Fr. Hesse:: I’ve been told that today, November 12th, the Ukrainian church celebrates St. Josaphat. I have something to add to that. We in the Latin Church have to celebrate it on November 14th, which is Sunday this year. So usually in the Latin Church, this year St. Josaphat will not be celebrated. It might please some people here when I tell them that my travel altar’s patron and my travel altar’s relic is Saint Josaphat, so I will celebrate Saint Josaphat this Sunday and commemorate the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, which is celebrated otherwise in the traditional churches.

One other reason why I’m holding this lecture is because I’m always getting kind of confused opinions about the recent popes, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, where people try to tell me that Paul VI was kidnapped and replaced by a double, and John Paul II is under drugs and therefore not responsible for his actions. Well, John Paul II, poor man, he is under drugs because he was shot in 1981 but he was not exchanged. He also was not invalidly elected. Some people tell me 1958, it was actually Cardinal Siri who was elected, but John XXIII came out. You will see after this lecture, that’s all nonsense. Then some people tell me that we have no pope since Assisi 1986. Thank you, that we have no pope since 1986 because John Paul II sat down with other religions and just simply prayed together with them, which was not a very nice thing to do, but he did it and it certainly didn’t make him cease to be pope as we will see from other examples. And then some other people tell me, „We don’t have a pope since 1965 because December 7th, Paul VI signed the Declaration of Religious Liberty.‟ Then some people tell me, „We don’t have a pope since 1958, since John XXIII was a heretic before he was elected, therefore he couldn’t be elected.‟ We will see how untrue that is in the course of the lecture. And then, I’ve actually had a letter from Florida that told me that poor, poor Pius X was an anti-pope because he changed a breviary. (laughs) Well, as far as anti-popes are concerned, I can tell you the Catholic Church doesn’t know an anti-pope unless there is a pope and somebody else claims to be pope.

Then came John XII, worse than John XI. He was pope from 955 until 964. He led such an immoral life that the emperor, Otto I, bothered to come down from Germany, now there were no ice trains in those days, and that was a pretty troublesome thing in the year 950-something to come down from Germany. Anyway, the Emperor Otto bothered to come down to Rome, and forced John XII to swear an oath to him to do his duty in the papacy. Actually, the oath he swore, we will see later on, it was the oath of incoronation. And John XII had to sign it and hand it to the emperor. The moment the emperor had left Rome, John XII went back to his old ways. So, the emperor turned around, went back to Rome, and removed John XII. Have you ever heard about a pope being removed? It’s certainly uncanonical. You cannot remove a pope, that’s uncanonical. However, quite understandable though, but uncanonical. Then the emperor appointed another man, and he called himself Leo VIII. Guess what you find in the Annuario Pontificio? You find the uncanonical removement of John XII as the end of his papacy, and you find Leo VIII as his successor. In the Annuario Pontificio, it doesn’t say anti-pope. Now today, people run around, and I mean, in every part of this country you will find 50,000 people who will tell you about anti-popes. Not so, the church. Of course, later on, poor Leo VIII had to escape Rome, and John XII came back, literally with a vengeance.

And the next one on my list, another one appointed by the emperor when that whole mess with the Benedict, with the three Benedicts who were the same person was over, the emperor appoint… I made a mistake here, I apologize. This is confusing to me too (laughs) even though I have a list here. Yes. After the second time Benedict IX, he was followed by the Bishop of Bamberg, who called himself Clement II. Then in came from 1047 up to 1048, sorry about that, Benedict IX for the third time. And now the emperor finally had had it and he made Poppo von Brixen, who was the bishop of Brixen pope, who called himself Damasus II in 1048. And now finally, that chaos and confusion was concluded. And it’s so amusing to see in the Annuario Pontificio, which is written in Italian, Benedetto nono per la prima volta, then the other pope, then Benedetto nono per la seconda volta, and then the other pope, and Benedetto nono per la terza volta. You think they’re joking, but it’s not MAD Magazine, it is the Annuario Pontificio. (laughs)

