And another thing we should try to realize, this will help you to understand Canon Hess and accept him better, those who have any doubts. And the Catholic Church is and always will be one with the past Catholic Churches of all times and places. It’s not just an organization with unity in the present time, unity and conformity.

And another thing is the Catholic Church is a church of law. It’s not a church of anarchy or despotism. That’s not the Catholic Church. And right now, we’re in the time of ecumenical anarchy and local tyranny. But that’s not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is ruled by law, including canon law. And Canon Hess will refer to canon law and whether we like it or not, that’s the law of the church. Above that is divine law, of course.

And the Catholic Church is defined by infallible decrees of popes and not by the fallible allowances or policies of modern popes. So we have all of these contrasts. The Catholic Church concerns religion and salvation. It doesn’t concern politics and sociology. So all of these things are jarring, but I’m saying them not for you all here, but for somebody who might be looking at the tape. That’s a different church. It’s not the Catholic Church. No matter what it calls itself, it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church. Real Catholic Church is concerned with religion and salvation, not with politics and sociology.

And the Catholic Church is the church of apostolic tradition, not the church of living and mutable politically-inspired policies and decrees, what they now call living tradition or the living magisterium. So that’s the objective premise which will help you to accept Canon Hess and what he says today.

Now, the subjective premise is, you should prepare yourself, especially those who are looking at it on the tape or hearing it on the tape. Be open to hearing a radical and shocking exposure of the Catholic faith. We’re a generation that hasn’t the foggiest notion of what a Catholic is. We don’t have the foggiest, except for some of you here, of course, most of you here. And if possible, be edified or at least be honest and say, „Right now, I can’t accept what he says.‟ But by God’s grace, something might register that you, as happened to me in the past, something that you don’t like, and it registers in your mind, and it might be the thing that will save you from hell. So at least listen and hear. If you can’t accept, if you can’t accept store, put it in your memory bank ‚cause maybe you can call it up later on. It might be just the thing that will solve your problem at that time. For example, if in the near future they tell you that you’re gonna be excommunicated by joining the Pius X Society, then, or by, no, excuse me, not by joining, but by using its services, then you just ignore that because you might have something stored that Canon Hess said that you just recall that. So you will reject heresy.

Now, in case there’s any legalist here, a question might come up in your mind, should Canon Hess be allowed to give facts and solid Catholic teaching in the church in America? Should he? Well, or shouldn’t the establishment church forbid him? Well, in good Jewish fashion or Hebraic fashion, I answer the questions with questions. How can a church which forms two-thirds of its youth to reject the natural law? That’s the law everybody’s accountable for, no matter who they are, as long as they’re not an imbecile. How can that church, which leads two-thirds, at least conservatively speaking, of its youth to reject the natural law, condemn anybody? Question mark. All right? Or how can a church which apparently but effectively, at least effectively rejects, opposes and condemns binding Catholic truths forbid you to hear an Orthodox Catholic theologian? And that’s what they do, as Canon Hess will point out. And also, as he will in the whole course of the three lectures or four lectures in the tapes, of course. And how can a church within which 80% of its followers in the United States of America reject binding Catholic Eucharistic dogma? You know, they’re not even close to Catholics. 80% of Catholics, Novus Ordo-formed alleged Catholics who aren’t, in the United States of America reject the dogma which you have to believe to be a Catholic on the Eucharist. Now, how can that church, its leaders who led the people to do that, how can they condemn Canon Hess? So in good Jewish fashion, I’m not saying they can’t. No. I’m a good Jew here. And I’m answering the question with questions. All right? So don’t say I said this ’cause I didn’t say anything. I just asked questions.

Now today, we want to thank Maida, and especially the dedication of its two principals, Elvira Muller and Richard Ahern, for what they’ve done in helping to bring Canon Hess here and helping them to enjoy a stay here in New Orleans. And so we want to thank them, first of all. And this series can be obtained from Maida, this series of talks. And in general, this is a general introduction to Father Canon Hess. You’ve been called worse things than father, okay. But Canon Hess, he spent 15 years in Rome. He knows and he’s met with several cardinals and even the Pope. Uh, don’t ask the Pope because the Pope won’t admit knowing him. All right. So anyway, and also he was secretary to Cardinal Stickler, who is one of the top curial cardinals who’s now retired. And I met Canon Hess in Rome at the conference for the bishops that he helped to give with me, and there was one other person, Milingo, but the rest weren’t that good. But anyway, he was the star of the show. Milingo, he hit the show the most because he was so startling with the devils in the Vatican. And he said he saw him, he said Pope Paul VI saw him come in, said he was in there, and he said he hadn’t seen him leave, but his life was yet. And so Milingo was the hit, and then Canon Hess was the real hit as far as depth goes. And the best compliment I can give to him is that he’s on the endangered species list. So he’s one of the few, one of the few authentic Catholic theologians we have left. I don’t know how many we got, 10, 15, 20? But anyway, it’s an endangered species and he’s one of the few living members of that endangered species. And so we’ll start with Canon Hess right after he gets hooked up. Keep quiet all the time. And Richard, you can cut all this out. He’s gonna hook up now. And Richard, does this thing, is this thing making too much noise? Remember it gave us trouble before? This will be- No, no. Just send me the link and I’ll go get it. Yeah, ‚cause I hear the noise. Now, let’s see, we got everything? Okay. We got three hookups. Vera, tell them not to keep opening the door ‚cause we get all those squeaks. Tell them not to open the doors. Go out and stay out or, but don’t come up in and out. If possible, of course. Are you Italian? This is real spaghetti. You ready, Richard?

Ready.

I’m just- Wait a second. Oh, okay. All right.

(In Latin).

Modern electronics. Okay.

