Introduction to the True Notion of the Hierarchy of Truths

John Venari (Introducer): So our next speaker is Father Gregory Hess, who has come to us from Vienna, Austria. As many of you know, for, I forget how many years, he was, uh, I think two years, he was, uh, private, uh, personal secretary to Cardinal Stickler at the Vatican. And he has a doctorate in Thomistic philo, uh, te- theology and canon law. Today, he’s going to be talking to us about the true notion of the hierarchy of truths. And the reason this is being discussed at this conference is because this idea of the hierarchy of truths we see over and over again in ecumenical documents, ecumenical literature. It’s a new idea, it’s, that says this, this hierarchy is tr- the, the, the structure of the hierarchy of truth is based on what all denominations believe in. So the more denominations believe in a certain fact, say, um, that, you know, our Lord was Go- uh, Je- Jesus Christ was God, or, or, uh, the inerrancy of scripture, and that would make it h- uh, that would be higher on the hierarchy of truths than something else. Father Hess is here to explain to us today what is the correct notion of the Catholic hierarchy of truths. It’s my, it’s my great pleasure to bring to you Father Gregory Hess. (audience applauds)

The Catholic Understanding of Hierarchy of Truth

All right. Uh, there is a hierarchy of truth. There’s a hierarchy in everything that God created, including what He revealed of Himself, which is the truth. Christ did not say, „I bring you some of the truth.‟ He did not say, „I bring you the truth.‟ He said, „I am the truth.‟ And, uh, there’s a hierarchy in everything. There’s a hierarchy in the sacraments. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that all sacraments are directed towards the Eucharist as the highest one. There is a hierarchy in the virtues. Uh, Saint Paul the Apostle says, „In heaven, there is no faith because we have evidence. In heaven, there is no hope because we have what- wha- whatever we can possibly have. But in heaven, there is charity.‟ So it’s the highest of all virtues. And there’s a hierarchy in everything. There’s a hierarchy between water and wine. It’s the water that washes you from sin and admits you into the life of grace at baptism. But it’s only wine himself who can become Christ Himself.

The Modern Ecumenical Inversion of the Hierarchy of Truth

Now, as my dear friend, John Lenary, pointed out to you, today they speak about a hierarchy of truth which is actually an inversion of the hierarchy of truth. They name as the highest of all truth the truth that is believed by most denominations, by most heretical sects. So the highest of all the truth is the fact that God exists, according to their hierarchy of truth. That is a hierarchy of truth that ignores revelation. It ignores when Christ said, „I am truth.‟

The Devil's Trick: Truth Mixed with Lies

Needless to say, like most of the confusions and heresies of today, the heresy that speaks about the hierarchy of truth in ecumenism is resulting from some other heresies at Vatican II. You see, the moment you make truth something relative, something that is not absolute and unchangeable anymore, like Christ Himself, that very moment, you water down truth to a mixture of truth and lie, which is the devil’s best trick. The very best trick the devil has to conquer our souls, believe it or not, is not pleasure. Most people, because they are rather simple in their mind, fall for the devil’s trap of lust, sixth commandment, and pleasure. But the best trick the devil has is to offer knowledge, to offer the truth. The devil will, as long as it is, it fits his own purposes, reveal truth to you. He cannot reveal things that God has not revealed, but he obviously is able to communicate what is written in the Bible and in papal documents because he ha- he has read them all, believe me. And one of his best tricks to get people is to reveal something to them, be it a, a law of nature that has not yet been discovered, but is there, or be it some aspect in the Catholic doctrine, in the doctrine of truth, that has not yet been defined or discussed. The devil will always be willing to reveal the truth to you to that very point that you believe the source. And at the very moment you believe the source, he will start to lie. This is why Saint John of the Cross said, „Beware of inspirations, beware of apparitions, beware- beware of visions, and beware of miracles, even when they are authentic.‟ Remember what Christ said to Saint Thomas the Apostle, „Blessed those who cannot see but believe.‟ And while the First Vatican Council said that miracles are necessary for salvation, that we need the signs in order to be able to believe what sometimes seems so difficult-The one has the true faith who is not interested in visions, who’s not interested in apparitions, and who is not interested in miracles, unless the church has proved them. Because Fatima, for example, Pope Pius XII already say- sta- stated the fact that Fatima was a true apparition, and that Fatima you had an a- absolutely unexplainable, and therefore, true and authentic miracle to prove that Our Lady appeared and not the devil. But basically speaking, all we need to save our souls is not found in apparitions, visions, and miracles, but in the church doctrine.