The next pope to consider is Saint Gregory VII, who wrote heresy. He was pope from 1073 until 1085, and he wrote the most famous document in church history probably, the Dictatus Papae, the Dictate of the Pope. Gregory VII desperately attempted, after all those things where the emperor appointed the pope, the emperor did away with the pope, he tried to explain to the emperor that he is really a nobody. That’s what you call to go to the other extreme. It’s to throw out the baby with the bath. And that was a terrible mistake because it made him a heretic. Because in the Dictatus Papae, he not only says unacceptable things like, „The relation between the emperor and the pope is like between the Lord and his swineherd.‟ (laughs) I mean, he was lucky I wasn’t emperor. When Gregory VII had that famous clash with the Emperor Henry IV of Germany, and the Emperor Henry IV had to kneel barefooted in the snow in front of the Castle of Canossa to apologize to the pope and to have his excommunication taken away, history unanimously judges the emperor to be the winner of that battle. Because after Gregory VII, the reputation of the papacy declined fast. And one of the reasons was, in the Dictatus Papae he says, and it’s hard to believe but I checked it myself, I also actually I’ve held the original of the Dictatus Papae, the oldest original book in the Vatican secret archives, insured for a nominal one million dollars. Probably some Texans would pay $10 million for that book. I’ve held that book in my hand, so I know what I’m talking about. It’s in the old writing there. He says, „Every single pope…‟ Now this is a teaching document of the papacy, „Every single pope, the moment he is validly elected, through the merits of Saint Peter, is made a saint.‟ (laughs) The Latin original is very clear, „Efficitur sanctus, is made a saint.‟ We will later on see how saintly those popes were. (laughs) But it’s heresy against the teaching of the church about grace, because it would mean if a cardinal is in mortal sin and gets elected pope, he’s not in mortal sin anymore because he’s just been made a saint, so he doesn’t have to go to confession. The Pope has to go to confession, but that cardinal who was just elected doesn’t have to go to confession? So after all, Trent might have made a mistake. We might have eight sacraments. Papal election being the eighth. (laughs) (laughs) Well, as we say in New York, „Certainly not.‟ (laughs) (laughs) It is heresy, and of course, I have absolutely no doubt about the fact that Gregory VII had no intention of writing heresy. However, he did. He wrote something against defined doctrine. And of course, he wouldn’t take it back, that is for sure. Not Gregory VII, not Hildebrand, never. And Saint Gregory VII was made a saint in the 17th century when the popes wanted to boost their image. I don’t think it was a good idea to canonize a man who wrote heresy. Now, it’s never been said that a saint cannot make mistakes. Saint Ambrose did, for example. But to canonize a pope who wrote such a ridiculous heresy that the pope is made a saint the moment of his valid election? A canonical election can saintly, saint one somebody? Can turn him into a saint? Yes. He says, „Through the merits of Saint Peter.‟ Well, that’s a cheap phrase. It is a very grave thing he wrote there, Efficitur Sanctus. You can imagine the theologians of the time must have died laughing if they didn’t cry. (laughs)

The next on my list is Boniface VIII, a very sorry character. He reigned from 1294 until 1303. Very arrogant man, and something that, I mean, I’m not a politically correct person. I prefer to be right rather than politically correct. But to insult a cripple, or you would say, something challenged anyway. (laughs) To insult a cripple is not exactly a Christian action. If somebody was a midget, Boniface VIII would make him the point of laughter in his court. If somebody was one-legged, he’d be the point of humor in Boniface’s court. You see from human deficiencies like that, one shouldn’t be surprised then when one finds that the same person who ridiculed cripples, who was arrogant against anybody and everybody, and who was a terrible nepotist, anything he could lay hands on, money, property, would go to his family, the Caetani family. And he was named Benedetto Caetani before he was elected, and he continued under the name of Boniface VIII to be very, very much of a Caetani. He made sure the Caetanis got rich. No wonder then if somebody who misbehaves like that and certainly was a zero charity person, in his bull, Unam Sanctam, in 1302, he wrote several heresies. The first one was the theory of the two swords. He denied the emperor the temporal reign. He said, „There is the sword of the spiritual power, and there’s the sword of the temporal power, and I hold both.‟ (laughs) Unfortunately, it needed until Leo XIII to correct on this point. Leo XIII, in his social encyclicals, is very clear about Boniface VIII having made a mistake here. The problem is, he didn’t just let it stay at that. In the sanction… Now, when a pope writes up a decree, there is a chapter, it’s called the Sanctions, where he says, „Whosoever doesn’t believe that, anathema sit. Whosoever contradicts that is outside the Church.‟ In his sanction, he says, „Whoever contradicts him is a Manichaean.‟ (laughs) Now, the Manichaeans were the people who said everything material is evil. That’s a blasphemy, of course, because it means the material creation is through original sin, of course, but through original sin, the entire material creation is evil. It’s still a blasphemy. God doesn’t create things that turn into evil through a sin. As a matter of fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, „Res numquam mala.‟ No thing as such is ever evil. Actions are evil and intentions are evil, but things are not evil, because everything here, whether it is I speaking, whether it is my speech organ moving, whether it’s the glass of wine standing here not toppling over or disappearing, has to thank God for its existence in every single split second every moment. Of course it is impossible that God ceases to exist, but if God ceased to exist, we would be gone in the same moment. Gone. So everything that is thanks his existence to God. Therefore, a thing cannot be bad. Now this pope says… He wasn’t even talking about a thing. He was talking about one of his erroneous opinions. If you did not accept the theory of the two swords, you were a Manichaean. This is patent nonsense, and at the same time, it’s heretical against the teaching against the Manichaeans. Well, of course, it’s logical that he was being the one person who would say it is necessary for salvation to be a subject to the Roman pontiff. If he meant to say, „In matters of faith and morals,‟ I would say, „Yes, sir. Yes, Holiness.‟ But in everything? The pope cannot tell me not to drink wine, for example. He cannot do that, because it’s not immoral, and he cannot tell me to abandon something that’s not immoral. I don’t owe him obedience. The pope cannot tell George Bush on how to run the White House. He can tell George Bush to keep the Commandments, but he cannot tell George Bush on how to run the White House. He doesn’t have that power. So, in order to be saved, we have, of course, we have to follow the Commandments of Christ, we have to follow church teaching, but we don’t have to be subjects to the Roman pontiff. This was one of the causes of the later catastrophe of obedience. It was prophesized that Satan would try to destroy the church using the structure of obedience. But this is what we’re facing today.