Now the bull, Cum ex apostolato, is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned. It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative rule is concerned saying that if a cardinal was a heretic, even when he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected pope. To be validly elected pope, you need positive human law and law of administration. And that every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws which no pope can change ever. If a pope decides forever on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it. Impossible. He will put himself in schism with the church. But a rule of administration and how it can be changed and how… In the beginning, the people of Rome elected the pope. Later on, it was the clergy of Rome. And very much later on, only 1,300 years after Christ died and resurrected and founded his church at Pentecost, cardinals were the only ones to elect a pope. So if a future pope says, „I don’t want cardinals to elect a pope, but all of the bishops in the world.‟ He’s gonna make a mess, but that doesn’t make the election invalid because it’s a g-… It would be horrible not to… I don’t want to think of it, but it doesn’t make the election duly procedures required and provided. It doesn’t make it invalid because it’s an act of administration. And that’s why I recommend the sedevacantists to be a little more careful with their judgment. The Society of Saint Pius X is not exactly composed of all idiots, and none of them nowadays considers the Apostolic See vacant. And the three priests, Father Sanborn, Kelly, and Cekada, unfortunately, because they’re otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Saint Pius X for insisting on the fact that we do not have a pope. To me, this is a neurotic statement too, because you put yourself in a dead end. Who’s gonna elect the next pope? I’ll leave the question to you.

I give you one example. We have that much of time. Lumen Gentium 16 says that the Muslims together with us adore one merciful God. This is blasphemy and heresy, because it might as well be that the individual Muslim tries to find the real one God, but the council says, „The Muslims.‟ Capital letter in Latin. (music plays) „Musulmani nobiscum adorant unum Deum.‟ They do not adore one merciful God with us but against us, because they deny the incarnation, and they deny the blessed Trinity, and they use words which I don’t want to repeat here to describe the idea of the Trinity. And Vatican II has the blasphemous audacity to speak about them and the Jews praying to the same God we do. This is a thoroughly and entirely Masonic concept that cannot be accepted by any Catholic. The Muslims are not only heretics, they’re pagans. And they do not adore our God because they do not adore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Anybody who says they adore the same God we do because they, nobiscum, together with us, not along with us as one smart aleck translated. Together with us is nobiscum. If you say they adore one merciful God together with us, then you sin against the first commandment gravely. We adore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Son incarnated man. The Word has become flesh.

You see, the situation is a disaster, and that’s to say the least. So in 1970, French seminarians of the Seminaire Francais in Rome were threatened with being kicked out of the seminary for the simple reason that they wanted to say the rosary and wear the cassock. So they did not accept that, of course, and they asked Archbishop Lefebvre, who at this time was contemplating to retire and live the rest of his life in pensioned in Rome. They were asking Archbishop Lefebvre for help. Archbishop Lefebvre was not very convinced at first that he should do that. But however, they insisted, especially a certain Monsieur Tissier de Mallerais, who is now Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, insisted and kept insisting, and together with him, another French priest who is now at the moment the first, the second general advisor to the Society of Saint Pius X. So they found a house in Fribourg in Switzerland, and Bishop Henri Charriere of Fribourg, Lausanne, and Sion at the same time, gave them an official church blessing to found the society, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. And so it was an, a work of the Church, legally, regularly founded by a diocesan bishop in Switzerland. And the society was canonically, therefore… Canonically means according to the regulations of the code of canon law. Canonically erected in 1970. And after a while, Archbishop Lefebvre found the house which is still the French-speaking main seminary today in Econe. That’s in the Rhone Valley in Switzerland, the French-speaking part.

And it was about after one and a half years that Rome found out that they are celebrating the old Mass and they are teaching all this old stuff with Vatican II we wanted to do away with. So they sent in three investigators, Cardinal Garon, Cardinal Wright, and Cardinal Tavera, who, quote-endquote, „investigated.‟ Right there in the place, they all gave praise on the whole outfit and said, „This is beautiful, wonderful, everything according to the canonical regulations. I wish we had that elsewhere.‟ Back in Rome, they said the exact contrary, which is typical for conciliar methods. You lie, cheat, and swindle. When you read Vatican II and its footnotes, you will find out that they lied, cheat, and swindle. They, in one and the same sentence, footnote at the end, they quote the guy, a church father or somebody else, quote it in the footnote in the first half of the sentence, and then they say the contrary in the second half of the sentence and put the footnote after the second half of the sentence, quoting, for example, in Gaudium et Spes 22:2, the Church Father Justinus, contrary to what Justinus said. This is the method of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church, the counterfeit church out there. They reported to Rome that the seminary in Econe was not according to the standards of Vatican II, et cetera, et cetera. You can very well imagine what they said. And so Rome said, „We’re gonna shut down this thing.‟ Archbishop Lefebvre, contrary to canon law, never even got a hearing, let alone a cause at the competent Church tribunal. Never anything. You can read this in detail in one of the books available at the book stands of the Society of Saint Pius X. Archbishop Lefebvre was not even heard, which is against canon law. And then, the official closedown of the Society of Saint Pius X, not by the pope, but by the Secretary of State, was silently acknowledged by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre, the person concerned, never had a chance to defend himself.

So this is the methods of, as Father Trenchard pointed out, tyrants who do not… They use canon law when it serves their purposes, but they do not understand canon law, they do not understand divine law, they do not understand eternal law, and they do not understand the meaning of law itself, the purpose of law, justice. So the Society of Saint Pius X went on all the same. Rome explicitly forbade Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain priests. However, in 1976, he did ordain priests against the explicit instruction of Rome, and so they suspended him a divinis. That means he was further on, according to what Rome believed, further on, he was not allowed to say mass except privately, and he was not allowed to give the sacraments except in the case of emergency.

