And there is one general remark that I have to make about the entire Vatican Council. First of all, I personally, I underline I personally do not believe, because I say personally, because there’s no papal pronouncement on it yet. I personally do not believe that Vatican II was an ecumenical council for the simple reason that Vatican II had no intention of defining dogma. I have to remind you that all of the ecumenical councils in history, without a single exception, had the intention of defining dogma. And all of them, with one exception, did. The Council of Lyon never defined dogma because they just never got around to do it, but they wanted to. Third, there was never an ecumenical council called in unless there was a crisis of faith. Like the Council of Trent was called in after the Lutheran reformers messed up the church in the northern countries. Vatican II was called in for no other reason but Pope John’s inspiration. So that’s no reason to call in an ecumenical council. Maybe I’m wrong with what I say in the sense that it is the Council Fathers and the Pope who formally declare something to be an ecumenical council. But in that case, it is certainly, at least, to say the least, a very exceptional ecumenical council. It is also exceptional in another regard. It is the first council ever to pronounce heresy. Vatican II, as a whole, is unacceptable to a Catholic. And after the talk, you will see why.

Now let’s have… We kind of… Time does not permit me to go through all the details of Vatican II, so I will point out the most important errors and heresies.

And here is a very important thing that you ought to know for all the rest of what I’m going to talk about. Pius VI, in 1799 condemned the Synod of Pistoia. Now that was a thing that took place in 1786. A few bishops in the area of Pistoia in Italy came together and demanded some changes in the attitude of Rome towards certain issues in the church. And they wanted exactly what Vatican II issued. They wanted the liberty of religion. They wanted a certain relaxing of the discipline and so on. Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia, condemned their pronouncements, and in his bull Auctorem Fidei, he says, „The purpose of a council is to clarify terms, not to come up with ambiguous terms.‟ Vatican II is ambiguous from the first to the last line. Vatican II is contradictory from the first to the last line. But I cannot go into the contradictions of Vatican II in this short talk, so I will point out the worst heresies.

Now you have to understand that as a Catholic, you’re not allowed to read books that contain heresy. Because in order to make a book licit as reading for a Catholic, it is not needed that the whole book is wrong. It is totally sufficient that part of the book is wrong. So, in the old days when you had a list of books that were prohibited to Catholics, which was called the Index, there were books on the Index that contained one wrong line. There was a very good translation of the Bible on the Index, the Van Ess translation of the Bible into German language, because it contained two or three little errors. For all the rest, it was a very good translation. But because of two or three little errors, the book went on the Index, didn’t get the imprimatur, that means the agreement of a bishop, and was prohibited as reading to Catholics. Now Vatican II should be the first book on the Index as far as this century is concerned, because now Lumen Gentium I. This is something you have to remember. Remember Lumen Gentium I, 8, 15, 16. It’s easy to remember. 1, 8, 15, 16.

Lumen Gentium I says, „The church, in a way, is the sacrament of salvation concerning all people in the world.‟ Now first of all, the church is not a sacrament. We have the seven sacraments. The Council of Trent defined that we have seven sacraments. That’s a definition, a dogmatic definition. And you cannot possibly make it plausible to me that Vatican II wanted to say, „Yes, but in a way containing all these seven sacraments, the church is a sacrament of salvation.‟ It is not a sacrament and a sign. It’s not. Because the church is a perfect society. The church has been defined as a perfect society and not a sign. A sacrament is a sign by definition. And it certainly doesn’t concern all people, because those who reject the church are not subject to the church. The church is not interested in them unless they convert. The church does not judge them. The church does not deal with them. They do not make part of the church. But Vatican II says something different.

In Lumen Gentium VIII, Vatican II says, „The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.‟ The word subsist doesn’t tell you much in English. It says a lot in Latin. Subsistere in Latin means something that is lying underneath. That means the grass is subsistent to my way of walking, but it could also be subsistent to Father Trincher’s way of walking, and not just to mine. So when you say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, that does not exclude the Protestant churches. Vatican II is too intelligent, they were too clever to say that the church contains the Protestant churches and the Orthodox churches and all these other churches. But they said maybe those are churches contained in the Catholic Church, because they said the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. For almost 2,000 years, the Catholic Church insisted that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, and it is defined dogma that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. It’s identical with the Catholic Church. Nothing outside the Catholic Church is part of the Church of Christ, and nothing of the Church of Christ is outside the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are identical, the Church that Christ founded. Christ founded the Catholic Church and no other church. Christ did not just found the Latin rite. We have other rites in the church, I mean, ways of celebrating, ways of worship, but we have only one Catholic church.