Vatican II and the Problem of "Subsists In" (Lumen Gentium VIII)

And here is the very first problem that Vatican II launched when in Lumen Gentium, that’s the, uh, Vatican II document on the church, when in Lumen Gentium number eight, the council, which, by the way, this is a parenthesis, I’m more and more, I’m more and more inclined to believe that the council was not even a council because as it is for the first time in church history that the council didn’t want to define anything, I doubt it had any authority whatsoever. But that’s a parenthesis and maybe a topic of another discussion another time. The council says, „This Church…‟ We’re talking about the, uh, the Church that Christ founded. „This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world…‟ Until Vatican II, it was defined as the perfect society. Ever since Vatican II, it is just a society, like Freemasonry is a society too, „… a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church.‟ That’s Lumen Gentium VIII, „subsists in the Catholic Church.‟ The term subsists means that something is underlying. It does not mean an identity. Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church has always taught that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church only. Ever since Vatican II, the Church of Christ subsists on the Catholic Church, which allows for another church being the Cath- the Church of Christ. The word subsists in Latin, as in English, is much weaker than the word is, to be. And Cardinal Ratzinger, who is an academic liar… (laughing) Oh, he’s a German professor of theology. You can’t expect anything else, but, uh- (laughing) … uh, Cardinal Ratzinger said, „Yes, but the word subsistere in Latin is much stronger than the word (Natalian language), to be.‟ And I’ll show you how an academic professor of theology, how he lies. You know that everything that is and moves is based on God Himself. Even the hand of a murderer cannot move if God gives not His subsistence to this movement. It doesn’t mean God wants it. He just gives, provides the subsist- He provides the movement. He doesn’t pull the trigger. He doesn’t kill the person, but He provides the movement. So God subsists in everything that is and works. This is God’s subsistence, God’s o- God’s own underlying to everything, not like the pantheists say that God is everywhere and everything is God. But when the Catholic Church teaches that God is omnipresent, ev- present everywhere, it means that when I lift this book, the book cannot exist without God giving its, the subsistence of existence to this book. And I cannot li- lift the book unless God provides the possibility for my movement. I cannot speak if God does not provide the possibility of my moving my lips and whatever else is needed to pronounce, uh, the English language. Uh, this is when Saint Thomas Aquinas says, (Latin). „Subsistency is the most noble of all forms of being.‟ And here is the lie. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that about God Himself. The Church is not God Himself. The Church is something that relies on God’s own subsistence. For something that is out of subsistence, subsistence is not the nob- most noble form of being. In that case, the word to be is much stronger than the word subsist. You see this, I know that not everybody’s able to understand it right away, but fortunately, we’ll have tapes and printouts and whatever, and then you can study this problem again. I have to bore you with this little bit of philosophy, because without philosophy there’s no theology, as there is no philosophy without language. First, we gotta correct the language, then we gotta correct the philosophy in order to be able to correct theology.

Elements of Sanctification and Truth "Outside its Visible Confines"