So here some people, some conservatives… I’m not a conservative, I warn you. I’m just plain Catholic. So some conservatives are worried about the jurisdiction of the Society of Saint Pius X. They are absolutely not worried about priests who explain away sins in the confessional, which makes absolution invalid. They’re absolutely not concerned and worried about priests who give general absolution, which in 99.999 cases is invalid. I know, I have so far known only one single case of general absolution having been valid after the Second World War, and that was on a plane that was threatened with a crash. And the priest got up, turned around, grabbed the microphone and said, „Anybody who’s a Catholic, do an act of contrition.‟ Ego vos absolvo a peccatis vestris, and so on. Give general absolution. That’s valid according to Pius XII. It’s valid according even to the decrees of the present pope. 99.9% of all general absolutions are not valid. Nobody’s hooked up with that problem. The conservatives are always worried about the jurisdiction of Saint Pius X. Well, I tell you, the Society of Saint Pius X gets the jurisdiction for absolution out of canon law. Canon law says jurisdiction can be given either by the competent authority or by the church itself. The church itself gives the jurisdiction for absolution or for marriages, as a matter of fact, in certain cases. I give you one example. A priest on a ship has all faculties automatically. Sure, he’s the only one who can be approached for confession. I mean, if you commit a mortal sin on a cruiser, and that’s very easy with the temptations out there, you don’t want to die then, you don’t want to go to hell, in case you die the next day or the ship sinks. So you might want a priest to confess to. This priest usually does not have the faculties of confession out there on the ship because there’s no bishop around who would give him the faculty, so the church gives the faculties. And in any case of emergency, not just in the case of danger of death. See, canon law speaks about the danger of death, but it speaks about emergencies. It does not exclude other emergencies because canon law is never exclusive without explicitly saying so. That’s one of the first canons in the book.

So the Society of Saint Pius X has jurisdiction simply for the fact that there are no other Catholic priests around, or not enough. You are not, as a Catholic, you are not under the obligation to take a plane into another city in this country to be able to find a Catholic priest for confessing, you want to confess to. That would be ridiculous. The church is never ridiculous, because canon law can never be above the highest law of the church, Canon 1752 of the New Code of Canon Law: Suprema lex ecclesiae, salus animarum. The highest law of the church is the salvation of souls. It is absolutely and positively and definitely against the salvation of souls if you are forced to confess to a heretical priest, to a priest who speaks heresy in the sermons, who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae, which is illicit and against divine law, and who gives the sacraments in the Novus Ordo, which is illicit and against divine law. You don’t want to confess to this priest. So canon law cannot be above divine law. That’s absurd.

So we were in a situation in 1988, and this is before the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King and similar organizations came about, mind you. We were in a situation that there were two bishops in the whole world willing to ordain Catholic priests. Oh, I shouldn’t do this. Some people say I’m a Mason if I do this sign. I’ve learned my lectures. So two, oh no, two. There were two bishops around who were willing to ordain young men who refused Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. The moment Archbishop Lefebvre realized that if he did not ordain bishops, if he did not consecrate the bishops, apparently against the will of the Pope, I say apparently, I will explain later, there would be nobody left. And he was dead right on the spot because both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Mayer died in 1991, three years after.

He had more than reasons enough to distrust Rome. There is the famous story of the paper that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the 5th of May, 1988, two months before the bishop consecrations. In this paper, which is usually presented by the Vatican as an agreement, another lie, it was not an agreement, but the protocol of a conversation, a discussion. So when Archbishop Lefebvre, on the 5th of May, signed the protocol, he signed a protocol. That’s what it was, a protocol, not an agreement. And still he had to take back his signature later on because… Now, in this protocol, they discussed the possibilities of having an organization with the blessing of the Holy See to keep a traditional seminary and traditional rite of Mass going as an exceptional thing, so to speak, as if the Novus Ordo Missae was ever a rite of the Church, which is another lie. The Novus Ordo Missae is not a work of the Church. It has no blessing from the Church, and it is against divine law. I proved this. So the true rite of the Latin Roman Church, the Catholic Church of the Latin Roman rite, is the old Mass canonized forever by Saint Pius V in 1570 with his decree Quo Primum, which you will be able to read in Father Trenchard’s book. And so they had no right to give an exceptional permission. They should have done the opposite, done away with the new rite and got the old rite back.

However, they offered Archbishop Lefebvre an organization of pontifical right headed by a commission of seven members. And now get this. By a commission of seven members, who would the seven members have been? Five chosen by the Vatican. The sixth one would have been the one bishop they would have ordained for that purpose, the very one bishop. And the seventh would have been a member chosen by the Society of Saint Pius X. We live in a democratic, well, I don’t, but the Novus Ordo people live in a democratic Church. Now get this, five against two. And the bishop here would have been chosen by Rome, so six against one. It would have been a lot more honest to tell Archbishop Lefebvre, „Listen, we will not give you a bishop. We will put you on the Pontifical right, but we will decide what will go on.‟ And the future, in 1988 it was future, and the future was to prove what Archbishop Lefebvre suspected, because the Fraternity of Saint Peter was promised a bishop. I can’t see a bishop given to the Fraternity of Saint Peter yet. And we are almost 10 years after that. The indult Masses, like in Providence, Rhode Island, the indult Mass, the priest has to give Communion in the hand or he’s not allowed to celebrate the Mass there. Monsignor Perl, who is in charge, the secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, he asked the indult people in Vienna, Austria, said, „Why don’t you give Communion in the hand? It would make everything so much easier.‟ This is what Archbishop Lefebvre predicted in 1988. So when he found out, he went back to Rome, he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, „When are you going to give me this bishop? I’m not gonna live for long anymore.‟ And Cardinal Ratzinger said, „Oh, I can’t give you a date. I can’t give you an exact date.‟ Archbishop Lefebvre tried again. He said, „Well, how about the 15th of August? Can I rely on your consecrating a bishop for my purposes the 15th of August?‟ „Oh, no. I can’t give you a definite answer on that.‟ Well, what do you call that? Stalling. In English it’s called stalling. And stalling usually has not exactly an honest purpose, except in war. So Archbishop Lefebvre said, „Okay, I see what’s going on. Emergency applies. Emergency is there. We have a case of emergency. The rules for self-defense, the rules for defense apply.‟ And the 30th of June, 1988 he consecrated four bishops. And Archbishop Lefebvre realized he needed four bishops because by 1988, his organization was worldwide. And he has a bishop in Argentina, and he has a bishop in the United States, Bishop Williamson in Winona to send the local seminary. He has a bishop in Switzerland who is now the Secretary General, and he has a second bishop in Switzerland, Monsignor Tissier de Mallerais, whom I mentioned before. And those two bishops in Switzerland are not always in Switzerland because they have to do an awful lot of traveling all over the world. Last time I met Fellay, he had just been coming back from somewhere. I remember, I remember not… yeah, the Philippines. So these four bishops, thank God they’re young, but these four bishops are under a constant stress, they’re in constant traveling. And I thank the Lord we have six bishops now because there is the fifth one, Monsignor Rangel in the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, which would be a story for another lecture. And Monsignor Lazo, a retired bishop from the Philippines, God bless him, who has joined the Society of Saint Pius X.

