will do it. In 1854, December 8th, Pope Pius IX changed the Mass of the Immaculate Conception. There was a new introit, new prayer, new reading, new gospel, new secret, new communion, new post-communion. That’s as far as the pope can go, period. In 1950, when Pope Pius XII announced the assumption as a dogma, he changed the text of the mass. If the present pope, for some reason, which won’t happen, believe me, was going to canonize a saint, I mean, really canonize a real saint, and tell me I have to use this formula of mass, no matter what mass I say, I have to use this formula anyway. And if it fits into the old mass and it’s correctly made up, I will do it. Of course.

An encyclical of Pius XII, and somebody says, „Father, paragraph four seems to be against church tradition.‟ And neither she nor I can prove it. I will accept it, as I said yesterday, not with the assent of faith, but in obedience. The moment a pope speaks against tradition, which this pope does for now some 40 years, long before he became pope, as long as this pope speaks against tradition, I will follow Innocent III, I will follow Eugene IV, and I will follow Pius IX, who explicitly said that in that case we must not follow. Pius IX, at the very same Vatican council that pronounced the dogma of infallibility, was asked by the Bishop of Brixen, „Excuse me, Holy Father, but what happens if in the future a pope pronounces heresy?‟ And Pius IX said, „You just don’t follow him.‟ It’s much easier than you think. (laughs) (laughing) You just don’t follow him.

The one, this is a parenthesis, the one and very grave injustice for which the recent popes will be responsible, held responsible, for the Last Judgment is that until 1958, nobody had the need to study theology in order to know what is church doctrine. Today, you all must be almost doctors of theology in order to understand what is doctrine, what is not. And this is why I agree with Monsignor Lefebvre, who said, „For simplicity’s sake, reject what is after ’58 and accept what is before ‚58.‟ For simplicity’s sake, mind you. There was a lot of heresy before 1958, and there were a lot of good books after 1958. But for simplicity’s sake, for safety’s sake, for the safety of your own soul, reject what happened after 1958. Pope Pius XII is a very controversial person and figure in history. But there is no encyclical of Pius XII that you can really say has to be rejected. There is one, Pacem in Terris, with John XXIII. In Pacem in Terris, John XXIII already proclaims the blasphemous and heretical doctrine of religious liberty. When the United States Constitution says we have to have religious liberty, this is an agreement of getting along. The United States Constitution says, „Listen, there are a lot of religions here. There’s a lot of people here. There are a lot of cultures here. We’ve got to get along.‟ But if a churchman, be it a priest or be it a pope, says, „Religious liberty has to be,‟ then he speaks heresy against church tradition. Religious liberty as a doctrine has been explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX, before him, Leo XIII, Gregory XVI, after him, Pius X, Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, and Pius XII. They all said, „There is no such thing as a right to religious liberty in the Church.‟ You can tolerate other religions. Means you don’t go out and butcher your Muslim neighbors, right? (laughs) But you do not, unlike this pope, encourage them in their horrible pagan theories.

The essence of what I’m saying about papal infallibility here is this. When a pope acts like a pope, in the sense that he follows church tradition, he speaks in the tradition of the Church, or he solemnly defines, declares, decrees, and statutes something, then you know you’re talking or listening to the Vicar of Christ. When a pope talks baloney, and that goes for past centuries too, you’re talking to a human being, and you couldn’t care less what his opinions are.

What happens out there in the so-called Archdiocese of Chicago, that is what John Paul II in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, blasphemously says and names as the Church of the New Advent. He calls it the Church of the Council. He calls it the Conciliar Church. He speaks about Vatican II as the Second Pentecost. Blasphemy again. He speaks about, like Paul VI, about Vatican II as a council that is more important than Nicaea. Those are opinions of a twisted mind. This is not church doctrine. It has nothing to do with the indefectibility of the church. Wherever the Catholic Church is to be found, like in this beautiful (laughs) hall… (laughs) … this is where the Catholic Church is visible. When the Reverend Father Gruner today in the morning celebrated mass, he needed a little bit overtime for celebrating, but it was visibly the Catholic Church. When I celebrated mass yesterday evening, this was visibly the Catholic Church. It was visibly the institution founded by Christ, and it was visibly the institution that is the only hope we got. This is the indefectibility of the church. The indefectibility of the church does not mean that the Pope cannot talk baloney and commit crimes. The present Pope utters heresy, utters blasphemy. He commits schismatic acts. We do not really know if he’s still Pope. We have to accept the fact unless we can prove the contrary, but it has nothing got to do with the indefectibility of the church.