The moment the church, the moment this teaching says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, you admit the Protestant churches at least, you admit the Protestant churches in the group of churches founded by Christ. And indeed, the logical conclusion is not mine in this case, because thanks be to God, I’m not inclined to this perverted kind of thinking, but Vatican II was. And therefore, immediately after speaking about, uh, the fa- about the, uh, uh, uh, subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, they say, „Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines.‟… outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, there’s no elements of truth and there’s no elements of sanctification, for the simple reason that if a Protestant says, „Yes, uh, there are angels,‟ he’s speaking the truth, but he’s pronouncing a Catholic truth, which is not his own. A heretic, and the Popes have never get, uh, got tired of repeating themselves when they said, „The moment a human being, a baptized who had the faith and is supposed to have the faith, gives up one single doctrine of the Catholic Church, that means he goes into heresy in one single point only, he gives up the entire faith.‟ There is no such thing as element of truth that can sanctify. God did not permit that to happen, but if somebody had chopped off the hands of Christ, those hands don’t save, Christ saves. There is no such thing as an element of truth that can sanctify and save. When the Protestant pastor baptizes an innocent child and a truck runs over that innocent child, that innocent child goes to heaven. It goes to heaven because a Protestant minister illicitly, in what is called spiritual theft, administered the Catholic sacrament of baptism without having the right to do so. This is important to understand, that the, uh, the valid baptism in most Protestant churches, like in the Episcopalian Church, it’s, „I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.‟ It’s definitely valid baptism. And sometimes the Episcopalian Church is a lot more correct about the doctrine of baptism than most Catholic bishops in this country. But, uh, the Protestant minister or the Protestant bishop resident in Boston, heehee, uh, does not licitly administer the sacrament. She administers the sacrament validly, the sacrament takes place, I believe, in that case. But if it takes place or not, she has no right to do that, because, uh, except in emergencies, only priests and deacons may baptize. So, the element of truth is a Catholic element of truth that has been stolen by a heretical sect. And the element of sanctification is not within the Protestant church, but it is only within the Catholic Church, and it has been stolen by those thieves. When the Heil Doctor Martin Luther went into heresy, he took the sacrament of baptism with him. He continued to baptize. He baptized validly most probably, but he had no right to do that.

The Church "Joined in Many Ways" to Non-Catholics (Lumen Gentium XV)

And consequentially, Vatican II says in number 15, „The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ- of Christian, but who do not, however, profess the Catholic faith in its entirety.‟ Here we got the first real concept of the hierarchy of truth. They do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety, or have not preserved unity or communion under the success of Peter. But the Church is, as it says here, joined in many ways to the baptized. I tell you in which way the chur- the Church is joined, joined (laughs), uh, (laughs) to the, uh, to the non-Catholics. By a curse. Anyone who says that a priest is not truly the sacrificing priest, anathemasite. Anybody who says that, uh, after consecration, the body of our Lord is not substantially present on the altar, anathemasite. Anybody who says that the Pope is not the true successor of Peter, and anybody who says that the Pope does not hold the primacy both in faith and morals and mar- matters of- of- of Church discipline and government, anathemasite. Anybody who contradicts any of the conciliar definitions, wherever in Church history, anathemasite. That’s a Greek word, anathema, sometimes anathema. Some Americans pronounce it anathema. That’s, uh, slightly off. Uh, it’s anathema. Anathema means you are cursed. Anathema means you’re excluded from the Church. Anathema means you’re going to, as the Irish say, you’re gonna go to Hell. (laughs) Actually, the best translation of the, of the, the Greek-Latin, it’s what you call, uh, a hybrid. The first word is Greek, the second word is Latin. The best translation of anathemasite is, „Whosoever pronounces that the doctrine X, Y, and Z is not correct, go to Hell.‟ (laughs) It’s the best translation. Anathemasite in Greek means go to Hell. It’s a curse. It throws you out of the Church. Now, the only (laughs) way that the Catholic Church is joined (laughs) to Protestant sects is by a curse. (laughs) Anybody and everybody who is the member of a Protestant sect, no matter what, if it’s my dear beloved Episcopalians or those horrible Southern Baptists, it doesn’t (laughs) matter. They are all cursed. And if they stick to what they believe until the last hour, they’re all going to go to Hell. The only thing is we don’t know if they’re gonna stick until the last hour. Some of them might be kind and nice people, and Our Lady might assist them at the very last moment. We can’t judge that. We don’t know anything about that. However-We don’t know anything about that, mind you. However, uh, if they stick to their lies, if they stick to the wrong doctrine, they’re going to go to Hell. And if Vatican II repeats a 10,000 times over that we are joined in many ways to those heretics, I repeat, yes, we tell them to go to Hell. (audience chuckles)