Then came Clement V. Clement V was a good man, didn’t teach any heresy, but he did something the bishop of Rome cannot do. He stayed in exile in Avignon, and it was he who caused the exile of Avignon, which lasted for 70 years. The pope is first of all the bishop of Rome, and therefore has to stay in Rome. Clement V did not do that. Why do I mention this? It was just a mistake, right? Oh, well, some people today say the pope is infallible also in his pastoral actions. Well, the pope is obviously not infallible in his pastoral action, because it’s certainly against his pastoral duty to abandon his diocese. And we will see an example later on for the same problem.

Then comes John XXII. Now, John XXII is the most famous example of a pope who erred. At the same time, I consider him a learned man and a saint. John XXII was everything a saint required. He was everything an erudite person requires. He was one of the most educated popes in history, except for one single erroneous idea, which he took back the day before his death. So, as far as I’m concerned, John XXII cannot be blamed. He said that the souls of the dead cannot go to heaven and hell before the Last Judgment. Well, we know that’s not true. At the time, it had not yet been defined doctrine, but the church taught it. So, everybody was shocked when John XXII said what he said. He actually wrote it down. He wrote, he even wrote a book about it. Remember, he was living in Avignon, and he said his ideas to the University of Paris, but because they were theorists. They said, „How dare you say such things?‟ However, December 4th of 1334, the day before he died, he took it back, left it up to his successor to correct. And two years later, Benedict XII did correct it and said, „No, that’s not true. We have to believe that the souls of the dead, immediately upon the personal judgment, go to purgatory, hell, or heaven.‟

Then comes Urban VI. Now, the Exile of Avignon is over. Saint Catherine of Siena finally prevails in telling the popes, „You will come back to Rome. Your place is Rome, you have to come back to Rome. Don’t listen to those snakes of cardinals,‟ including Saint Catherine, „Don’t listen to those snakes, come back to Rome.‟ Well, Urban VI did. He was elected in Rome in 1378. His name was Bartolomeo Prignano and he was from Napoli. The Neapolitan popes have always given problems to the church. (laughs) And he was one of the first ones to do so. His personality was so disgusting that the cardinals finally, even though it was a perfectly obvious, valid conclave and he certainly was pope, he was so disgusting that the only way the cardinals found to get rid of him, short from murder, was to declare his election invalid. (laughs) Which they did. They came together in Avignon again and elected their own pope. Now, that’s one who in the Annuario Pontificio, thank God, is really called anti-pope, so we don’t have to be confused about that. Anti-pope Clement VII lived as a pseudo-pope from 1378 until 1394. Now we have an interesting situation. Saint Catherine of Siena said, „Urban VI is pope and Clement VII is the devil’s anti-pope.‟ In came Saint Vincent Ferrer and said, „Urban VI in Rome is the anti-pope and the devil’s preacher, and Clement VII is the real pope.‟ So, who was right? Well, Saint Catherine was right. Vincent Ferrer was wrong. But again, you can’t become a saint if you were wrong. Urban VI was followed by Boniface IX from 1389 to 1404, who was followed by Innocent VII from 1404 until 1406, who was followed by Gregory XII from 1406 until 1415. Meanwhile, the Avignon line continued. The moment anti-Pope Clement VII died, anti-Pope Benedict XIII was elected, who gloriously didn’t reign from 1394 until 1417. Now, what happened in between? In 1409, a so-called council got together in Pisa. You know, with the crooked tower of that town? They got together in Pisa, they declared the pope in Rome and the pope in Avignon non-pope, and elected their own. Alexander V, from 1409 until 1410, who was followed, a joke of history, but John XXIII in 1410 until 1415. Now, we gloriously had three popes in Europe. At the same time, there was an emperor and two other people who said, „I am the emperor.‟ So, Europe was divided between three popes and three emperors. People talk about the situation today (laughs). Back then, they believed this was the last judgment. All of Europe started processions in prayer and said, „We better prepare because the Lord is near.‟ Most people at the time were convinced this was the end of times. Three popes, three emperors. Well, in 1414, the Council of Constance was called, where all the three popes were treated equally. Just that is ridiculous. All three popes were treated equally. The council was above the popes therefore. And indeed, the Council of Constance said, „While the pope is above a council, in situations like this, a council is above the popes.‟ (laughs) It’s heresy. When finally the Great Occidental Schism was laid by in 1417, when finally Benedict XIII decided to abdicate. After him came Pope Martin V, 1417 to 1431, and Eugene IV, 1431 until 1447. Both of them signed the Conciliar Heresy, the heresy that in a church crisis or a schism, an ecumenical council will be above the papacy. Martin V signed it. Eugene IV signed it. Do I hear we don’t have a pope since then? No? Good, because the Annuario Pontificio recognizes both. As a matter of fact, the church later on recognized that same council that had started in Constance, but in order to avoid a scandal, they called it the Council of Florence, where it actually had one session, I think, or two for a few years. It was a nomad council. (laughs) I mean, it walked from Constance all the way down to Florence, from Florence to Pisa, from Pisa to, I think, I forgot. It’s been in so many places, but it’s called the Council of Florence. For those who like sources, Eugene IV signed this Conciliar Heresy in the encyclical, Et Non Dubitemus. It’s not in Denzinger because Denzinger usually doesn’t write off heresies.