And I have to repeat this now for the third time, Pope Eugene IV in 1441 at the Council of Florence defined as dogma that nobody who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff can ever be saved. He said that those who are schismatics and heretics cannot be saved, even if they for some reason believe they were shedding their blood for Christ. Now when I say they cannot be saved, I mean, objectively speaking, they cannot be saved. There is no objective way that they could be saved. Subjectively speaking, as far as that person is concerned, we do not know if God will give them an extraordinary grace after death, if they have been honest during their lifetime here. But we do not know it. The church cannot speak about the dead. The church does not look into the hearts of people. It can’t. The church has to judge according to external circumstances, to manifested formalities, to formal manifestation of the faith. And the formal manifestation of the faith is if you’re a member of the Catholic Church and believe everything the church says, and if you’re subject to the Roman Pontiff. And only if you are in the Catholic Church, you have an objective chance of being saved. This is what the dogma means.

Now, I will come back to that later. In Lumen Gentium VIII, suddenly the Protestant churches make part of the Church of Christ. They do not make part of the Catholic Church, but they make part of the Church of Christ because the document says, „The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.‟ And this comes to the point that Cardinal Ratzinger, abusing Saint Thomas Aquinas in his quotation, being asked what that means, the Church of Christ subsists. Why doesn’t the council say that Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? Cardinal Ratzinger said, „Oh, but the word subsist is much stronger than the word is.‟ And that is an academic lie. He was quoting Saint Thomas, but Saint Thomas talks about God himself when he says, „Subsistentia est nobilissima forma essendi.‟ That means subsistence is the most noble form of being. Only in God, because God is not in every single flower, but he subsists to every single flower. He subsists to every single being. He subsists to everything that is in existence, because everything that is, you, me, this house, the plants out there, this planet, the whole universe has its being from God. Even if man created it, it receives the being from God. The New Orleans street cars are created by man, but they receive their being from God because there cannot be anything without God who is being himself. I know this is kind of difficult for you, but it’s so difficult because it’s the most simple thing in reality. Now when Ratzinger quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas in the wrong context, and this is the method of the council, as you will see later. You quote somebody, but you quote him in the wrong place. And that’s a form of lying. You cannot deny that Lumen Gentium VIII makes it optional to believe if the Catholic Church is the only true church or if there can be other churches that have a chance to get you saved. No wonder no Protestants are converting anymore.

The same Lumen Gentium VIII, needless to say, talks about the fact that even the churches that do not have, that are not in union with the Roman Pontiff receive the Holy Spirit. That’s another heresy. You can read in the Gospel of Saint John that the Holy Spirit is given only to the Catholic Church. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not come to the Lutherans, to the future Lutherans. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not come to the old religions, the old pagan religions. The Holy Spirit came to the Catholic Church and to nobody else. It came to Saint Peter, first of all, and the apostles. So anybody who is separated from Saint Peter’s successor, the Pope, cannot receive the Holy Spirit. It’s ridiculous. And when a Lutheran pastor baptizes an innocent child and the innocent child dies baptized and goes to heaven, this innocent child does not go to heaven because it was baptized by a Lutheran pastor, but because a Lutheran pastor illicitly administered the Catholic sacrament of baptism. Is that clear?