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

And, uh, in, in, uh, in direct consequence to those two heresies that I quoted from Vatican II, and don’t allow anybody to tell you that there is a Catholic interpretation to what I just literally quoted from Vatican II. If the fraternity of St. Peter out there, and if the Institute of Christ the King tell you that Vatican II can be interpreted in a Catholic way, then you have my guarantee that they are dead wrong. Thank you. There is, there is no possible way, believe me, I tried for some 15 years in vain, to find a Catholic interpretation of Vatican II. I miserably failed. You can’t. And the… And here’s an important point which sometimes is overlooked. People will always talk about the document, the Vatican document, Vatican II document on ecumenism. Unitatis Redintegratio, abbreviated UR. And, uh, they deal with Unitatis Redintegratio as if it was the source of all the confusion. It isn’t. Unitatis Redintegratio is a direct logical consequence to the heresies of Lumen Gentium, the document on the church that I just quoted. If a Protestant church is part of the Church of Christ, and if the Catholic Church has joined in many ways to the Protestant churches, and if elements of hierarchy, el- excuse me, elements of truth and sanctification are found in Protestant churches, then the document on ecumenism and the things that I’m going to quote right now would be right, they would be correct. If Lumen Gentium can be interpreted in a Catholic way, which is what the fraternity of St. Peter insists on, then the document um, on, on ecumenism is not heretical either. Then in that case, logically, the scandalous document of John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, which can be interpreted in a Catholic way too. You see, these people, just to maintain their own position, which is founded on a fraudulent Vatican document called Ecclesia Dei, you can buy my tape on this, these people just have to justify their own position. We have to defend the truth, not justify any position.

Separated Churches as Means of Salvation (UR 3)

In Unitatis Redintegratio, in the, uh, third paragraph, Vatican II, in what becomes more and more obvious, is no teaching authority whatsoever, says, „It follows that the separated churches…‟ It’s a new term. Until Vatican II, the popes have, all of them, rejected the term separate ch- separated church. They rejected that term. They said there is the Catholic Church and there is the heretics. Now, they are separated churches, which follows directly, logically, on Lumen Gentium number eight. „It follows that the separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, (laughs) uh, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.‟ Heresy. „For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation, which derive their ef- efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.‟ So they say, they admit it’s coming from the Catholic Church, but they say, „The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.‟ That means the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using the Episcopalian Church as a mean of s- a means of salvation. The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using the Southern Baptists as a means of salvation. Now, uh, the fact that in New York City, uh, where I try to be every time I’m here in this country, I don’t say my rosary in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, but in St. Thomas Church, 53rd Street, Fifth Avenue, which is an Episcopalian church, but it’s the only church around that is beautiful, empty, and, uh, n- not as noisy as St. Patrick’s. You can say your rosary in peace, and, uh, for the evening service, which of course, is invalid, the altar looks like a Catholic altar in 1950. Uh, doesn’t mean that anybody has ever been saved in that building. (laughs) And Christ has never been substantially present in that building. But also, no communion in the hand has ever been given in that building. (laughs) That’s one of the reasons why I go there to say my rosary. And the statement, the statement, the very statement that any of these Protestant churches can be a means of salvation is in direct contradiction, in direct contradiction to the dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV in the book Denzinger-Schonmetzer number 1351, which says that even those, if they are not united with the church under Peter, even those who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved…. if a Protest- there is no such thing as a Protestant martyr. If a Protestant says, „I die for Jesus,‟ then maybe that’s what he thinks, but that’s not what he’s doing. And objectively, careful, objectively speaking, he cannot be saved. Now I, I, I don’t say he will go to hell. I, I don’t know. If he’s baptized and he really, uh, if he’s baptized as an imbecile, uh, he’s to be (laughs) considered an innocent child, so he might as well be saved. But even, and, and, a- and all the more so if he sheds his blood for Christ, but objectively speaking, that’s impossible. A council or a pope do not talk about an individual. They talk about an institution. They talk about a group of people. They do not say, „A Protestant might be saved despite being a Protestant.‟ They say, „There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.‟ Period. (applause) And therefore, we have to take what Vatican II says in the same manner. So if Vatican II says, „For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation,‟ this is direct heresy against a repeated dogmatical definition to the contrary.