This emergency, which can easily be proven in canon law, this emergency caused Rome to found a new organization, the Fraternity of Saint Peter. Some of the priests, most of them, by the way, not in disagreement with the consecrations, the Episcopal consecrations. That’s another one of those tiny little dishonesties or deviations from truth, or as you put it in politically correct speak, untruth. These, most of them didn’t leave the Society of Saint Pius X because they were against the Episcopal consecrations, but because they wanted, had wanted to leave anyway. So then now they had a new chance. And the Fraternity of Saint Peter was founded for the only and exclusive purpose to get people away from the Society of Saint Pius X. Ain’t that nice? An organization like this does not have the blessing of the Holy Spirit because the Church does not do things like this. The Church does not do that.

So he went on, and as a matter of fact at the episcopal consecration, the 30th of June 1988, the Mandatum Apostolicum was read. The Mandatum Apostolicum is a letter, and there is a prescribed formula for it, that says, „I, John Paul II, Bishop of the Bishops of the Church, Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, Archbishop of et cetera, Primate of Italy, and Primate of the West, and Patriarch of the West,‟ and so on, and „Servant of the Servants of God, hereby allow you, Bishop So-and-so or Archbishop So-and-so, or Cardinal So-and-so, or anybody in good standing with the Catholic Church, to consecrate the following priests, dah-dah-dah, dah-dah-dah, to the bishophood.‟ Archbishop Lefebvre, of course, could not put in the name John Paul II, so he said the Church, exactly according to canon law. If my bishop refuses to give faculties of confession to me, and one of you comes to me and says, „Father, I want to confess to a Catholic priest. Could you hear my confession?‟ I got, in that moment, latest in that moment, I get the faculty from the Church. And that is declared in canon law. Archbishop Lefebvre received the faculties to consecrate those bishops because of the emergency situation the Church provided by canon law. These were canonically correct consecrations. You understand this.

And that’s basically the story of the Society of Saint Pius X. And they’re the only ones who, unlike me, in rather milder terms but very definitely, acknowledged the fact that the present Pope’s encyclicals are packed with heresy. The Fraternity of Saint Peter officially agrees with Vatican II, and officially agrees with the present Pope’s encyclicals. So they are not Catholics, officially, objectively. They are formally not Catholics. Formally. In their heart, I don’t know. I have friends in the Fraternity of Saint Peter who are good priests, but formally, they are not Catholics. Formally, they are in heresy because they sign and affirm officially, formally, objectively, heresy, which means Vatican II. Refer to yesterday’s lecture. And the same with the Institute of Christ the King. The Institute of Christ the King, founded by Monsignor Wach, and because I was stupid enough not to see what was going on, and I like to have this on tape because Monsignor Wach never tells anybody about it, the Institute of Christ the King could only be founded because I was the bum who made it possible that he had four priests ordained. I’m not gonna say here how I did it. And so he was able to start the Institute of Christ the King because now he had six priests instead of two, unfortunately, because as much as I like the Institute of Christ the King, as much as I like their priests, and I really like them, one of them is my best friend, Monsignor Wach concelebrated with the Pope second eucharistical prayer together with Dom Gerard Calvet, the abbot of the Benedictine monastery in France that he founded to celebrate the old rite. They celebrate the 1965 rite. If you call that the old rite, I don’t know. And both of them concelebrated with the Pope something which in the old liturgy you had only at the episcopal consecrations and in quite a different form than today. They both concelebrated with the Pope second eucharistical prayer. I have seen the picture. So you know what’s going on. You cannot say that the Novus Ordo is against divine law and then celebrate it for diplomatical reasons. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Uh-uh. Either you mistakenly say, „This is the liturgy of the Church. Then you may might as well celebrate it.‟ Or you say what I say, „It’s against divine law, and that’s the reason why I’m not celebrating it.‟ Then you can also not do it for diplomatical reasons. And if they do not say, if the Fraternity of Saint Peter and if the Institute of Christ the King do not say that the Novus Ordo is against divine law, then why do they celebrate the old Mass? Because it’s more beautiful? Okay, they’re running a museum than against divine law. If it was not against divine law, on direct commandment of my bishop I would have to celebrate it, right? If the Pope tells me that in a Dominican monastery somewhere they don’t have a priest left, it’s only brothers, and, „Please, Father Hesse, celebrate the Dominican rite for them,‟ I will say, „Yes, sir. Anytime you want.‟ The Dominican rite, the old Dominican rite, of course, huh? Fine. I have to obey. The reason why I cannot obey the Pope is because I’m bound to the divine law, and the new rite is against the divine law. Therefore, I’m not allowed to celebrate it. I commit a sin if I celebrate it. I did celebrate it. I didn’t know. So subjectively, I did not commit a sin. Objectively, objectively it was horrible what I did. I’m ashamed that I didn’t find out earlier. I’m glad I didn’t have to confess it. So these people are running a museum.