Then, the next thing, I have to cut short, Pius XII in Mediator Dei changed 180 degrees the oldest liturgical principle in the Church, going back in writing until the year 250. And it says, (Latin). „The law of what has to be prayed may determine the law of what has to be believed.‟ I’ll explain. The Immaculate Conception was in the Roman missal centuries before it became a dogma. What is the law of prayer? Well, first of all, the Roman missal, then the Roman Breviary, and then all the approved liturgical books. They are the laws of prayer. What is the law of what has to be believed? Not to be confused with the depositum fidei, the deposit of the faith, the faith as such. But what is the law of what has to be believed? Well, a dogma. So, the law of what has to be prayed said centuries ago that on December 8th you celebrate the Immaculate Conception. And then on December 8th, 1854, it became a law to be believed. So, the law of what has to be prayed may determine the law of what has to be believed. Without giving any reason whatsoever, Pius XII turns it around in Mediator Dei number 37. You can read it yourself. You can research yourself. He does not explain why he turns it around. He does turn it around. No wonder then that in the 10-year anniversary booklet of the Fraternity of St. Peter, they refer exactly to that. And there’s some following quotations between Mediator Dei number 37 and 48 that show that Pope Pius XII confused his authority with the authority of the church. The church alone may govern. Pius XII said, „I, the pope.‟ It’s not so.

And in Humani Generis, 1950, Pope Pius XII said, „But if the supreme pontiffs in their official acts purposely pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all, according to the mind and will of the same pontiffs that the matter cannot be considered any longer a question open to free discussion among theologians.‟ Whoa, whoa. How about all those mistakes I just listed? Those were all papal acts, official papal acts. I read again, „But if the supreme pontiffs in their official acts purposely pass judgment,‟ et cetera, „the matter cannot be considered any longer a question open to free discussion among theologians.‟ If he means to say free discussion in the sense that we just want him to ignore what the pope says and continue discussing, well, he would be right. But in the context with everything else he says, it is quite clear that he means it cannot be discussed anymore. Well, that’s ridiculous. That means that the ordinary judgment of the pope is infallible. Well, we know it’s not. And I recommend to read the decree of infallibility. It’s the Constitutio Dogmatica Prima Pastor Aeternus de Ecclesia Christi of the 18th July 1870. You will find it in Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3050 until 3070, and in the 31st edition, pages 595 following. And in the fourth chapter, it says, „Only if in virtue of his apostolic authority he teaches something to be held by the universal Church, only then can he be infallible.‟ If we examine the written acts of the present pope, we will find one that seems to be like that, and that’s when he says women cannot receive priestly ordination. That’s the only time he ever uses that formula that one would consider infallible.

Now, the limitation of the pope’s office is mostly given in the Oath of Incoronation. I must correct a widespread error about the papal Oath of Incoronation. People sometimes tell me, they don’t ask me, they tell me, „Oh, this must be a bad pope because he never swore the Oath of Incoronation. As a matter of fact, he refused to swear it.‟ Not true. The last time a pope signed the Oath of Incoronation, that was exactly Benedicto Gaetani, Boniface VIII, in 1302. The point about the Oath of Incoronation lies absolutely elsewhere. The first time that it was most definitely signed by the pope and sent to all the heads of states in Europe, kings, queens, emperors, was in 678, and it was signed by Pope Saint Agatho I. Now, we have to understand, Saint Agatho I signed it and was the first one to incorporate the Oath of Incoronation in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. That’s a sort of yearbook for the popes. It’s like the president’s brief at seven in the morning. The pope, if he doesn’t know, and usually he doesn’t, if he doesn’t know how to do the blessing on Easter Sunday and Christmas, he will look into the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. If the pope doesn’t know how to celebrate papal mass, because that’s quite different from an episcopal High Mass from a pontifical High Mass, the pope, for example, when he raises the host, in ancient tradition, he shows the host to all four directions of the Earth. Look, in Saint Peter’s, he’s looking, like in all good churches and all real churches, he’s looking east. He doesn’t face the people. That’s nonsense. The pope never faced the people. It’s nonsense. The altar in Saint Peter’s is directed towards the east because the entrance to Saint Peter’s is in the east and the apse of Saint Peter’s is in the west. Usually it’s the other way around, and that’s why the pope, why the priest usually faces the altar and not the entrance to the church. The pope, however, in Saint Peter’s, faces the entrance to the church because he faces, like all celebrants in all real churches, east. However, he shows the host to the east, the south, the west, and the north. That’s a significant difference between the papal High Mass and pontifical High Mass. All these things that concern only the pope are collected in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. I am able to say the things I say here because I was lucky with the help of the prefect of the Vatican Library, I could lay hands on a French edition of the Liber Diurnus of the 19th century.