Papal Interpretation and Dialogue with Protestants

Is Father Hess interpreting the Vatican Council here? No, he doesn’t. Father Hess does not interpret this council. Pope John Paul II does, because the pope is the only, uh, legal and authentic interpreter of the council. Pope John Paul II in Catechesi tradendae number 32 says, (Latin). „For the efforts of whom,‟ uh, the Protestant churches, „the spirit of Christ does not refrain from bringing salvation.‟ So the pope almost to the letter quotes this decree. And he means it exactly the same way because this pope, the present pope says that everybody’s saved anyway, which is a heresy, uh, that has been condemned repeatedly during church history. And, uh, the, the, the only true and correct interpretation of what I just read to you is what I said, Protestant churches are means of salvation, according to this document, and that is heresy, explicit heresy. It’s direct heresy against the Council of Florence.

Eve, the Serpent, and the Dangers of Dialogue

Eve went into dialogue with the serpent- (laughing). … except she was a woman, and there’s a certain excuse. (laughing) But that’s how it started. (laughing). If Eve had behaved like a Catholic, she would have, she would have told the serpent, „Go back to hell.‟ (laughing). „That’s where you’re coming from anyway.‟ No, she did not do that. She said, „Well, what’s in for me? What can I get out of it?‟ (laughing). She went into dialogue. „Let’s see our common grounds.‟ (laughing). She went in- to dialogue with the serpent, and here we are. Now we need baptism. (hand slam) God had intended, even if he foresaw that this is not going to take place, God, uh, had intended that we will all decide for heaven without baptism, without sin, without original sin, without anything. Eve went into dialogue, and Christ had to die on the cross. For just a little bit of dialogue, Christ had to die on the cross.

Formulation of Church Teaching and Dialogue (UR, unknown para.)

And the, uh, the same blasphemous and heretical document, Unitatis Redintegratio, continues. And here we come now to the exact distinction that the, the last three popes made in regard to the hierarchy of truth. „Christ summons the Church as she goes her pilgrim way…‟ We’ll skip that bull for the moment. Um, „To that continual reformation of which she always has need,‟ that’s true, but not the way they mean it here, „in so far as she’s an institution of men here on Earth.‟ Very true. „Consequentially…‟ In this aspect, of course. „Consequentially, if in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct…‟ Yeah, Pope Alexander VI, for example. „Or in church discipline…‟ There were times when priests would celebrate mass, uh, once a year, things like that. So don’t believe it was always, always, uh, rosy times. And now ch- the… Until this very comma, the document is correct. Then it says, „Deficiencies in conduct,‟ right? Deficiencies in moral, uh, behavior, discipline. „Or even in the way the Church teaching has been formulated.‟ That smells of heresy. It’s not heresy, but it smells of heresy. Matter of fact, it stinks of h- of heresy. (laughing). That’s the sulfurous odor of the serpent going into dialogue with Eve. (laughing). „The way the Church teaching has been formulated.‟ No. There’s nothing wrong with that. As I will explain to you on Sunday, there were popes who uttered error. I give you one example, which I will have repeat, to repeat on Sunday. Pope Nicholas I said that you can baptize in the name of Christ. At the time when Pope Nicholas I said that, it was not yet heresy, but he was dead wrong all the same. You can only baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. That’s the same. But you cannot baptize in the name of, in the, in the name of Christ. The Church father, Saint Ambrose, said that, so a church father can be wrong, too. But this has never been Church teaching. Therefore, we are not talking about Church teaching in this case. We’re talking about one pope being in error. He was not the only one, by far. But Church teaching has never been formulated in the wrong way. Nobody has yet been able to show me an example to that. And then the council says, because there were conservative bishops present and they had to be, uh, put at ease, „Or even in the way that the Church teaching has been formulated to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself, these should be set right at the important moment and in a proper way.‟ That means we have to reformulate Church teaching. This is exactly what the council here, in this point, is asking. And, uh, „The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren.‟ It means when I talk to the sweet little pastor in, uh, St. Thomas Church, 53rd Street, New York, I’m not supposed to discuss the priesthood, I’m not supposed to discuss real presence on the altar, I’m not supposed to discuss, uh, the fact that outside the Catholic Church, there’s absolutely no way to be saved. I’m supposed to discuss on common ground with him. That means I’m going to discuss hell with him. He believes in hell. I’m going to discuss the angels with him. He believes in the angels. I’m going to discuss the saints with him. He believes in our saints, too. On the altar of St. Thomas Church, you will not only find, uh, uh, Saint Thomas the Apostle. You will always fi- uh, will also find Saint, uh, Thomas Cranmer of (laughs) the Protest- of the Anglican Church. You will also find one without the S-T in front of his name, George Washington, on that altar.And you will find, uh, Saint Thomas More. Yes. In an Episcopalian Church, you will find Saint Thomas More. You know why? Because Saint Thomas More acted according to his conscience. Individualism, that’s what it is. Like all Protestantism, that’s individualism. So this is what I’m supposed to discuss with them.

