Thank you.

All right. Like at a press conference here. Okay. Start with a short prayer. (Latin) Amen. (Latin)

Now, the objective premise I wanna review with you is the nature of the church. And that’s not too much for you here, but for other people who will be looking at the tape. And first of all, the Catholic Church was established or defined by Christ, not by modern popes, all right? Not by modern bishops, nor even now by mutually proclaimed experts and authorities. Not even they define the church. Jesus Christ defined it, not them, not any of that group.

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.

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.

Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro unfortunately had spiritual children. Spiritual, I don’t know if he had natural children, I’m not interested, but he had spiritual children. And when Saint Pius X died, one of his own protege, his own spiritual son became pope, and that’s Benedict XV, but we’ll come back to that. In 1903 when Leo XIII died, Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro almost became pope. And here’s the reason people like footnotes and sources. Here’s the reason why I know that Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro was in fact a Mason and not just, and this is not just a rumor, because the Empress of Austria, the last Empress of Austria, Zita, was a very good friend of my uncle, Monsignor Hesse, in Vienna. And she told him personally before she died that Francis Joseph, the before last emperor of Austria who reigned between 1848 until 1916, knew that Mariano Rampolla was a Mason. And so he pronounced the century old veto against Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro by the time he had had two thirds of the votes. And this is how Saint Pius X got elected. This is something that I cannot scientifically prove. You will just have to believe me. My uncle told me that the Empress Zita had told him that. As far as I know, my uncle never lied to me. And as far as I know, the Empress Zita was a very honest person. And this is, of course, family tradition in the Habsburgs. This is not something that would be given to the newspapers, but the empress, of course, having been the wife of the grand nephew of the old emperor, Francis Joseph, knew about these things. And so in 1903, we almost had a Masonic pope. In 1914, we got a pope who was not exactly, could not exactly be called a Masonic pope, but he was not all too unfriendly towards them. Fortunately, there’s good things coming out of everything. The First World War kept the pope busy enough to stay out of church politics.

And in 1922, Pius XI got elected. Now, whatever I say here, I do not believe that Pius XI was in any way bad personally, but again, naive and too trusting, he appointed a certain Cardinal Gasparri, who had been the secretary of state under Benedict XV, to be his secretary of state. And Cardinal Gasparri was a sort of spiritual grandchild to Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro. So we get the same tradition going.

And there’s something much worse about it. Pius XII, who for many so-called conservatives and so-called traditionalists is the most holy of all popes ever, something like this, and the last beautiful, glorious Catholic pope, in fact was not exactly what some people believe he was. Eugenio Pacelli was not only never in a seminary except for two years, he had homeschooling, but not the way it is now. This was the other way around in the last century. Pacelli went to high school. After the so-called Risorgimento, the separation of church and state in Italy, he went to a high school that is called the Liceo Visconti. And it was the most secular and anti-clerical of all high schools in Rome, Liceo Visconti. And in the Liceo Visconti, Pacelli was raised. After that, he was taught privately by university professors. And just for the sake of canon law, he went to a seminary for two years. Guess what seminary? He spent the two years of his seminary as a seminarian in the Collegio Capranica, of all places. Now, the Capranica in Rome was and still is the center of modernism. All the famous modernists that were condemned by Pius XI lived in the Capranica or worked for the Capranica or had some connections to the Capranica. Now, I’m not saying that Pius XII was a modernist. In not a single one of his documents you will find something wrong. I mean, you can always interpret things in a negative way and find faults even with the greatest Church Fathers’ writings. But not a single piece of Pius XII’s writings could be called anything but Catholic.

The problem with Pius XII is what he did. And here is what he did. I do not have to tell the people present, not yet, not today, that you cannot touch liturgy. Father Trinchard, in his book, makes that evidently clear, and he’s absolutely right about it. No pope and no other person, therefore, has the right to touch liturgy, to change liturgy, or to create anything new in the liturgy. Pius XII did. In 1949, he discovered a certain teacher at the Lateran University in Rome called Annibale Bugnini. Does that ring a bell, that name? It was Pius XII who discovered Bugnini. It was Pius XII who funded Bugnini. It was Pius XII who gave Bugnini the power to change things. Before I forget to say that, John XXIII, the moment he was pope, threw Bugnini out. Needless to say, Paul VI had him back immediately. But Pius XII asked Bugnini to reform Holy Week. Now, there are two parts of the Roman missal, the Ordo Missae, the unchangeable part, and the Propers. Now, the most important part of the Propers is Holy Week, needless to say. And he wanted Holy Week to be changed. I have to remind you of the fact that the ceremony on Good Friday, the Mass of the Presanctified is the oldest part of the entire Latin Roman liturgy. The Mass of the Presanctified most probably goes back to the times of the apostles. I mean, as is. Until Pius XII. Uh, there’s no time tonight, unfortunately, to explain the changes. I would like to give a three-hour conference on that, and it would be worth it. But you just look it up. You try to find a missal that was printed before 1949 and one that was printed after 1955, and you compare the changes. And you will be surprised.