Now, the important thing is this, Saint Agatho I definitely signed this oath, and this was 678. The last one to sign it was in 1302. We’re talking about almost 600 years. So, for 600 years, and I’m sure it was 600 because long before Saint Agatho, that oath must have existed, it just wasn’t in the Liber Diurnus yet or in no written record. For more than 600 years most probably, the popes signed this Oath of Incoronation. After that, after 1302, no pope signed it anymore, in the sense that he didn’t send it to the emperor. But it is still today in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. So, for 600 years, all popes approved of what I’m going to read you now, and for another 700 years, no pope ever dared to contradict it. It was never taken out of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum. As a matter of fact, it is still there. So, to all those people in this country who tell me this vicious pope now refused to swear it, I would say this vicious Pius XI refused to swear it and this vicious Pius X refused to swear it. Well, it’s the same untruth. None of them refused. It is still in the… It is understood, as a matter of fact, or let’s say, let’s be realistic. It’s not understood at all as far as the popes are concerned. However, it is church doctrine. No pope has ever contradicted it. It has been taught indirectly for 600 years, never been contradicted. That’s, usually you consider such a thing, you would say, „Ecclesia profitetur. The church professes it. The church believes it.

Now, listen to this and look what all the popes that I mentioned today did. There is a slight difference. The pope is not talking yet as pope. The last one who signed, Boniface VIII, signed the papal Oath of Incoronation with his own name, Benedicto Gaetani, „I, Benedicto Gaetani,‟ or, „I, Karol Wojtyla, swear that I will not reduce, change, or permit anything new in anything that I’ve found of my God-pleasing predecessors. Conserve reverently with glowing devotion as their faithful pupil and successor with all of my power and effort, a handed down deposit. To cleanse everything that might arise in contradiction of canonical order, to safeguard the holy canons and laws of our popes as divine instructions from Heaven since I am conscious that I will have to give strictest justification about everything that I confess. Confess back then meant say. Everything that I confess at the Divine Judgment and to you whose place I possess through Divine Grace and whose vicariate I occupied with your support. Should I undertake to act in anything in another sense, or should I permit that this is done, then you will not show your mercy to me on that terrible day of the Divine Judgment.‟ A ring-a-ding-ding. (laughs) (laughs) And later on in the letter that he usually sent to the emperors, he says, as pope now, „Therefore, we submit also to the exclusion under the strictest ban whomsoever might dare, whether it is us or anyone else, whether it is us or anyone else, to undertake anything new or a contradiction to this such like evangelical tradition and the purity of the orthodox faith, and the Christian religion, or who should attempt through his adversarial efforts to change anything or to hide anything from the purity of the faith or to agree with whomsoever should undertake such a blasphemous audacity.‟ That is what the Church believes about the pope.

Now, you can see from this Oath of Incoronation that we have two things that are quite confusing today suddenly explained. First of all, obviously the papal infallibility is very restricted because when we go through history, think of Nicholas I with baptism, think of Gregory VII with his heretical statement about popes becoming saints at the moment of election, which is also patently absurd. When we see these things, we realize the papal infallibility is very limited on one hand. On the other, even the most heretical popes, even the worst scoundrels of popes are still counted as popes in the Annuario Pontificio. So, it is extremely difficult, to say the least, to prove that any one of the recent popes wasn’t pope. It’s extremely difficult, at least. And the same people who elevate canon law to an almost dogmatical state, which is nonsense. Law can never be dogma. The same people who elevate canon law to a dogmatical state forget the Latin term, onus probandi, the burden of proof. If we look at John Paul II with his sometimes very questionable actions like kissing the Quran, it is still our burden of proof to say he is not pope. Well, allow me a personal opinion here, short and succinct. You know what I believe? If we have enough time left for a real Church history about the 20th and 21st century, the Church will name John Paul II as one of the many popes, and some future council will condemn. That’s what I personally believe. If you don’t agree, I’ll forgive you. (laughs) (laughs)

Now, in short and to the point because it’s late, the limits of papal power systematically. There’s the natural law. Can the pope turn black into white? No. According to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, yes. Saint Ignatius of Loyola, I quote him literally, „What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical church so determines it.‟ That’s against natural law. If the pope says the Earth is flat, I will tell him, „No,‟ and he’s not gonna make me say the Earth is flat. And if the pope says that a tree grows upside down, I will say, „Not usually.‟ And if the pope tells me black is white, I will say, „Sorry, Pontiff, that’s not true.‟ Saint Robert Bellarmine, I will save his reputation by giving more quotations, don’t worry. Saint Robert Bellarmine at one point when he must have been drunk or something like that, he says, „If the pope errs by commanding vices or forbidding virtues, the Church must believe that vices are good and virtues bad, unless it wishes to sin against conscience.‟ Too-loo. (laughs) Welcome to the nut house. Well, fortunately, Saint Bellarmine, thank God, in his treatise, De Romano Pontifice, he says, „The pope can’t fall into heresy, first. Second, unjust laws of the pope do not bind in conscience. The pope is neither the temporal ruler of the world… He’s neither the temporal ruler of the world nor the Christian world.‟ See? He’s not even the temporal ruler of the Christian world contrary to what Boniface VIII said. And he has the supreme temporal power only indirectly by commandments.