Orthodox Churches and Mystery of Revelation (UR, unknown para.)

And then, the same document says, „It is hardly surprising then…‟ Now we’re talking about the, uh, the Orthodox Churches, the Russian Orthodox Church, which is her- heretical and schismatical. The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, rejects the papal infallibility, and it rejects the papal primacy. Therefore, they’re heretics and schismatics. Therefore, they are anathema. Therefore, they will all go to hell. (laughing) „It is hardly surprising then if sometimes one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other or has expressed them better.‟ That means Church teaching has to be improved by reading the documents of heretics. This is what, this is what he means.

Conclusion on the Conciliar Hierarchy of Truth

And, uh, resulting now, which, uh, will be, uh, the topic of another discussion on another occasion, the present pope, especially the present pope, but also his predecessor, Paul VI, always putting their authority on Unitatis redintegratio, which I just quoted to you in its most important lines, will tell you that, uh, we have to be in constant dialogue with these, uh, other Churches. And we have to discuss what we have in common. And we should not be separated from each other on those things that we do not have in common. This not only has been condemned repeatedly by previous popes, like, uh, in Mortalium animos by Pius XI and later on by Pius XII, it is in direct heresy to Church teaching. The, the very concept of h- of a hierarchy of truth in the context of Vatican II and the blasphemous documents and heretical documents of John Paul II, the worst of which is Ut Unum Sint, so may they, may they all be one, where he says, for example, I think… I believe it’s number 68, but, uh, John Venari can correct me on this any time. Uh, says that, uh, the saints come from all religions. Now, obviously, the, the, the concept of the hierarchy of truth that is currently used in what John Paul II calls the Church of the New Advent, what is called the ca- the conciliar Church, uses the term hierarchy of truth in the sense that the deposit of faith is not to be touched. Yeah. That means the Gospels are not to be touched basically. But everything else, we have to discuss with the other people to see if there’s a new meaning and if, uh, we can get together on common grounds. Like, uh, today you heard about the agreement with the Luther- uh, uh, uh, among the Lutherans and the Catholics about justification, which means that the, the conciliar Church has now finally declared itself as a Protestant Church. And, uh, this hierarchy of truth is diametrically opposed to what the Catholic Church calls a hierarchy of truth.