There’s one change only that I’m going to point out. In the old liturgical rules, there’s a reason why you will never see a black curtain on the tabernacle. Even in a Requiem Mass, the curtain on the tabernacle has to be violet as reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Now, with that in mind, as an excuse, Bugnini, in 1949 and 1950, changed the Good Friday liturgy around. And instead of wearing a black chasuble all through mass, except the Adoration of the Cross, the priest now wears a black cope until the Communion rite, and then he wears a violet chasuble at the Communion rite. Now, the excuse for this change, which was unheard of in the Catholic Church, the excuse for this change was reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. But at the same time they abolished the incense. In the old days, before 1949, the Blessed Sacrament, first of all, no Communion to the people. And I refuse it on Good Friday. The Blessed Sacrament was kept on a side altar that was beautifully decorated. And then, after the Adoration of the Cross and the Improperia, the priest would, in a solemn procession, pick up the Blessed Sacrament, carry it over to the altar. And all the way, it would be incensed. It would be incensed at the special side altar. It would be incensed with the thurifer walking backwards. And two of them, as a matter of fact, on the way to the altar. And then he would be incensed on the altar. And after elevating the paten with the host, which is not to indicate consecration, but just to show our Lord to the people, the priest would not just genuflect, but make a reverence down to earth, which is exactly how the consecration was done in the early days, before they had to stop insisting on it because old priests and old bishops were not able to perform that anymore. And this is one of the most fundamental changes, in reality, because it’s the first time that any pope ever dared to attack or to touch the oldest part of the entire liturgy. Now, in the Eastern Churches, you still have Presanctified Masses on the ember days, but in the Catholic church, the mass of the presanctified Good Friday is the last one left, was the last one left, because now of course we forget it.

So this is just to show you what Pius XII did. Don’t ever think that Pius XII was the last conservative pope. He was anything but conservative. He was Catholic. He had the faith. He proved this in writing. He gave it to us in writing, so to say. But in his actions, he was the first pope of the new church. And don’t forget, König, Alfrink, Döpfner, Suenens, Liénart, and all these people were appointments by Pius XII. He chose them. And don’t tell me, „Yes, but he didn’t make them cardinals.‟ That’s not true. He didn’t make them cardinals because he didn’t want to make them cardinals, but because after 1953, he did not appoint a single cardinal anymore. And don’t tell me that he wanted to get rid of Montini by making him archbishop of Milan. Please don’t. Because Pius XII was not an imbecile. Pius XII knew that the Archdiocese of Milan had given to the church the pope who made him Secretary of State, Pius XI. Pius XI was archbishop of Milan. So if you want to get rid of a monsignor, you do not make him cardinal, right? And the only reason why Montini was not a cardinal in 1958 is because nobody got appointed anymore after 1953.

So we have to notice sadly that the influence… Now, parenthesis, I am firmly convinced that Pius XII did not realize what he was doing. But this is not the point of the conference here. We are not sitting in judgment of poor Eugenio Pacelli. We are discussing historical facts and nothing else. And as a historical fact, Pius XII was not a conservative pope, he was not a traditional pope, he was just barely Catholic in his writings. What he did to liturgy is far underestimated. In 1958, when Pius XII died, the only part of the Roman liturgy that was intact and well-preserved all over the world was the canon. Nothing else. In 1949, Pius XII gave permission to the Chinese to say mass in the vernacular, except for the canon. In 1958, just a few months before he died, just about in time, he gave permission to the German bishops and the Austrian bishops and the German-speaking bishops in Switzerland to say the reading and the gospel in German right up there on the altar. That means for the first time, the priest dressed as a priest with his maniple and chasuble on was speaking the vernacular, and not only the vernacular, but on the altar of Christ, he was reading a lousy translation instead of the Word of God. So this is what Pius XII did, and many other little details for which we do not have time.