Then there’s the limit of divine law. The pope cannot change the sacraments. Pope Innocent III said, „If a future pope was to change the rites of the sacraments, he would put himself outside the church.‟ That’s a papal groundsman, Innocent III. And Innocent III was good pope. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Eugene III, De Consideratione, fourth book, 23, „Remember above all things that the Holy Roman Church, over which God has established you as head, is the mother, and not the mistress of other churches, and that you are not the lord of bishops, but one of their number.‟ Now Saint Bernard was not a heretic. He meant it. The pope is one of the bishops, except he has the last word. The primacy of the pope is not that the pope is bishop of Baltimore, bishop of Washington, bishop of Chicago. The primacy of the pope is he has the last word. The bishops rule their dioceses and every five years report to the pope afterwards. When Pius IX in 1870 defined the papal infallibility, the chancellor of Germany, Bismarck was furious. So, the German bishops had to explain what Pius IX didn’t explain. The German bishops wrote to Bismarck and said, „Don’t worry. If the archbishop of Cologne dies, the pope does not become archbishop of Cologne. The pope is not the archbishop, is not the bishop of Berlin. The pope is not the archbishop of Munchen-Freising.‟ And the German bishops explained that limit to the papacy. Thank God, Blessed Pius IX signed it, so it is papal teaching now. But it’s sad enough that the German bishops had to explain what Pius IX failed to explain.

Then, of course, there’s the limit to the papal power through ecclesiastical law. And I quote one of the most common moral theological books, Prima O.P., „Remember above all things that the Holy Roman Church over…‟ I’m sorry. Beg your pardon. Wrong paragraph. Moral theology teaches that the legislator is subject to his own laws, if not by coercive power, force from outside, at least in the manner of a directive. Precepts that are unjust, null, harmful do not require obedience except for the sake of avoiding scandal. If it’s a non-important thing, then you will cause scandal not keeping it. Like, if I as a diabetic do not have to keep Friday, but I’m certainly not going to eat a steak publicly here on Friday, right? ‚Cause you wouldn’t understand. Or anybody here who is over 60 doesn’t have to keep it, but it doesn’t behoove a man to sit here in front of all Catholics and eat a steak on Friday just because he has the right to do it. And if a Spaniard is here, he will have to abstain from meat here too, even though in Spain, he doesn’t have to.

Then there’s the dogmatic limit to the papal power, revelation, obvious, the deposit of faith is obvious. He cannot define what is no way related to revelation. The pope cannot issue a dogmatic definition that John Deere are the best tractors. Nothing runs like a Deere. (laughs) The pope cannot define that. It has nothing to do with revelation. He has to stick most faithfully to tradition. He cannot introduce any novelty. And he has to follow the previous doctrinal decisions of his predecessors. Gregory says, „We believe, we hold the first four councils on the level of the gospel.‟

And then, of course, there are practical limits to papal power, politics, disease, blackmail. A pope can be blackmailed into do something, sure. Stupidity. If the pope is one of those cases, born dumb, learned nothing, forgot everything, and still elected pope, his limited intelligence will put a limit on his papal office. It’s very obvious. We have seen the many cases where vices kept the pope from doing his duty. Think of Clement VII. What was Clement VII’s vice? He didn’t even have women and children and stuff like that. All he did was, no, he was so busy with the money for his family that he couldn’t really watch a certain Dr. Martin Luther in the north of Germany, and lost one-third of Christianity. So, on those limits of the papal power, you can easily see, and I’ve given you a skeleton of what has to be said about it, because otherwise, we’d be sitting here until 3:00 in the morning. I’ve given you a skeleton. Make sure you get your tapes from him and him. Make sure you get your tapes so you can study it again and think further, because I just mention and do it again, politics, disease, blackmail, stupidity, and vices, that what came to my mind as the practical limits to papal authority. And that’s something to be considered very seriously. Does that mean you have the right to condemn a stupid pope? No. Especially not if he’s stupid, because if he’s stupid, it’s not his fault. (laughs) God distributes intelligence. We get a chance to train our intelligence, and many people omit that chance. But it’s God’s to give us intelligence or not. Some saints, some of the greatest saints were most definitely stupid. The Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, the parish priest, the curé d’Ars. He was very stupid. He had incredibly incredible difficulties in his theological studies. He just couldn’t put things together, and he was working hard, very hard. He wrote hours on a sermon. I just walk up to pulpit, say, „In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti,‟ and start to speak. That’s a gift from God. If I praise myself for it, I am stupid. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge the fact that Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, on this point, was stupid. So, he had the gift of introspection. He will tell you in the confessional, „Your last confession was not 15 years ago, it was 23 years ago, and you didn’t come back to church because of this and that and that and that. And by the way, you forgot to mention the following three mortal sins.‟ Du-du, du-du, du-du. (laughs) So, that stupid man has been given the gift of introspection. He was the most famous confessor in contemporary France, and he is a saint, which I will never be. I will never be a canonized saint. I’m happy if I’m the last one to sneak in. So, don’t condemn popes just because they were stupid. Don’t condemn anybody as a matter of fact. Judge you not, that you not be judged. This whole lecture was about historical facts, and it was to clear up the confusion about present and future popes. You must understand that those poor sisters who probably meant very well, who in the 1930s, ’40s, ‚50s, and ’60s taught you obedience, obedience, obedience, and the pope is infallible anyway, obedience, obedience, that they were thoroughly wrong. Obedience is a great virtue, but a virtue is not just what the name says. Not every form of obedience is a virtue. In that case, all the concentration camp guards would’ve been very virtuous because they did obey. Obedience is not a virtue as such. Obedience is a virtue in the light of the Catholic faith, and especially, please, not just the faith. All I get to hear for the last 500 years is (laughs) „Do you believe it, yes or no? Are you faithful, yes or no?‟ We should start to ask, „Are you charitable too?‟ What’s the only reason why we study God? Because we are curious and He is complicated? No, God is absolutely simple. Why do we study theology? Why do we have to study the catechism? Just to know things? That’s not worth anything. It is whom we love we want to know about, right? Isn’t that the most natural thing that when a man falls in love with a girl, he wants to know everything about her? Naturally. And this is the lesson from this horrible parts of papal history, which doesn’t mean there were not many saintly popes. There were many saintly popes. But the lesson we have to learn is the pope is neither infallible nor is he protected from sin. And most of the times, his foremost sin is not to be a father but a boss. In these cases that I mentioned, most of the times it’s, he was a boss, not a father. See, this is what you have to remember. When somebody calls me father (laughs) it is a lot more difficult for me to swallow that compliment of being called a father than when somebody says to me, „Oh, your lecture was wonderful and I enjoyed it so much.‟ So what? Yes, okay. Did I give myself that gift? No. The question is, am I a father? That’s what we have to learn. Charity. That also means if we meet people who do not agree with us, we’ll still love ‚em. I mean, everyone here would be proud to convert somebody from a heresy into the Catholic Church, right? But I tell you one thing, at the conclusion of this list of papal crimes, you cannot convert anybody before you love him. Thank you. (applause)