Anybody who receives his faculties and his blessings from Ecclesia Dei, oh, except for useful purposes, I got the decree of Ecclesia Dei here. Now, this is on tape and they might take it back, but I’m deadly afraid of this. Here’s the decree of the Ecclesia Dei Commission that allows me to celebrate mass privately in the old rite. Ha ha. But sometimes it’s useful. I don’t believe in this. It’s null and void, but sometimes it’s useful. And if they want to take it back, they can take it back. Okay? I got my travel luggage altar. And the reason why I mentioned the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King is not to put them down, especially not the members. Monsignor Wach, the founder of the Institute of Christ the King is a friend of mine for now 18 or 19 years. And some of the priests of the institute are friends of mine, some of the priests in the Fraternity of Saint Peter are friends of mine. Friendship usually is, especially among men, something that does not necessarily concern religion and politics. With me, a lot more politics than religion. I have Episcopalian friends and I love them. But they’re Republicans. And so the reason why I mention them is to explain to you why I want you, if it is possible, to go to the Masses of Pius X. Now, if you happen, I don’t know the geographical situation here. If you happen to live around the corner of a chapel of the Institute of Christ the King or the Fraternity of Saint Peter, and the Chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X is two hours away, of course you are allowed to go there, provided it’s the old mass and they don’t give communion in the hand there because like they do in indult masses. Or if you live around the corner of the indult mass and they do not commit sacrilege there, you’re allowed to go there. But I warn you. First of all, there are two dangers. First of all, in their sermons, you cannot be sure you will get the doctrine of the church. Now, with the Society of Saint Pius X, even if a sermon there might be incredibly boring, it will never be against the doctrine of the church. With the indult mass and the Fraternity of Saint Peter, there’s a probability that they will tell you the truth, but you don’t know. And there’s another thing. When you go to communion with the Society of Saint Pius X you definitely know that the little host distributed to you were consecrated by one of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X within the old mass. With the indult mass, you might get the host that some liberal hippie 1968 generation priest celebrated in an invalid celebration attempted to consecrate. So they’re only cookies, crackers. With the Fraternity of Saint Peter you can go to communion without hesitation because if it’s their own chapel, if they are not just borrowing the chapel, if they have their own chapel then it’s only them who celebrate there so the blessed sacrament is valid. However, you have to be careful. If you can’t go anywhere else but to the indult mass, go but don’t go to communion. You don’t have to. The church says you must go to communion once a year. Well, once a year you’ll be able to drive three or four hours to the next chapel, if you have to go that far, to the next chapel of Saint Pius X and receive a definitely, positively valid communion there.

See, the thing is, I’m not saying that 99.9% of the churches or parishes in this country do not celebrate mass anymore, do not have the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle anymore. I do not say that. I only say one thing which Pope Innocent III said. „You always must.‟ Now, this is official church doctrine. „You always must adapt the safer course.‟ You are not allowed to take chances with the sacraments. You’re not allowed to. If you take chances with the sacraments, you’re in sin. So if you don’t know about the validity stay away from communion. You don’t have to. That’s one of the greatest mistakes in our days. I don’t see people going to confession, but I always see them going to communion. Either they’re all very, very, very, very holy or they don’t care. And it’s a mistake to think that you have to go to communion in any case. And don’t make the mistake a religious sister recently made in my presence saying, „Oh, Father, but I have a problem. I have to go to communion otherwise all the sisters will see that I do not go to communion.‟ I said, „That’s very easy. Grab a sandwich five minutes before mass, let them see you do it.‟ What are they concerned with? What the others think or say or what of the last judgment will be said to them? Don’t worry.

Father Schmidberger once said, and I think he’s an authority on those things, because Father Schmidberger is not known for being overly indulgent with people. Father Schmidberger said, „If you have to drive for more than an hour to get Mass, then you are dispensed.‟ Well, for European standards. I mean, one hour in Europe is like five hours in Texas, right? So your conscience will have to tell you what you do. But in New England on icy roads, I would never tell anybody to drive an hour to Mass. It’s ridiculous. You don’t have to risk your life for something the Church guarantees to you and does not give to you. You are not obliged to risk your life for that. Absolutely not. The Church has dogmatically defined that you have a right for the old Mass, and it doesn’t give you the old Mass. We need a so-called excommunicated group to provide… So-called. I will come back to that. We need a so-called excommunicated group to provide us with what the Church guarantees, dogmatically defined in the Council of Trent. This is ridiculous. So you will hopefully not misunderstand when I said you are dispensed when it is sub gravi incommodo, as the Church says. Under grave incommodity. What do you do in that case? Oh, you sit home and you say an additional Rosary to the Rosaries you usually say. „Oh, oh, don’t. Please, don’t give me the cheap thing.‟ Like you say a Rosary every day, and then you say one on Sunday instead of going to Mass. I mean, you have to understand that you will have to do a little bit more on Sundays to sanctify Sunday. If you are among the good and wonderful people who say the daily Rosary, then please say a second or third one on Sunday. And take your Sunday missal and read the Mass. You don’t have to read the entire Mass. It’s one of those mistakes people who want to concelebrate with a priest like me, who celebrates Mass in 20 minutes, and then they can’t keep up. And afterwards they say, „Father, I couldn’t follow you.‟ And I say, „What? What’s the matter with you? You want to concelebrate?‟ Read the reading of the Gospel and pray. In the old days, you didn’t have a missal to follow Mass. The priest would tell you, „Say a Rosary,‟ or he would hand you a book with a Mass devotion. So don’t pretend you have to understand every prayer. You don’t understand it anyway. And don’t think that you have to follow the priest with every single line he says. I once met a woman in Rome who put herself visibly to everybody right here. Up there was the altar. And then at the Canon, she went like this. So everybody could see she knew even the Canon by heart. Now, this is what I call mental disturbances. Or in politically correct newspeak, wisdom-challenged woman. Woman. Excuse me, with a Y. That’s true. A wisdom-challenged person who thinks that she must concelebrate with the priest by saying every word he says. Don’t. But at home, if you don’t get to Mass, take your time for reading the missal. God will accept it as your Sunday duty to be fulfilled. Naturally. A nurse in the hospital who’s got 12 hours service there can’t go to Mass. And somebody who is lying in the hospital, in bed, can’t go to Mass. But he has to sanctify Sunday. And if it is only in intention, he has to sanctify Sunday. Because God Himself cannot dispense from the third commandment. Because the three commandments concerning Himself, He cannot dispense of. God cannot dispense you from believing in Him, from having to believe in Him. God cannot dispense you from not abusing His name. And God cannot dispense you from fulfilling Sunday obligation. But if the Church does not give you the possibility of fulfilling your Sunday obligation the way the Church wants it, then it’s the Church fault that you can’t do it and not yours.