And well, there’s very little to say about John XXIII. We know he was a communist because in 1955, I think it was, or ’54, when he became patriarch of Venice, he helped the communist unions in Venice. This was at the time when Pius XII had put the membership of the communist party under ex-communication. And this was the time the three most important factors of destruction in the church grew. That was during the 19 infelicitous years of Pius XII. The three most important were the new popes, the new liturgy, and the Opus Dei. The Opus Dei, which is the heart and the brain of the conciliar church in reality. The so-called, and that will have to be taken back in the future, Blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer admitted members of the communist party… And mind you, I read this in books published by the Opus Dei or endorsed by the Opus Dei. I do not make the mistake of quoting other people against the Opus Dei. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder and the first prelate of the Opus Dei, admitted members of the Communist Party into the Opus Dei without asking them to leave the Communist Party in a time when membership in the Communist Party was under excommunication. So far about Blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. And John XXIII did exactly the same in Venice when he was Patriarch, Archbishop of Venice.

And I guess as far as historical things are concerned, that’s where we can stop because everybody present and everybody who will see this tape will know what to think about Paul VI, I hope. I should say something about the past of Paul VI. In the 1930s, a certain book called L’Humanisme Intégral, Integral Humanism, by a certain Jacques Maritain, which is a book that postulates the impossible and the blasphemous, because it postulates the reconciliation of humanism and Christendom. This book was translated by a certain Giovanni Battista Montini into Italian and got an absolutely spectacular preface. The translator loved the book, and that was a spectacular happening in those days, in a time when Pius XI had had people thrown out for things like this. I don’t know why Montini survived Pius XI, but I guess it was because a certain Gasparri, whom I mentioned before, was the Secretary of State. Giovanni Battista Montini was certainly the person who found and discovered Bugnini under Pius XII. However, this does not change what I said before, because Pius XII celebrated those changes himself. He approved of them, he agreed with them, he had them published, he made them mandatory, and he changed them, and he used them. The same Pius XII had, I’m sure this was Cardinal Bea who discovered the Jesuits who would translate the Psalms of the Breviary. That means the 150 Psalms of David, which would have meant the end of Gregorian Chant. You cannot use those psalms for singing. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about.

And the present situation is even worse than what Father Trinchard says in his book. The present situation is even worse. Not only you will find, as Father Trinchard points out very well, in this country, you will hardly find a priest left who believes in the real presence. You will hardly find a priest left who believes in the transubstantiation. On the contrary, you will find that only a priest who denies the real presence, at least privately, will become bishop. You will find that despite all of his nice little talks, this pope hates the old mass. In 1988, in a decree that I can only call double fraud, theological and canonical fraud, the present pope claimed that he wished the bishops to be more tolerant with the old mass. A year later, in a speech, he said, Valde dolendum est. „It is very hurtful to me that there are still some people left who cling to these forms of worship.‟ So for the present pope, the traditional Latin Mass, the only mass of the Latin rite, the forever canonized mass is just another form of worship. And this is so bad that today, it is impossible to be promoted in church government in Rome without saying the new mass, without defending Vatican II, and without denying dogma. That means it is a fully and completely heretical church, and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the Society of Saint Pius X very, very rightly said, „It is a Gnostic sect.‟ Gnosticism is something which we know to be, deep down a satanic rite and a satanic belief and the satanic religion. And the counterfeit church, the conciliar church is a Gnostic sect.

And this goes to the point that, I do not refer to the very untrustworthy book of Malachi Martin, Windswept House. I refer to information from inside the Vatican. I don’t know about any satanic consecration ever done in a chapel in the Vatican. I know that there are active Satanists in the Vatican. I know that one of the secretaries of the present pope was threatened with his life, finding graffiti in his own apartment, which is a very secure apartment inside the Vatican. He found satanic graffiti painted with blood. And they tried to murder another secretary of the pope because this present pope is not good enough for them, believe it or not.

When you want to realize in what a state the church is, then first you have to see in what a state this pope is. I believe that this present pope has never had the Catholic faith. His documents prove that to me because in his documents, I quote, Catechesi Tradendae number 32, he is quoting Dignitatis Humanae number three, the pope speaks plain heresy. I do not say that makes him cease to be pope. I do not say that. It’s material heresy. He just writes it. He doesn’t say, „I want to say something different from the Council of Trent.‟ He does not say, „The Council of Trent said, but I say.‟ He just says, „I’m perfectly within tradition when I say that a Protestant can be saved through the efforts of the Protestant churches.‟ So that’s material heresy. Material heresy doesn’t necessarily make him cease to be pope, and a future pope will have to decide that question anyway, so we cannot endorse and help the sedevacantists. But when you realize in what a situation we find the church with this pope, and when I tell you that this pope is by far not good enough for them, not heretical enough, not modernist enough, then you know what the church looks like. And I’m talking about not just a minority clique in the Vatican, but I’m talking about the majority of the bishops. I’m talking about the majority of the clergy to whom this pope is the symbol of conservatism. They just collected signatures a half a year ago, a year ago, they collected signatures in Austria against this pope because he’s too conservative. He’s not open enough, not accommodating enough, not ecumenical enough. And here you talk about the pope who worships nature with animists in a sanctuary at Lake Togo in Cameroon in 1986. In this regard, I recommend Daniel Leroux’s book, Peter, Dost Thou Love Me?