Answer: Sure. Okay. Shoot. Anyone? No questions? Father?

Question: How about emerging things that have no precedent in history regarding or-

Answer: How about emerging things that have no precedent in history? Everything has a precedent in history, you just gotta look for it. (laughs) Okay. Nothing new under the sun. Another question? (laughs) Come on, don’t be shy. I know you all have questions.

Question: I have a question, but I have to remember what it is first. (laughs) Okay. You mentioned Pius XII and Mediator Dei.

Answer: I mentioned Pius XII and Mediator Dei, yes.

Question: You made a comment about it, and I didn’t understand it when you said he turned something around. Could you explain that?

Answer: The oldest principle of liturgy, the fact that it is the law of the liturgy that has to determine the law of the faith. Okay. And not the other way around. The other way around would open the door to liturgical reforms, you see? That’s what he did? That’s what he did. Yes. I have never been shy enough not to say that the Novus Ordo did not start under Paul VI, it started under Pius XII, and that’s a fact I can prove to the last letter. Anybody says I’m not right, I will gladly show him the difference between the missal of 1950, of 1960, and of 1970.

Question: Father, out of all the documents presented in Vatican II, which ones, I hear various sources, which ones are binding on the faithful and which ones are not?

Answer: Which documents of Vatican II are binding on the faithful and which ones are not? None. Vatican II was not a council in the first place. I think my friend, John Vennari here has a tape on that point. And I have proved scientifically thoroughly that Vatican II was not an ecumenical council. I cannot do that right now, it’s past 10:00. I’ll give you the simplicity proof, which usually is the best because it’s the closest to God’s simplicity. An ecumenical council is guaranteed the Holy Spirit and infallibility. In Vatican II, there are most definitely errors and contradictions. Bingo.

Question: People today say that the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.

Answer: The Catholic Church has never been against the death penalty. Some people in the Catholic Church are against the death penalty, I’m not going to condemn them for it if they hold this erroneous opinion. Let them hold it, Pius XII made absolutely sure that that is something to be reserved, however, to very grave cases. But Pius XII confirmed the church doctrine that the church will not be against capital punishment. And it’s nonsense anyway. Gilbert Keith Chesterton said very rightly, „If you do not punish heresy with death, what else?‟ (laughs) Fear not the ones who can hurt your body, but the ones who can hurt your soul. So, as far as I’m concerned, the idea of shooting heretics is an excellent one, but the problem is that through the lack of charity and through the lack of human precision, usually it hits the innocent. Yes? But heretics are the most dangerous people because they detract us from the faith, and sometimes very slyly so. They make us believe, „Oh, wow. Hey, great insight.‟ But, you know, there’s a problem, and I tell… This is one thing I not only tell you as the laypeople, I tell this to my fellow priests. I fear nothing more than people who have learned a few tidbits of theology. (laughs) I fear nothing more. With a few tidbits of theology, you can unhook the entire system of Catholic teaching. And I fear the people who, with zero charity when reading theology do not say, „Ah,‟ but, „Aha! Aha! That will settle Father so-and-so. Aha! That will settle Mister so-and-so. Aha! Now I know why Father so-and-so is wrong.‟ There is the „ah‟ theologian, I’m grateful to God I’m an „ah‟ theologian. I’m always amazed about the beauty of theology when it’s really well done. And then there’s the „aha‟ theologian. (laughs) The only reason why he studies theology is in order to bash somebody. He doesn’t study theology because he loves God and wants to know the truth, he studies theology in order to torpedo John Paul II, or torpedo Father X, or torpedo whomever comes to his mind. The purpose of theology is to enlighten us in our love and to bring us closer to God, not to destroy other people. No questions?

Question: By the way, the situation with Father Wiccans?

Answer: The situation with Father Wiccans? I know nothing about it. I shall not comment (laughs) on things I don’t know. All right. But I miss dear Father Wiccans. He was a good friend of mine, and I know that good old Paul up there now is much more powerful in helping me than he did when he was alive.