And recently, Cardinal Ratzinger was asked by a pious lady in Germany if why the congregation, why the Secretariat for the non-Catholic religions does not extend its ecumenical activities towards the Society of Saint Pius X. Cardinal Ratzinger, in writing, answered in writing, „The Society of Saint Pius X is not outside the church. It is only disobedient.‟ Which of course we know it is not. We know they are not disobedient. But Cardinal Ratzinger put in writing that the Society of Saint Pius X is not outside the church. He dares to contradict his pope, who in 1988 in the document Ecclesia Dei three times says they are outside the church. So who’s right again? Well, this is the thing with the Novus Ordo Conciliar Church of the New Advent, as the pope calls it. I would have never dreamed of this term. The Church of the New Advent is fraudulent because today it says this and tomorrow it says another thing. And what do you call a man who today says this and tomorrow says another thing? Well, politically correct speak would say he is a man who has chosen the lifestyle of untruth. Which means he’s a damn liar. And the document Ecclesia Dei, not only as I pointed out in one of my previous lectures, is heretical against the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council on the tradition of the church, quoting Dei Verbum number eight of Vatican II, which gives an erroneous interpretation of tradition. It is also fraudulent as far as canon law is concerned because it just does not mention the necessary canons which explain that Archbishop Lefebvre, the four bishops who he consecrated, and the co-consecrator, Bishop Castro-Mayer, never were excommunicated. So I cannot call the pope a liar because I do not know if he deliberately lies. I can definitely call him an ignorant of canon law. That’s not a sin. I have to presume in charity that he did not deliberately lie. In this case, I have to conclude the guy doesn’t know his own canon law. Sorry. But Ecclesia Dei proves what I say. The pope does not know his own canon law. And this has been proven. If you want to read the 600 or 700 pages Father Maher of the Archdiocese of New York presented as his doctoral dissertation, then just call the Archdiocese of New York. They will provide a photocopy.

And so I think I have pretty much explained the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X. I should, almost as a gag to this, as a joke, add what happened when Bishop, what’s his name, Ferrario or something like this, of Hawaii. The bishop of Hawaii, there’s a Catholic group there who wanted Bishop Ferrario to come over to give confirmation to their children. So the local bishop of Hawaii excommunicated them. Well, with Rome, of course, not being the fastest ever, it needed some two and a half years, but then Rome took the excommunication back. And told Bishop Ferrario, whatever he’s called, of Hawaii, „Sorry, pal, you cannot excommunicate them because they’re not outside the church.‟ He said, „You can suspend them.‟ Fine, it’s a disciplinary, not a theological punishment. And that’s bad enough. But just to show you Rome does not know where they stand. But at least I can tell you one thing, I know where I stand. Thank God. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cheers. (applause)

Well, Father, what about the new order of Christ the King in Italy, in Rome?

Uh, the Institute of Christ the King?

Institute of Christ the King.

Well, what I said before.

And it follows the same as Saint Peter?

Yeah. Yeah. They celebrate validly, they consecrate validly. If you know that it was them who consecrated the Eucharist, you can go to communion there. But I have never heard a bad sermon coming from them. They’re much better than Fraternity of Saint Peter’s. This is sort of generalizing judgment, of course. But I don’t see any problem there. It’s just beware, be careful. That’s all. The only ones you don’t have to be careful with is Pius X. This is what I’m saying. Okay. Yeah?

Well also, also that signs in the church in Saint Peter where the Pope will not give communion in the hand. Is that true?

Uh, that was true until 1990. When I was serving in Saint Peter’s at the Novus Ordo Mass at five o’clock in the afternoon in Latin there, I was responsible for the Blessed Sacrament for five years. And I made sure that nobody gave communion in the hand. I didn’t always succeed, but I tried my best. And one of the auxiliaries of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia got to understand my wrath when he started to distribute communion in the hand. Now, you have to give communion in the hand upon request in Saint Peter’s because the new archpriest of Saint Peter’s is none else but Cardinal Virgilio Noè, one of the principal manufacturers of the new liturgy. As a matter of fact, this is something you should know, because then you will understand why I’m critical with this pope and many people. When Dom Gerard Calvet, the abbot of the monastery of Madeleine Le Barroux, who later on unfortunately concelebrated with the pope, as I mentioned before. When he came to Rome in 1989, he wanted to say the old mass at the altar of Saint Pius X in St. Peter’s Basilica. And he had arrived at, get this, he had arrived at the offertory when Cardinal Virgilio Noè walked up and said, „You can’t do this here. You will not celebrate the old mass here.‟ At the offertory. That’s a canonical crime. Oh. That, in the old days when the church was healthy and sane, this merited automatical excommunication. That’s a sacrilege to interrupt mass at the offertory. And now, this is not the worst. Cardinal Noè interrupted this mass and Dom Gerard Calvet the same day told the Pope. You know what the pope’s reaction was? „I made Cardinal Noè what he is now.‟ Period. Boom. This is not a lawful church. This is tyranny. Next question.

Father, did you hear that the pope had resigned but didn’t put a date on it?

Uh, I do not read the Weekly World News and I do not read The National Enquirer because I do not believe in rumors.

It was announced by a letter in a church in Florida.

Probably the news on it. Yeah, I don’t know.

No, it was announced right here in 5%.

I don’t know. One of the first rules of combat is never assume anything. I do not assume. I speak when I can prove what I say. I do not speak before that. Go ahead. Question.

What about the devil worship things that’s happening in Vatican?

History.

History?

And I don’t even know if it’s history. I know there are Satanists in the Vatican, but I don’t know how far they practice and what they practice. Next question.

Um, when somebody tells us going to Pius X we’re excommunicated or in schism, do we refer them to that new canon code 1325?

Yes. And you refer them to the Council of Trent which says that each faithful has a rite. And when Council of Trent says that, that means it’s divine law.

Okay.