And the worst thing is, I do not see, humanly speaking, I’m not a prophet, I cannot argue with God’s providence and I cannot argue with miracles. But humanly speaking, I do not see the slightest chance of a next pope being elected who would be better. I got to know many cardinals in Rome. The few ones who are better than this pope do not stand the slightest chance as far as I’m concerned. And you wanted to hear what the situation in the church is, this is what it is. This pope is not good enough for them even though he speaks about the Second Pentecost, he speaks about the Church of the New Advent. And in his encyclicals, he hardly ever, if ever, mentions the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church. In his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, which is usually called the programmatic encyclical of a pope, he does not mention the words Roman Catholic or Catholic Church even once. Not once. But he speaks about the conscience of the church. You, living in this country, you just have to switch on TV and this will sound familiar. Conscience of the church. It’s all psychology. Psychology, not theology. And he speaks about the Church of the New Advent, which for this pope who three times in a row already claimed that he’s not a millenarian. However, the year 2000 seems to be the most important thing for him. And which is ridiculous. It shows that he’s a superstitious pagan deep in heart. Yes. He’s an ignorant of theology. He’s an ignorant of canon law. He proved that in Ecclesia Dei. And he seems to be a superstitious pagan because he talks all the time about the year 2000, about the new Pentecost, which is dogmatically impossible. And he talks about the Church of the New Advent. What new advent? And this pope is not good enough for them? Kyrie Eleison. Mm-hmm.

I ain’t going far ’cause I’m 82 years old.

Well, I can only give a 30-second sermon on that. Everybody present concerned and starting with me, we shouldn’t worry about the last judgment. We have to worry about the personal judgment the moment we die. Make sure you stay in the life of grace and don’t worry about when the last judgment is gonna come. I don’t like Catholic form of Rainbow Press or a Weekly World News or a National Enquirer.

Well, I agree with you there.

Yeah, no prophecies.

I’ll tell you what, James. Go ahead.

We heard recently about Rome being upset with the Society of Pius X because of their-

Naturally.

And they’re planning on a punishment. Do you have any insight what that might be?

No, but it makes me laugh. It’s good entertainment. Will they excommunicate us a second time? Uh, I am quite sure we will be terribly afraid of that.

Yeah, right.

Now, I have to say for the video, I’m not a member of the Society of Saint Pius X, but I work for them and I’m proud of it. Yes?

Could you enlarge on the role a little bit of Opus Dei that you mentioned?

Yes. Now, the Opus Dei is the intellectual nucleus of the Conciliar Church. It’s the brain of the Conciliar Church. Because the Opus Dei will openly admit that it was José María Escrivá de Balaguer who had the idea of Gaudium et Spes, the idea of a Church based on the laypeople, a Church growing from beneath. Which is, the Church… You have to understand, the Church is essentially ecclesiastical, priestly, hierarchical. The Church comes from Christ through the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, and the priests onto the faithful. It does not grow among the faithful. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, all of his life, preached that the Church grows on the basis of the faithful, on the laity. And in this regard, I recommend to everybody present that you must read, I demand, if you want to inform yourself and that’s the reason why you’re here or watching the tape, you must read the encyclical of Pius the 10th against modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. You must read it. And you must not just flip through it like a Clive Cussler novel. You have to study it. And you will find the paragraph where Saint Pius the 10th says, „We are facing a grave danger with the concept of the laity, the Church being based on the laity.‟ So the idea of a Church that was based on the laity was condemned by Pius the 10th. But José María Escrivá de Balaguer preached it, and who approved his institution? Pius the 12th again. And now his institution is the most powerful within the Catholic Church. They are the ones who serve the purpose of appeasing the conservatives by telling them, „Uh-oh, you have to keep the Sixth Commandment and the others too,‟ and they are the ones who will present, will have their priests in clergyman cassock, neatly dressed, celebrating the Novus Ordo in vernacular, in a decent and nice way. And they are the ones who will tell you that Vatican II can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. It’s the Opus Dei, the brain behind that childish and absurd idea that Vatican II could have a Catholic interpretation. There is no way to interpret Vatican II in a Catholic way. I mean, I’m not talking about every single line obviously. 90% of Vatican II are just warmed up doctrine. And the description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, which doesn’t help the fact that a few paragraphs later, the infallibility is kind of, you know, put under the table, swept under the table.