Question: Um, what would be the relation between papal infallibility and, like the infallibility of the ordinary, or extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary magisterium?

Answer: Very good question, thank you. There is two infallible judgments. Well, actually three. If the pope, in virtue of his apostolic authority teaches something to be held by all faithful all the time, he has the assistance of the Holy Spirit. That is the papal infallible magisterium. It is ordinary to the pope, he enjoys it in virtue of his office. The extraordinary magisterium is exclusively in an ecumenical council. Another reason why Vatican II was not a council, because everything in Vatican II is declared as ordinary judgment by the council. (laughs) They track themselves. And the third way is the bishops in union with the pope in their dioceses however. The bishops do not enjoy magisterium, ordinary magisterium when they are outside their diocese. They only enjoy ordinary magisterium inside the diocese, and that’s infallible only if in union with the pope and the other bishops. Vatican I defined as a dogma that if all bishops together hold something as divinely revealed, it is infallible. Sometimes true that that’s, that was the case in the decree on religious liberty, and that’s why Paul VI ceased to be pope. But that’s nonsense because the decree on religious liberty is null and void anyway like any other document of Vatican II, it’s just null and void. Vatican II was called in the wrong intention, the wrong matter, and the wrong form.

Question: Do you believe that a state of necessity exists today that would allow Catholics to disobey their bishop?

Answer: We don’t need a situation of necessity for that. All that’s needed is to see there’s hardly a Catholic bishop around, so we can’t follow him anyway. Pius IX said something very interesting on that. When Bishop Gasser of Brixen, he objected to the definition of infallibility in 1869 and he wrote to Pius IX and said, „Well, what about if a future pope was to preach heresy or to teach heresy?‟ Pius IX just wrote back in a letter, which is collected in the Mansi collection, volume 55-something else, he says, „Well, you just don’t listen to him.‟ So we listen to Pius IX when he tells us, „You just don’t listen to a pope who teaches heresy.‟ It’s as simple as that. St. Thomas Aquinas says we cannot obey orders that come from, that are not legitimate in themselves. Can George Bush tell all officers in the United States Army to shoot their wives? They might be as happy as a lark about that one (laughs) but they cannot do it and he cannot command it. It’s a null and void order. Oh, and excuse me, state of necessity? Nah. We have canon 144 in the Code of Canon Law, which says, „In error of fact or law, or in positive doubt about fact or law, the church substitutes all internal and external jurisdiction.‟ (laughs) I enjoy all jurisdiction I have in virtue of canon 144. (laughs) I don’t need any emergency.

Question: Saying in light of everything you’ve talked about and, you know, talked about with other friends, is, is the confusion that exists when you talk about the different errors, how in today, the confusion there is, where… how do you make your judgments from day to day? How do you figure out how to lead a good Catholic life when especially us younger ones have-

Answer: Well, how do I make my judgment from day of day to day of what is the truth and what is not? How do I lead a Catholic life? Well, I buy old books. (laughs) (laughs) I read the old catechism and I live an old-fashioned life. That’s all I can recommend from this point. Keep the Ten Commandments. They haven’t changed. On the baptism of desire, which has been constant teaching of the church, although it has not been defined. There’s still a lot of controversy over that. I don’t want to shock people about something that doesn’t really affect our lives and souls. Next question.

Question: Father, what is the status of the Pious Ten Society? What is the status of the Pious Ten Society in your opinion?

Answer: The official status of the Society of Saint Pius X, it is a legitimately established religious group in the Catholic Church that has been illegitimately dissolved by Pope Paul VI with no due canonical process. Therefore, they are in official good standing with the church, whatever other problems may be. The legal status of the Society of Saint Pius X is just the same as in any other religious group.

Question: Would you comment, Father, on the new mass in the light of Quo Primum?

Answer: God permitted it to happen. That does not mean they are God’s chosen people, but neither is the Pope, not necessarily. You think God wanted Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, and Leo X? No.

Question: But isn’t, isn’t the Holy Spirit promised to the cardinals when they elect a pope?

Answer: Yes, of course. Of course. But gratia praesupponit naturam. Grace presupposes nature. If a cardinal prostrates in the chapel and says, „Please let me know whom to elect,‟ God will let him know, but usually they don’t want to know. (laughs) That’s right. You see, it’s one of the greatest errors and it pervades traditional wisdom today more than you would ever imagine to say that nature needs grace. Grace needs nature. You cannot confirm the religion, neither can you ordain him. And the Jansenists, in their inhumane system would appoint people to positions that did not correspond to their natural talents. That is not only uncharitable, it’s most unwise. Nature has to be there in order to be strengthened by grace and sanctified by grace. But if nature is not there, grace won’t do anything. If somebody by nature is a totally uncharitable person, he might confess and go to communion, but he’s not gonna become charitable over that.

Question: Did you say the will is subservient to the heart?

Answer: No, I didn’t say the will is subservient to the heart. I said the heart is greater than the will and the intellect. The will is the faculty of the human soul that tends towards the good. Voluntas tendens ad bonum. And the intellect is the faculty of the soul that tends towards the verum, the truth. Intellectus tendens ad verum. Certain qualities, the most… there is… the most certain qua-