Uh, by divine law, each faithful has the right to receive the sacraments in his own rite. The new rite is written up by bureaucrats. It is not the rite of the Catholic Church. Quote the Council of Trent again, Seventh Session Canon 13. Put down 7:13. Seventh Session Canon, Canon 13. You will find the Seventh Session Canon 13 in Father Trainor’s book. You will find Pope Pius, Saint Pope Pius V, Quo Primum in Father Trainor’s book in its entirety. And you will find the fraudulent document Ecclesia Dei in Father Trainor’s book. So there you got the documents you can work with. Anybody speaks about excommunication to you, first you find out if he wants to know the truth. That’s right. If he wants to know the truth, then you bother with him. If he does not want to know the truth, but just wants to speak to you for the sake of argument, quote Christ.

Thank you.

Leave the house, leave the town, and please, for the quotation in English, leave the town… What’s the English translation?

And shake off the dust of your-

Shake off your feet.

Yeah. Shake off the dust of your feet. Okay. That’s what you do. Yeah. Next question.

Father, when others tell you, „Well, the Holy Father is persecuted, he is surrounded by enemies, the bishops going-‟

I told you I don’t read the Weekly World News or The National Enquirer.

But this is universally heard.

Oh, well, that’s an international Weekly World News.

But, you know, among the-

You know they found a B-17 fleet on the moon? I read this in The National Enquirer, in the Weekly World News.

Read what?

No, don’t believe a word.

No, but-

That, um, that’s my answer. Don’t believe a word.

But do you answer to those people? Those-

Nothing.

Just turn from them?

No, you don’t turn from them. You say, „This is ridiculous.‟ Uh, and then you mention the Weekly World News. Get the next, get the most recent headline at the supermarket. Have it ready. Huh.

Father, when I came up as a child, I always thought when we passed the Catholic Church, to bow our head and sign the cross.

Yep.

Now, I bow my head and I say, „Jesus, Mary, and Joseph have mercy on their soul.‟

Yes.

Am I doing right or wrong?

Very right, indeed. I drink to that. Very right. Very right, indeed. Next question.

Yeah, I have another one.

Sure. Any.

I was thinking, um, wouldn’t it be a good idea when they say to us, you know, we’re excommunicated and so forth, if we would ask them for a document?

Very good, very good. Yes. That’s a good point. Yeah. It’s a good question.

No, I wanna see what you’re referring to. Excuse me, I wanna see what you’re referring to.

Bravo. Bravo. Answer a question with a question.

That’s right, yeah. They think they got all the right in the world to attack you? Hit back twice. That’s what I always say.

I don’t wear this uniform for nothing, huh?

Well, I’d like to say that it’s due to a blindness that we’ve all been under, and by the grace of God, we’re coming out of some of it. And just a discussion, a heated discussion yesterday with a friend. I was talking about the pope trying to search for some unity amongst our religions. Where my friend’s opinion that he has to do this.

No.

And I tried to quote Pope Pius, The Letter, and Mortalium Animos.

Very good.

But she never even hears these things. And I’ve experienced this several times, saying well-

But at a certain point, you just give up.

But don’t that, we’ve all been deceived? That’s what Fatima is about, isn’t it? That we’ve all been deceived.

No. At a certain point, you just give up. That’s what I said. The moment you, if you see that this is a poor misled person, be patient. But if you see that that same person is not interested in hearing the truth, you’re just politely, you give up. Well, sometimes, look, I cannot refer now, I don’t do this for polemical reasons. I cannot refer to a religious conversion, but I remember a case of political conversion, I tried to make Republicans out of Democrats, right? And I remember, I talked to one who was an ardent Democratic voter, and a registered member of the Democratic Party. And I was very patient with him. And at a certain point, he gave me an argument which was so stupid that I said, „Okay, cut it out. I’ve had it.‟ But I had said enough. Three years later, I met him again, and he said, „Gregory, whiz kid! You turned me around! Now I’m a member of the Republicans!‟ And I say, „Good, it worked.‟ Huh? It worked. And this is what you have to do in religions. I quoted the political conversion for the simple reason that this has never happened to me with a religious conversion, but it might as well happen. Huh? So far, my religious conversions were step by step work. But sometimes, you cut the contact and what you said will continue working in the mind of the person. See, anybody who does not refuse the truth eventually will find it. John Wayne found it on his death bed.

Yeah. Right.

He died a Catholic with all his sacraments. They say this about George Washington, I have indications that it is true, but there’s no proof. But it’s definitely true with John Wayne. So, it works. Huh? You never give up hope. Hope means there might be a chance, and if it’s only in the last moment. Questions?

Why is it that the veil of blindness is mostly in Rome like this lady said?

Corruptio optimi pessima. The corruption of the best is the worst, and you know very well being close to the sea that when a fish starts to smell, it always starts at the head.

I want to pick the three questions. Oh, yeah. You know, the ones you put… Is it more purposefully than to see-

Oh, yeah, that’s right. Well, yeah, yeah. Uh, I’ve been asked very often, how is it possible that out of 3,000 bishops, let’s say it’s 3,000 for the sake of argument. Yeah. Uh, 2,994 are following the Novus Ordo and all the heresies of today. How is it possible? Well, I told you, we cannot judge intentions. So I only can, I can give you, let’s say, an estimate on a percentage. Most of the clergy just don’t want to lose their beautiful job.

Yeah. Materialism.

Huh? It’s materialism. Sheer commodity and materialism. They know if they go back to the old Mass, they will be fired. And the same with the bishops. Uh, you can’t imagine how many bishops gloom and bloom and glow the moment they’re in front of a TV camera, which they won’t get the moment they say the old Mass. Mm-hmm. And then, of course, with the buffet table facing the people, you can put up a show. At Mass, you have to concentrate on the sacrifice, and you can’t put up a show. And some people don’t like that. And then, of course, there is a vast majority of misled people. Take the average parish priest of let’s say 32 years. He was born when Vatican II was over. He has never had the Catholic faith, just like the present pope. He has never had the Catholic faith. The typical average 32 years old parish priest was born when Vatican II was over. He has never seen the old liturgy. He has never experienced the old faith. He most probably never saw the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Saint Pius X. He will be stuffed with the new catechism about which I don’t have to talk here, because all I have to tell you is, the new catechism quotes Vatican II over and over again at the worst places of all. So that settles the new catechism. So the usual young priest today, he has never had it. And the old priest usually is too stubborn. Now, he’s celebrating the wrong thing for 30 years and he will not admit it. Or he doesn’t want to lose his retirement, his pension.