Now in Lumen Gentium XV, something that you should look up yourself, but this I recommend from Flannery, The Documents of Vatican II. Do not buy the translation of the other guy with the red cover. Buy the book with the blue book cover because the other guy translates in an accommodating way. Lumen Gentium XVI is something that you can entirely judge on your own. „The Muslims together with us adore one merciful God.‟ Together with us. That’s a quotation. (Music plays) „Musulmani nobiscum adorant unum Deum misericordiosum‟ in Latin. I checked it in Latin to make sure that this heresy stands firm. It stands firm. Now, where’s the incarnation? Where’s the Trinity? The Quran, the Holy Book of the Muslims, calls, I’m quoting the Quran, calls the idea of a holy trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an excremental idea. I’m quoting the Quran, take your pardon. And now Vatican II tells me that they, together with us, adore one merciful God. Now, where’s the first commandment? They have another god. They have Allah. The lonely one person Allah. We have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the second person of God, the Son, become man. And the Word became flesh. Et Verbum caro factum est at the last gospel at mass. I’ve never heard about Allah that he would have become verbum, that the Allah would have become caro, the meat, the flesh. I’ve never heard that Allah assumed a human nature. And if you tell a Muslim that Allah was incarnated on Earth, he will kill you. And he is right from his viewpoint of religion. The Muslims are not as accommodating as the Catholics, and God will probably bless many of them for merely that reason. Now, Vatican II tries to tell me that I pray together with the Muslims to the one merciful God. This is blasphemy. It is heresy and it is blasphemy. And the same Lumen Gentium 16 tells me that the Jews and I pray to the same God. The Jews explicitly reject the incarnation. The Jews explicitly rejected the idea of the blessed Trinity. And they call it names, believe me, in their books, and how. Not even I would quote that. And now Vatican II tells me, we are all praying to the same God. Do you realize that a certain German author Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in the 18th century wrote a play called Nathan der Weise or the parable, The Parable of the Ring, in which he has a representative of the Catholic Church, a representative of the Muslims, and a representative of the Jewish faith agreeing with each other that everything is the same anyway because we pray to the same God. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was a practicing and open Freemason. And here we have Vatican II, a so-called ecumenical council repeating what Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, the admittedly open Freemason, said in his play. The idea, the concept that the Muslims and the Jews pray to the same God as we do, which our present Pope repeats over and over again, this concept is heresy, it implies a lot of other heresies, and it is blasphemy. And anybody who tells me that we can interpret this in a Catholic way is to say the least a little bit nuts. I quote again, „The Muslims together with us adore one merciful God.‟ Now, give me a Catholic interpretation of that. I don’t think that even CNN could come up with a Catholic interpretation on that. And they are very good in making up excuses, lines, and other things. Whoops, I hope nobody will sue me.

Now, Vatican II and the present Pope talk about the Protestant churches, and they talk about the efforts of the Protestant churches. Now, if you tell me that it would be possible that a Protestant who has lived a just life all of his life, who has tried his best to find out the truth, who has tried his best to avoid sin will not be sent to hell by God, I will say, „I don’t know, maybe.‟ Through an extraordinary act of grace from God or an act of authentic contrition, he might actually die as a member of the Catholic Church without knowing but wanting to do so. That’s possible. We cannot exclude it subjectively speaking. Objectively speaking, if anybody says that the efforts of the Protestant Church, and remember what I said about the innocent child being baptized in a stolen sacrament, anybody who says that the efforts of Protestant churches can save a soul is a heretic. Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II and the present Pope says it, so the present Pope is a heretic. We have discussed the question if that makes him cease the Pope or not. It doesn’t. He’s still the Pope. He’s a bad pope. He’s a heretical pope, an ignorant pope, and a pope who lies. But that doesn’t make him cease to be pope, just like the Archbishop of New Orleans is not exactly what you call a Catholic bishop, but he is the Bishop of New Orleans. And President Clinton is the supreme commander of the armed forces in this country, even though he’s a draft dodger. Amen. Amen. (clapping) Thank you. And excuse me, I was talking about President Clinton. Her husband is a draft dodger. (clapping) Yeah.

Now, the efforts of the Protestant churches cannot save anybody. They cannot save anything. The efforts of the Protestant churches can only bring you down to hell, because the efforts of the Protestant churches are heretical efforts, objectively speaking. I do not condemn the poor pastor. And in this regard, I should mention to you that in St. Thomas Church in New York, Episcopalian, I found the best sermon on the devil in a long time. Not in St. Patrick’s. However, Christ was never substantially present in the beautiful St. Thomas Church on 52nd Street, Fifth Avenue in New York. And except for baptism, there was no sacrament given there ever. You do not receive confirmation in St. Thomas. You cannot go to confession in St. Thomas. You cannot save your soul in St. Thomas Church, not objectively speaking. You understand when I say, „Not objectively speaking‟? This is very important. So Dignitatis Humanae, number three, is heretical, so the whole document is heretical, so the whole council is heretical.