Are there any inaudible right time to overstay?

I don’t talk about what I don’t know enough about.

I read in Father Franz Schmidberger’s pamphlet on… where he talked about, um, you know, what led up to the Episcopal Consecrations in 1988. And in a strange way, he sort of did an aside and he compared the writings of Pope Pius the 10th from his encyclical on mixed marriages, and compared the exact same encyclical that Pope John Paul II wrote on mixed marriages, where Pope Pius the 10th says, in no uncertain terms, why it’s wrong for, say, a Catholic to marry a Protestant or a Catholic to marry any other non-Catholic. And then in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, he basically says it in black and white. He says that he encourages Catholics to marry non-Catholics if, for no other reason than to promote communion.

Yeah, of course. Yeah. That’s what Pope John Paul said. Yeah. Uh, Schmidberger is right, but that’s not the explanation for, that’s not the justification of the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988.

No, no, I just thought I have to show the difference between-

Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah, yeah. He’s right though. He’s right with that. I’ve never read anything wrong written by Father Franz Schmidberger. No, no. I’ve read practically everything he wrote and everything was excellent theology and down to the point. The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988 are very, very easily justified. The last canon of the new code of canon law says that the most important law of the Church is to save souls. So, with the new rite, which is against divine law, you cannot save souls. You cannot save souls with young people who want to become priests and have to accept a heretical council and an Ordo Missae that is at least leading towards heresy. Uh, you cannot have Catholic priests that way. And there’s no official seminary in the so-called Catholic Church that would ordain a young man who does not accept Vatican II and who does not accept the new rite. So for the Church to survive, we need bishops. Mm-hmm. Bishops to consecrate and create priests. And this is why those four bishops were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. This was an act of self-defense of the Church, perfectly justified by the law of necessity. And as a matter of fact, the moment… See, self-defense takes place, has to take place the moment you see. If you see a girl raped on the other sidewalk up the street, you can’t say, „I’m gonna help you in an hour from now.‟ You have to act right now and right here. And the moment Archbishop Lefebvre realized and had proof for the fact that Rome was going to trick him into submission, he acted. And he consecrated the bishops. Not because he wanted to, not because he enjoyed it, but because he had to. He was the only one who, except Castro Meyer, Archbishop Castro Meyer, they were the only two ones who understood the situation. They had to act. Can I go at anything? Yes?

Okay. Now how does that relate to Archbishop Thuc, uh, T-H-U-C? You know that-

I do not know enough about the case to talk about it.

Because we met some priests in Los Angeles, lay priests.

Yeah.

A brother, and him and his other brother, they both became priests, and they’re traditional priests and everything about them…

Yeah, I do not know enough about it to talk about it.

… except they take the stand of the sedevacantist stand, and uh-

Which is bad enough.

But according to Father Trinchard, they’ve softened their stand there, but they wrote an excellent book of documentation, and almost everything that you said about John XXIII and Vatican II and Paul VI was in that book. And it was all written-

Yeah, yeah. Well, I got some of my most important sources of information was a book printed in this country by some crazy sedevacantists. Uh, you just have to sieve through the information.

Right.

Just take what is worthwhile and what is not. Because these people usually are not theologians, and they are not able to do theological distinctions.

And before we end this today, I’m going to give you three theological distinctions which I will repeat in every single conference, because you can’t hear it often enough. I want you to be able to distinguish between six terms: act and potency, objective and subjective, formal and material. You don’t understand these distinctions, you better don’t talk theology. Because the greatest problem today is most priests are completely incapable of distinguishing objective, subjective, and formal, and material. And I will give you the explanation.

Act and potency is easy to understand. Anything that is in reality is an act. Anything that could be in reality is in potency. So I am a priest in act. I am a father in act, spiritually. I’m a father physically in potency. Hope never in act. I am a bishop in potency, I am a pope in potency, and I am a saint in potency, but I’m not a mother in potency. Potency means there is a potential, it could be, it can be. Act means it actually is. And the reason why you need this distinction is not for itself. Anybody can see that. Scholastic philosophy is common sense and nothing else. The reason why this distinction is very important is because you understand the heresies of today much better when you understand this. What would you say if I stood up now and said, „I am pope‟? You’d call the ambulance, right? Right? I hope so. Or you’d kick me out, or you’d give me another drink to make sure I become God, or something like this. But and yet I spoke the truth. I am the pope. Yes, in potency. And see, this is what they do in Vatican II. They tell you something in potency, but they do not say it is in potency. This pope says, „All men will be saved.‟ Potentially yeah, sure, sure, sure. In act, definitely not. Christ has died for all people in potency, but not in act. It won’t take place. Those who reject him, he did not die for in the end. In potentia et in actu. That you have to understand. And when you speak normal language, and believe me, according to the laws of canon law and according to the laws of theology and according to church tradition, when you pronounce something in church teaching, you have to use everyday, common, correct language, and not some fantastic newspeak or politically correct garbage. So when you say, „This and this is so and so,‟ you presume the reader will say, „In act, not in potency.‟ So you are not allowed to say that, „This is my child is given for all.‟ It’s only in potency given for all, not in act. But you do not say, „In potency or act‟ here. You do not say it, so you presume one of the two. And in everyday language, you presume in act. This is why you would presume that I am crazy if I told you I am pope. And yet it’s true, I am the pope. Not much probability to it, but when I think who became pope in 1978, I give myself a chance. Huh? So in potency, I am pope. In potency, he is pope in potency. Huh? Mm-hmm. Yeah. But if I was going to say, „Father Trinchard is pope,‟ you would say, „Oh yeah, sure, another one who cracked up.‟