The True Catholic Hierarchy of Truth

Now very obviously, in what the real truth is called Christ, very obviously, there is a hierarchy of truth there. You could not possibly say that the dogma of Immaculate, of the Immaculate Conception is to be seen on the same level as the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The dogma of the Holy Trinity is dealing with God himself. The dogma of Immaculate Conception is dealing with only a human being, even though the most perfect of all human beings ever, except for Christ, Our Lady, his mother. But the very fact that there is a hierarchy of truth doesn’t mean that I have a choice of rejecting one or the other. The very fact that quite obviously and also in Church, in the Church calendar, in the liturgical calen- calendar, in the Roman missal, the very fact that the Feasts of Our Lady could never be on the same level as the Feasts of our Lord, you cannot put, uh, the Immaculate Conception, December 8th, on the same level as the Resurrection Day, Easter. Impossible, un- un- unthinkable. Uh, there is not a distinction, but an infinite and absolute difference between God and his mother. His mother is a human being. God is God. God is the creator. His mother is a creature. She’s the first of all creatures, the most noble of all creatures, but she’s a creature.

Believing All or Nothing

However, the fact that in the Catholic Church, there’s a hierarchy of truth has nothing got to do with what we have to believe. As I said before, the Church has always taught that if you reject only one single Church doctrine, you reject them all in practice, which is easily understood when I, uh, refer to the, the document, uh, Constitutio Dogmatica I, Pastor Aeternus de Ecclesia Christi, July 18th, 1870 on papal infallibility. That’s, uh, for those who want to look it up in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, number 5020 until 5070…. in the dogma, the dogma of infallibility is the key dogma for every Catholic. If you reject the dogma of Catholic infallibility, you reject the very existence of dogma. The moment you accept the dogma of infallibility, you accept everything the Popes have ever taught. And this is an illustration to you why the Church said you believe all or nothing. Christ said, Christ didn’t say, „There is a percentage, uh, there is a percentage for you that will get you to heaven.‟ No. He said, „Who’s not for me is against me.‟ Period. He said, (Latin) „Who can take it, take it.‟ That means who can’t, can’t. That means, to put it in Irish, „Who is not for me will go to hell.‟ As far as salvation is concerned, there are no gray shades. There’s black and white, yes or no. (speaks Greek) In Greek. These be your words: yes, yes, no, no. The moment a Catholic does not say yes anymore to every single doctrine of the Church, and says no to a single one, he’s not a Catholic anymore. The moment a Catholic says yes to anything that is against the doctrine of the Church, (Latin) go to hell.

Theological Grades of Certainty (Ludwig Ott)

The hierarchy of truth is an academic thing. There are two r-… There is really one difference only in the hierarchy of truth. The things that you have to accept with wha- which, with, uh, what is called the assent of faith… That means you do not just say, in obedience, „Yes, I’m going to accept the Immaculate Conception because, uh, I have to.‟ That’s not sufficient for salvation. You have to accept the dogma of December 8th, 1854, in all of your faith. You have to say, „Yes, I believe this.‟ As a matter of fact, when you con- when you’re confronted with a dogma of the Catholic Church, it is always useful… This is a pastoral advice I give you… It is always useful to make an act of faith. An act of faith means, if it should happen, my dear Lord, that for some reason doubt creeps in or misunderstanding creeps in, and then you look at the cross and you say, „I will still believe it because You said it. I will still believe it because Your vicar on Earth, Pius IX, made it a dogma.‟ This is the assent of faith. If you reject anything whatsoever that requires the assent of faith, you are in mortal sin against the faith. You’re in heresy. And Saint Thomas Aquinas says, „Heretics, first of all, are, should be subject to capital punishment.‟ (clears throat)

Degrees of Certainty

Now, the highest degree of certainty is immediately revealed truth. When Christ in the last chapter of Saint Matthew says, „Go in all the world and baptize all people in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit,‟ that’s immediately a real truth. Here, the Trinity is revealed, baptism is revealed. I don’t need… Basically, I don’t need the Church Fathers, basically speaking. I don’t need the Church Fathers. I don’t even need the Popes to understand this. This is in the Gospel. The Gospel says, „Baptize.‟ If I, if I, uh, have to justify myself, uh, because I’m insisting on, uh, people getting baptized, I don’t have to quote a single pope. I might, might as well quote Christ himself. So it’s a directly revealed truth.