Oh, I think you’re right.

And then, of course, and then there are some, I don’t want, I don’t dare to give a percentage, but it’s more than you think. There are some who want to destroy the Church, and that’s why they do what they do. Mm-hmm. In 1974, I said this yesterday, NATO estimated 3,000 communist agents to be amongst the Church hierarchy. Wow. We know that Joseph Stalin, Uncle Joe, in the 1930s, infiltrated Western seminaries with KGB agents, so I don’t think these people are really misled. They want to destroy the Church. And some of the people make money on destroying the Church, like my dear friend, Andrew Greeley, and others. Mm-hmm. So this is the answer, and that’s a majority. Well, we started with 12 apostles and one of them was a traitor, so now we got it the other way around.

Is it true that the majority are involved in some of these remains of the Church?

Mm-mm. No? That is not true.

Did he say what’s her name-

Only a tiny minority. Only a tiny minority of the members of the hierarchy are members of the Masonic lodges. Look, with most of them, why would the lodges be stupid enough to accept them into the lodge if they do anyway what they want? The usual priest today and the usual bishop today is nothing else but the faithful idiot Lenin mentions so often in his work. The useful idiot. Not the faithful idiot. He’s the useful idiot. And so the lodges don’t need their membership. As a matter of fact, just before I was confronted with this so-called list of 120 Masons in the Vatican. That list is a fraud. The authentic list came out in 1976, I think it was, and contained 14 or 16 names, which I did some research on while I was in Rome, and I found that those, well, 13 of those 16 I could prove they were Masons, or it had been proved that they were Masons. And then a year after that, the lodge came out with a list of 120 persons who supposedly belonged to the Masonic lodges. Yeah, except that of those 120 persons, I know at least seven who are definitely not Masons. One of them is the bishop who ordained me, and who is one of the most pious bishops I’ve ever met. He’s Novus Ordo because he’s a theological idiot, but it’s not his fault. But he’s an extremely good man. He’s a holy person. He suffers from encephalitis now, and I want you to pray for him. His memory is gone, but he prays hours and hours every day. He gets up at two o’clock at night and wants to celebrate mass because he doesn’t know what time of the day it is. All he wants to do is to pray. It doesn’t sound like a Mason to me. He was on the list, and it’s just one example. So again, do not trust the Weekly World News or The National Enquirer, and do not trust all the Catholic newspapers, especially The Wanderer, which is, I think below the level of The Weekly World News. Well, The Weekly World News is fun. The Wanderer is boring, boring me stiff.

To what extent are we responsible to evangelize or tell what we’ve learned here?

We are not Jehovah Witnesses. We are not Jehovah Witnesses, so don’t put your foot in your mouth or in the door. Uh-huh. That might turn out bad. When a Jehovah Witness put his foot in my door, he faced the barrel of a .357 Magnum Ruger. He disappeared very fast. No, you do what you can without going on people’s nerves, because see, this is very important. Don’t go on people’s nerves, because then they just for the sake of escaping you will not listen to you. It’s like, „Oh, my God, I gotta go.‟ Don’t go on people’s nerves and be friendly. Sometimes it’s the Catholics in this country who are so rude and not Episcopalians, who are nice and polite. So please, do not bother people, but make sure that you do not hide your opinions, quote, unquote. Your faith. Do not hide your faith. Make it known. But when you see it’s rejected, do not insist. It will only cause the contrary. Pressure always causes counter pressure, always. It’s a law of physics.

You know, the Catholic paper has got it belongs to this priest that you give life to and-

For the priest?

Yeah, yeah. And someone asked him about it, right? His brothers, sisters. And he said that, „Well, not through the Virgin Mary, but Saint Joe probably had previous marriage and had kids.‟

It’s an inquiry. It’s an interesting theory. It’s an interesting theory, except it contradicts the Church doctrine on Saint Joseph, the Castissimus Sponsus, the most chaste husband. Okay.

Father, tell us something about Cardinal Stickler. I don’t know much-

Why do you want to know about him?

… friends from church. Um, Cardinal Stickler. Cardinal Stickler is the typical example of a very pious, very learned, very erudite, and misled person.

Listen. He still says the old mass?

Oh, if you want him to say the old mass, he will say the old mass. If you want him to say the new mass, he will say the new mass. The mass he celebrates back home is a mixed rite. He has the old missal. I should know. I served his mass. He served my mass, and I served his mass. We are all friends. Cardinal Stickler and I, we have a friendship dating back to 1975. But I was kind of confused when I saw him celebrating something which is neither to be found in the new nor in the old missal. And I asked him after mass, I said, „Excuse me, but what rite do you celebrate?‟ And he said, „Well, I’m celebrating the old rite, the way the council wanted it to be reformed.‟ And I said, „Oh, and so you’re the authority on it.‟ He didn’t say anything. He knew I was always impertinent with him, so…

Well, in my parish church, the organist at times, during the People’s Communion, he would play the theme from Exodus.

How awful. Nothing worse shall ever happen. But still, it’s wonderful.

They would walk out? Who does it mean?

Yeah, well, it’s an exodus. They all leave the church. Might as well play the Exodus.

Where does it end though?

The only interesting door in the Novus Ordo church is the one that says exit. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. You leave the church.

You’re coming to the fall of the… Oh, yeah. I feel you. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, by the way, I should say, I did say this before, but I should remind you of the fact you’re not allowed to attend Novus Ordo masses. Hm-mmm. Mm-hmm. You’re not allowed to attend Novus Ordo masses unless for social purposes, like a wedding funeral. And in that case, you have to shut up. Don’t say amen. Amen doesn’t mean, „Yes, it’s all right.‟ Amen means, „Yes, yes, yes.‟ You cannot say, „Yes, yes, yes‟ to something that’s against divine law. Just wanted to repeat this. You will hear it on tape, too.