Can I ask you? Remember we took the oath against modernism. Yes. But there was always this strange clause that stuck in my mind, that we accept things the way they’re written.

Yes, exactly.

And Vatican II had a part like that.

Yes. You accept it the way it is according to concept.

Yep. Exactly.

And so you have to figure out-

And that is, yeah, that is the rule of the interpretation of canon law codified again in the 1983 Code of Canon Law this pope signed. Huh? So this pope is bound to it. And when he says that all people are saved by Christ, he cannot presume that we will understand in potency. And I don’t care what he thinks. He said that they are all saved in act. Well, actually he doesn’t formulate it that directly, huh? This pope is too intelligent and too literary a man to pronounce a heresy of this kind too clearly. So I did not quote the Pope now, but I quoted the Pope when I said that the Protestants are saved through the efforts of their churches. For those who like quotations-

Is that heresy?

Yes. That’s heresy against the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Denzinger-Schönmetzer collection, 1351. And in Catechesi Tradendae number 32, the Pope says, (Latin). „For the efforts of whom…‟ And he, the line before it says, (Latin), „the Protestant churches, for the efforts of whom the Spirit of Christ does not deny to give salvation.‟ That’s explicit written heresy, and I don’t give a damn about what the Pope thinks. This is what he wrote. This is material heresy.

Think because it’s said 800 years past, it must be right?

No. Because it’s material heresy. Next distinction. Objective, subjective. We’ll talk about salvation.

So material heresy-

Wait a second. Third distinction. We are at the second distinction. Objective, subjective. When I said to a judge of the Supreme Court in Vienna… Now again, this is really something else. A judge of the Supreme Court in Vienna who doesn’t understand the distinction of objective, subjective, so you don’t have to be ashamed. He’s… When I quoted Pope Eugene IV, he said, „Are you trying to tell me that all and every single Protestant will go to hell?‟ And I said, „Your Honor, if you’re not able to distinguish subjective and objective, then you should not talk.‟ He was deeply offended, got up and left. And so I had all the peace and the time to explain to those who stayed, that the church is not able to say. We do not have the slightest idea what happens to a Protestant when he kicks the bucket. We don’t know. But objectively speaking, he has no chance to be saved. Pope Eugene IV said, „Whoever is not in union with the Roman Pontiff, may he even think of shedding his blood for Christ, he cannot be saved.‟ So when this pope speaks about Protestant martyrs in Czechoslovakia, he speaks heresy and blasphemy too.

Objective, subjective. And now material and formal. Material and formal should really be easily understood. Material means the matter, the material. Formal means the meaning. So let’s say I make a mistake in a sermon. I’m making a mistake in a sermon and pronounce something wrong. Uh, objectively, it’s material heresy. Subjectively, it is not. You’ve got two distinctions at once here. Subjectively, it’s not because I didn’t realize it even. I mean, I didn’t even notice that I left out a word or said yes instead of no. So subjectively, I do not commit the sin of heresy. Objectively, it’s a heresy because I’m saying something against the doctrine of the church. But this is still material heresy, because I do not say that I want to say something against the doctrine of the church. Formal heresy is when you want to say something against the doctrine of the church and when you say so, so it becomes formal. The only way to speak formal heresy is to tell everybody present, „The Council of Trent taught that Christ is really present on the altar, but I say he is not.‟ Now, that’s formal heresy. But if some idiot or warped mind like John Paul II… Say he is a warped mind, then I can prove it. Uh, when he says, „A Protestant can be saved through the efforts of the Protestant churches.‟ And at the same time, he claims to be in perfect union with the tradition of the church, then I would say he’s ignorant and may be a crackpot and definitely a material heretic. But this is not formal heresy. If he said, „I don’t care what Pope Eugene IV said, but I tell you that a Protestant can be saved.‟ Okay, we got him down. In that case, he most probably would cease to be pope, I say. Right? But this is not the case. So you have to remember those three distinctions. That’s the last thing I’m gonna say tonight. Material, formal, objective, subjective, and acts and potency.