Assent of Faith vs. Obedience

Now, everything that is de fide, of the faith itself, has to be believed in faith. It has to be accepted in faith. The other things, the sententia fidei proxima, basically, uh, something close to the faith, the certain sentence, the sen- the sententia certa, the sententia communis, that means almost everybody teaches it, and th- the theological opinion, if it’s a papal theological opinion that does not contradict tradition, have to be accepted in obedience. Pope Pius XII makes that very clear in his document, Humani Generis, where he condemns the theology of John Paul II. That’s not a joke I’m making here. Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis, condemned John Paul II’s theology without naming the actual author of that theology, who was Henri de Lubac. But the present pope is a very little original person. He is, uh, uh, uh, copying his errors from, uh, the famous theologian, uh, Henri de Lubac. And Pius XII in 19, uh, I think it was 48 or something like that, uh, already condemned the theology that now, uh, seems to be church teaching. And in the same document, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII says, „Those things that pertain to the faith, that are de fide, have to be accepted in faith.‟… the common church teaching, the ordinary church teaching, like the ordinary encyclical of a pope, has to be accepted in obedience. That means if I say that you may not accept what John Paul II teaches, then I have to prove to you why. Because basically we are bound by obedience to accept what the pope teaches. Unless I can prove to you, which I did today, for example, I can prove to you that what this particular pope teaches is wrong. We will continue on this on Sunday. So, the, the very hierarchy of truth for us, the only important thing to know is, is it de fide or not? Is it part of the faith or not? Do I have to accept that our li- our Lord Jesus Christ is substantially present in the, uh, in the host as substance of the host after consecration? Yes, part of the faith. Am I a heretic when I say that priests can ordain priests? No. I’m just wrong if I say that. I don’t believe it for a minute. And I have very good theological reasons to say that only a bishop can ordain priests, even though a pope in the 16th century gave the authorization to a French abbot who had, who had no episcopal consecration to ordain priests. A pope can mis- make mistakes. We will see that, more on that on Sunday. If a papal encyclical says I should believe this and the Church thinks that or, or another way about this and that, and if what the pope says in this encyclical is not contradictory to Church tradition, in that case, I have to accept it no matter how. In obedience, I have to accept it. If the pope decides to define it, if the pope decides to pronounce final judgment on it, then I have to accept it in full faith. That is the hierarchy of truth for us.

The Profession of the Tridentine Faith (Injunctum Nobis)

And as, um, conclusion of this, uh, session, I’m going to read to you parts of what is called The Profession of the Tridentine Faith. This was a document called Injunctum Nobis, November 13, 6- 1564, published by Pope Pius IV. Anybody who wanted a job in the Vatican had to sign this document as a matter of oath. You had to swear to God to believe what it says here. And I will read to you the three most important paragraphs. I don’t have to read the creed to you. You know it. „I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification. Damn the Lutheran faith.‟ Amen. (laughs) „I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent, and I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized. This, I promise, vow, and swear, so help me God and these holy Gospels of God. Amen.‟ Amen. (applause) Your applause goes to the Council of Trent. (laughs) Thank you. (applause)

Concluding Remarks and Announcements

Okay. We will set up for some questions and, uh, and then followed by Mass, and then followed by Father Bruner’s speech. Thank you. Uh, when I leave tomorrow and, uh, the tan books desk back there still has one copy of Ludwig Ott left, I’m going to be very angry. (laughs) Ludwig Ott. – very angry. Uh, excuse me. Excuse me. There is one disadvantage of talking ex tempore, as I always do. Father Bruner just rightly pointed out to me that the, the Sententia fidei proxima, that something that is almost entirely pertaining to the faith has to be accepted in the assent of faith. That’s right. The only things that ha- that, that need only obedience and not faith itself is the certain sentences, sententia certa, the sententia communis, probabilis, and the opinio, the opinion. You will see this in the Ludwig Ott book that you should get right now. (laughs) Thank you, Father. Extra copies of this recording may be obtained by writing to Oltine Library Services. That’s O-L-T-Y-N, Oltine Library Services, 2316 Delaware Avenue, PMB 325, Buffalo, New York, 14216. Please ask for our catalog of traditional Catholic materials.(оркестр играет)