If in doubt which mysteries of the rosary to say, say the sorrowful mysteries. You have to understand the suffering of our Lord. You see, the glorious mysteries are the mysteries of the church triumphant in heaven, the sorrowful mysteries are the mysteries of the church suffering in purgatory, and the joyful mysteries are the mysteries of the church fighting here. I’m happy and proud to sit here as one of the officers in that army. That’s the joyful (applause), joyful, the joyful mysteries. But in order to understand the sufferings of Christ, you have to meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries. And then you have to understand an analogy, an insight, that if I may allow myself a personal remark, that only a saint can have. The insight that I’m going to reveal to you now, that only a saint can have. And Archbishop Lefebvre had it on the 29th of June, 1982 at the ordinations in Econe. He gave a sermon and he said the following: „Don’t get lost because of the sufferings of the Church today. You see, the major heresies came up because people did not understand the sufferings of Christ.‟ The Manicheans I quoted before. The Manicheans and Pope Liberius, they could not somehow understand the sufferings of Christ and they said, „A man who suffered like this cannot be God.‟ And they went into heresy, and many of them went to hell. Two centuries later, under Pope Honorius, they again said, „These sufferings of Christ on the cross are absolutely incomprehensible. It is impossible that God goes through this. Therefore, the sacrifice of the cross was only symbolic. Christ is God, but He’s not full human being. He only assumed a human appearance because it is impossible that God may suffer like this.‟ They went into heresy. Many of them went to hell.

And this is what is happening today. The people cannot understand the suffering of the Church and they confuse the two aspects of papacy; the divine aspect of infallibility, and the human aspect of sin, error, blasphemy, and crime. And again, there is two groups who cannot digest what is going on. There is the people who say, „It is impossible that somebody commits crimes like this. It is impossible that somebody who utters heresies like this can possibly be pope.‟ It’s like saying, „One who suffers that much cannot be God.‟ Arianism. And then you have the others who say, „It is impossible that the pope makes mistakes like this. The pope is the pope, is the pope, is the pope. Whatever he says cannot be that wrong.‟ They think that he is only God, and they forget the human side, just like the monothelists under Honorius. When in reality, we have to understand, this pope is a human being. He has a social background that was horrible. He never had a chance to study theology the way I did. He grew up in heresy. He grew up in total confusion of philosophy. He’s a phenomenologist. For him, this is a glass of wine if there’s wine in it. It’s an ashtray if I use it as an ashtray. Saint Thomas would say, „This is a glass of wine even if you use it as an ashtray.‟ That’s realism. This pope never had realism. Long before the council, he said, „We have to have religious liberty.‟ Long before the council, he said, „The truth depends on how you see it.‟ This is his background. This is the human background.

And you believe that the Holy Spirit is asleep? The Holy Spirit made sure that Vatican II never became obligatory. Maybe it never even was a council. The Holy Spirit made sure that there is no single one papal signature under a document that says that I have to use the new missal. There is a notification of the congregation that says I must use the new missal. The Holy Spirit made sure that this pope, in 20 years of pontificate, only once he said, „In virtue of my apostolic authority, I herewith define, declare, and decree that no woman can ever become a priest, and this has to be believed forever.‟ I agree with this. (clapping) That is the only time he used the terminology of infallibility. And this is exactly the reason why, to me, the question if he’s really pope or not, in a certain sense, is academic. The question if the new Mass is valid or not is academic. You must not go there anyway. The question if this pope is pope or not is academic. You can’t follow him anyway. The question if the new Mass is a good thing or not is academic. It’s against divine law, Canon 13, Seventh Session of the Council of Trent, period. It’s against Quo Primum, which is an infallible document by Saint Pius V, period. That’s it. These are academic, theological, speculative questions, which are highly interesting, but not to you. (laughing) You have to save your soul. So do I. And everything that I said, whatever I said, and whatever I will say is of zero, zilch, nix, nothing value if you’re not in a state of grace.

Most catechisms, unfortunately, do not follow the baroque tradition of catechism, where the first question was the following. This is a sermon of 30 seconds. „Why was I born?‟ Answer: „I was born to contribute to the greater glory of God, and thus, reach heaven.‟ Amen. (clapping)