Maybe you have to bring in juridical… In other words, would you say to the sedevacantist, „Who’s gonna make a decision in the external forum?‟ And then that’s obviously-

That’s right. Yeah. If this pope said, „I don’t care what Pope Eugene IV said, or the Council of Trent, I say something else,‟ then who will judge where the formal heresy starts? Who will judge the pope?

No one in Rome.

No. Canon 333, paragraph 3, (Latin). The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone. Huh?

So we’d just be-

So No. We’d be hanging in midair with a question mark. That’s all.

Until another pope-

Yeah. Well, then Pope John Paul II must have a very clear understanding of material and formal, because he-

No. I don’t think so, because first of all, his philosophy is extremely lousy. His theological upbringing is under the regular standard.

Well, then he knows-

And his understanding of canon law, his ignorance of canon law is proven in Ecclesia Dei where he speaks about schism about the Society of Saint Pius X, while Ratzinger says they are not in schism. And a recent thesis that had been approved by the Gregorian Papal University in Rome says they are not in schism. The pope in Ecclesia Dei says they are in schism. Three times over, he says it. So, and he doesn’t, obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of the canons that he signed.

Well, my point of it is though, he comes so close to formal heresy, but never quite nails it down to a bomb. So that’s important.

No. Actually, to be quite honest, there is no such thing as coming close to formal heresy.

We agree. There is no such-

Well, I mean, he’s coming to material heresy, then. I mean-

Yeah. He’s mindful of Pope John Paul I. He is the most heretical pope in history.

Yeah. Definitely.

But formal heresy means something pretty clear. And as this pope is never clear.

No. Yeah, ambiguously. I guess, I’m trying to decide does he know-

The only thing he’s clear about is his enjoyment of pagan religions.

… does he know he’s misdirecting the Church? Does he do it consciously, or is he just-

„Judge not, that ye not be judged.‟ He can’t judge. (Music playing) (Italian). I do not know what the pope thinks. I do not know what the pope wants. And even if I would know it, I’m not his judge. I cannot judge the person. I do not talk and refuse absolutely to talk about the person of Karol Wojtyła, his conscience and his soul.

But you can detect his actions?

Absolutely. I judge his acts. I judge his way of government, and I judge his pronouncement. Nothing else. I do not have the right to do it, to judge anything else. And I would not have, I do not have the right to speak against anything this pope said or wrote or pronounced, unless I can prove what I say. I cannot criticize the pope for having said that I cannot criticize the pope for Catechesi Tradendae number 32 unless I quote Eugene IV. I have to quote a predecessor. I cannot quote a theologian against the pope. The theologians I have do not have the Holy Spirit promised to them. On the contrary, they usually don’t have a spark of Holy Spirit in them. So this is the point. I am not allowed to contradict the pope unless I can prove to the contrary with a predecessor of his, because the pope by Church tradition, by the oath of incarnation, is bound to follow his predecessors, and he’s bound to do so by the fourth chapter of the dogma on infallibility, Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3074.

Why is it like even on sex education, he speaks out against it in Rome, but yet his cardinals let it happen?

Because something that does not have the Holy Spirit, do we expect it to be orderly? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Well, he should… He does- he must know what’s going on.

Uh- Or not?

Oh, he knows.

You gave us a good background of Pope Pius XII. Could you give us some of John Paul II’s education there?

Well, I can name a few facts because a lot of it is speculation. John Paul II did not have a proper theological education because, understandably so, because it was war and he had to hide. And then, of course, he went to the Angelicum in Rome. Now, I have six academic degrees from the Angelicum in Rome. I can tell you, they are not worth anything. And this pope has his doctorate in theology from the Angelicum in Rome, bona nostra. I did those degrees because stupid superficial people in this world want degrees. They want to see degrees. But rest assured, the theology that I learned through the patience of other priests and the mercy of God, I did not learn, I learned perhaps one-third of it, I learned at the Angelicum. Two-thirds of it, I did not learn at the Angelicum. I almost got brainwashed into the new Church by the Angelicum. So the Angelicum is a lousy institution right now, and it was never a very, very good university in the old days. And the pope’s thesis on St. John of the Cross is worth nothing. I haven’t read it, but I asked very, very good and experienced theologians who read it, and they said it’s worth nothing, but he got the highest mark. So, and another thing about this pope, he never was a Catholic. He did not change. It’s not the council that changed the pope, it’s the pope who wrote the council. The pope had the same ideas he has now long before the council. He wanted the freedom, I shouldn’t say freedom, and this is a country where freedom is sacred, and I agree. The liberty of religions, that’s what it should be called, ’cause freedom means you’re free to do your job. Liberty means you’re free to do whatever you want. Yeah, license, exactly. So the idea of libertas religionum, of liberty of religions is an idea that was very early in his life ingrained in the pope’s mind. Don’t forget he was part in a theater, in a theater group that was founded by Helena Blavatsky.