So this is the new definition of tradition. By the way, parenthesis, the famous document Ecclesia Dei of 1988 in which the Pope fakes to want the old mass to be said, the Pope is a liar because then the year after that he said he doesn’t like the fact that so many people are still attached to those forms of worship, or he meant the old mass. And he said that a year after he issued Ecclesia Dei telling the bishops that they should give wide and generous permission for the old mass. That goes to show you the honesty of the man. In Ecclesia Dei, he criticizes Archbishop Lefebvre for his view on tradition. Now, Archbishop Lefebvre, I read everything he ever wrote. Archbishop Lefebvre was a very unoriginal man as far as doctrine is concerned. I have never heard anything out of the mouth of Archbishop Lefebvre that would be in any way new to me, unless I hadn’t studied well my theology before that. Archbishop Lefebvre, as far as his theological pronouncements are concerned, was entirely unoriginal because he was totally and completely faithful to the doctrine of the Church, with absolutely no exception whatsoever. And he quoted the first Vatican Council and said tradition is what the apostles heard coming from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ and which has been handed down to us by the popes. And then the present pope accuses Archbishop Lefebvre of a wrong understanding of tradition, quoting Dei Verbum number eight. Do I have to say more about that? The experience of the faithful and their personal studies are adding to the growth of tradition? Thanks, but no thanks.

Another thing about Vatican II, I, there is no need to quote the wonderful document on religious liberty. Please do not call it religious freedom. In this country, the words freedom and liberty are usually confused, not only by the Democrats as usual, but also by the Republicans unfortunately. Freedom is a good thing. Liberty is a bad thing. Freedom means you have the freedom to do what you have to do. Liberty means you are at liberty to do what you want, and that’s not liberty but slavery of sin. St. Paul says that, not I. So as long as the Statue of Liberty is not the statue of freedom, I’m not interested in the old broad in the New York Harbor. We talk about the liberty of religion, and the liberty of religion is something in Vatican II that caused many bishops to stop signing documents, because Vatican II, and I always forget the name of the document, they are such crazy names and titles. What’s the one on religious liberty? Um, no, I can’t remember it right now. I’m sorry. I should have brought the book, but you can find it easily if the one who has the book, just check in the index under religious freedom or freedom of religion or liberty of religion, whatever they call it. Liberty of religion has been condemned by the Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII. You are not free to choose your religion. You are bound in conscience to choose the Catholic Church and to belong to the Catholic Church. And if you don’t, as the church says it, objectively speaking, you cannot be saved. The Church cannot condemn anybody into hell, not even Judas Iscariot. There’s no pronouncement on him, ever. So anybody who thinks that he’s free to choose the religion might go to hell for it. See, if I was free to choose my religion in this country, I would join with the Episcopalians. They have nicer churches. They have a better salary. I could marry. I could still say, even if in English, a beautiful form of mass in St. Thomas Church. Well, it’s not mass, but who cares? In St. Thomas Church, they say the evening service with the veil over the chalice and the burse, and the missal is on the epistle side, and the altar is facing God, and what an altar. Whoo! Beautiful. One of the most beautiful neo-Gothic altars I’ve ever seen. And the priest is nicely dressed, and when he gives a sermon, he gives a sermon that reminds you of your duties towards God, of your duty to avoid sin. He talks about you must save your soul. He talks about the glory of the Blessed Trinity. He doesn’t talk about Nicaragua. He doesn’t talk about the economically disadvantaged. He doesn’t talk about the poor people in prison. He doesn’t talk about all of that. He talks about God and our duty to save our souls. If I had the freedom of religion, I’d been an Episcopalian for many years already, but I do not have it. I am bound in conscience to adore God in the way that God wants me to adore him, and that means I have to be a Catholic even if it costs me my life. There is no such thing as liberty of religion. Forget it. Forget Vatican II. Let’s print a bumper sticker, „Forget Vatican II.‟ That’s right. (applause)