Oh. Ah, yeah. Yep.

Who is?

Uh, anthroposophist. That’s practically, as the name says, with Greek names, it’s very difficult to hide the truth because they’re so open and clear. Uh, Sophia means wisdom and Anthropos is man. So that should tell you enough. The Psalms say something quite contrary to the effect of wisdom of man. Okay.

Do you know anything about the lady he is pictured in the woods with on his many-

I am not a member of the Catholic National Enquirer. I’m not, I do not work for Weekly World News.

We can imagine that.

I do not, I do not work for Weekly World News, and I prefer Alexander VI, and I prefer Alexander VI who had children even when he was pope over Paul VI 100 times.

Yeah. I remember him.

Alexander VI was a rotten, filthy pig, but he did not raid the Church.

I have a question and a comment.

Go ahead.

I’d just like to get a reference from the rest people on the phone call. You made a comment. Well, it’s for both of you, but you made a comment about things being translated as written based on Vatican II or something like that?

Right.

And that reflects on something my brother and I noticed every time we read something from the old Catholic traditional writings or any of the popes, particularly if it compares, say, John XXIII or on to Vatican II and the current pope, in that almost every writing that we read you get, they get to the point within the first paragraph. And any average person like us can understand exactly what they mean, but when we read any of the new Catholic stuff, it’s so ambiguous you can’t read it without constantly going to the dictionary.

Yeah.

Constantly trying to make some sense of it.

And they happen to become your own theologian, because you don’t understand what they mean. That’s the bad side of it.

Yeah.

The good side of it is that the simple people will not bother reading it and will be less distracted from the Catholic faith.

Exactly. Yeah. If you understand it, then you’re better-

Yeah. It’s not going to-

But like, in, if you want to read language like this, I recommend a book, Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. But not these popes and popes encyclicals. The Politically Correct Bedtime Stories is a good book. These popes encyclicals are trash.

Now, the question is-

Very dangerous trash.

There was, there has been talk about Pope John XXIII when he was elected.

Yeah.

And they asked if he knew what he would call himself, he was already prepared-

National Enquirer again.

Well, yeah, but the fact that there was already a pope called John XXIII-

How would you know? How would you know? How would you know what his reasons are? Any pope, any cardinal who speaks about what happened in the conclave is excommunicated. Do you think that the cardinal who doesn’t care about being excommunicated or not would necessarily tell you the truth? When Cardinal Koenig of Vienna, the old Archbishop of Vienna, was asked on TV if he was a candidate at the last conclave, he nodded. Broke the vow of conclave once. A few minutes later, he was asked if he was one of those who promoted Karol Wojtyla. He nodded again. So within one minute, a prince of the Holy Roman Church, Cardinal Franz Cardinal Koenig, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Vienna, Austria was excommunicated twice. Do you think that a man like this, highly intelligent, is interested in telling you the truth? No. He will tell you whatever he thinks is useful. And I cannot be accused of slander if I say that, because I’m not saying he lied. I’m just saying, how would you trust a man who is not interested in the fact if he’s excommunicated or not? He broke the vow of silence. He broke the seal of the conclave. So anybody tells me, John XXIII said the following, „Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,‟ the moment he got elected, I will say, as a matter of fact, I will go to the next supermarket and get the National Enquirer, because at least it’s funnier. Huh? The Weekly World News is a lot more entertaining than those liars are. Okay. On that note, I think…

So one last question, off the record.

Yeah.

What is it that you would recommend that we look towards for leadership and guidance in these times where there’s the Church leadership is certainly very difficult to trust and-

Are the cameras still running?

I hope so. Yes.

Good. Subscribe to the Angelus, and if you find sometimes local problems with the Society of Saint Pius X, forgive them, they are humans. A century ago, not everything was beautiful in the Catholic Church. But the ones to look for spiritual guidance, the ones you can trust, the Society of Saint Pius X, and the only paper in this country that I would recommend to everybody under all circumstances is the Angelus. Amen to that. Amen.

Thank you. (clapping) Amen.