I recommend to you… I will on another occasion go into the depths of ecumenism and to the absurdities it has caused, especially with the present pope. Meanwhile, I recommend to you to read Mortalium Animos. It is short, precise, and to the point. I recommend to you to read Mirari Vos by Gregory XVI. Again, a short encyclical. In those days, the popes believed in expressing themselves in short and distinct ways. Clarified terms, not come up with ambiguous terms and hundreds of pages of blah, blah as the present pope so much enjoys to do. I cannot… Unfortunately, I do not have the jurisdiction keep him from doing that. But I want you to understand that what he is doing is high treason to Christ. It is high treason to the Catholic Church. There is no dialogue with people who reject the truth. As a personal principle, if you’ll forgive me for making a personal remark, I have lots of patience for people who are interested in the truth. My patience for those who do not want to hear the truth is limited to a, „Hi.‟ Thank you. (coffeemaker gurgling) (chair creaking)

You must bear with me. Sometimes, as far as the quotations are concerned, my eyesight is not what it used to be. And sometimes in the quick run of a conference, I don’t find the proper quotations in time. And I don’t want to interrupt too much because, in that case, the tape would have to be cut 10 times and 20 times over again before you get a decent copy. So let me quote now two paragraphs of Mortalium Animos, which I should have quoted right at the moment when we were talking about dialogue.

Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos Number 10 says, „The pan-Christians…‟ He gave that term pan-Christians to all these idiots who wanted to have a common religion of all Christians, which of course, as you understand by now latest, is impossible and absurd. I quote, „These pan-Christians who strive for the union of the Churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians, but how should charity tend to the detriment of faith? Everyone knows that John himself, apostle of love, who seems in his gospel to have revealed the secrets of the sacred heart of Jesus and who never ceased to impress upon the memory of his disciples the new commandment to love one another, nevertheless, strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching.‟ Saint John says, „If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not in the house, nor say to him, ’God speed you.‚‟ That means I’m going further than Saint John did. I say, „Hi‟ to the heretics. And for those who have not my first tape, Heretics all, whoever you be, in Tarbes or Nimes or over the sea. You never shall have good words from me. Caritas non conturbat me. But Catholic men that live upon wine are deep in the water and frank and fine. Wherever I travel, I find it so. Benedicamus Domino. (clapping) Hilaire Belloc.

Number 11 of Mortalium Animos, „Therefore, since the foundation of charity is faith pure and inviolate, it is chiefly by the bond of one faith that the disciples of Christ are to be united. A federation of Christians then is inconceivable in which each member retains his own opinions and private judgment in matters of faith, even though they differ from the opinions of all the rest. How can men with opposite convictions belong to one and the same federation of the faithful? Those who accept sacred tradition as a source of revelation and those who reject it, those who recognize as divinely constituted the hierarchy of bishops, priests and ministers in the Church, and those who regard it as gradually introduced to suit the conditions of the time, those who adore Christ really present in the most holy Eucharist through that wonderful conversion of the bread and wine, transubstantiation, and those who assert that the body of Christ is there only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the sacrament. How so great variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church we know not. That unity can arise only from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But we do not know that from such a state of affairs, it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism.‟ The rest, I quoted. When I quoted Mirari Vos by Gregory XVI saying that, „We must hold steadfast to the consecrated traditions.‟ This, at the same time, means what I said yesterday, that the customs of the church and the administration of the sacraments, the rites in celebrating the sacraments have been handed down to us as a sacred tradition. No man shall touch them, not even the Pope. Otherwise, you could not call them consecrated. Something that every pope might change according to his own beliefs is not something that you could call consecrated. The law of how to elect a pope that may be changed by every pope to his liking is not a consecrated thing, and never was considered such in the church. If canon law has to be adapted to the times and sometimes, needless to say, canon law being positive law ruling the relation of one question to another, is something that will have to be adapted to the present times. But canon law is not sacred. It is only a lot holier than secular law.

In number eight, Dei Verbum pronounces a heretical definition of tradition. You can read about this in detail in one of the next issues of the Catholic Family News, because that’s what I spoke on in Philadelphia three weeks ago. My whole conference will be published in the Catholic Family News. I’m only going to say one thing here. According to the will of the fathers of the council, of the Vatican Council, somehow the document, the concept of tradition has been changed round. Now, tradition can change. I quoted Leo XIII before saying, „Tradition cannot change. The faith cannot change. Dogma cannot change. There is no hierarchy of truth. There is only one and the same truth.‟ I quoted Pius XII saying that, „The ordinary Magisterium is to be obeyed. The ordinary Magisterium being only such when…‟ And by the way, there’s lots of theological manuals from the old days that will say the same that I say. The ordinary Magisterium, the ordinary teaching of a pope only being binding, of course, if he does not contradict his predecessors. Here in this council, they dare to change the concept of tradition by saying, „Tradition knows progress.‟ And the exact quotation is, „The tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth, an insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. Thus, as the centuries go by, the church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth until eventually, the words of God are fulfilled in her.‟ No. The church is in the possession of the full truth. The church cannot approach, the church cannot come closer. It cannot advance towards the plenitude of divine truth. The church has the divine truth in its fullness. That is a dogma of the Catholic faith. And tradition is not something that changes with the pondering of believers. I don’t care about the pondering of believers, and I’m not interested what the religious experiences of Mr. X and Mrs. Y are. They do not change the truth. They do not add anything to tradition. The only way in which tradition can grow is in the sense of the deepening of the understanding. But as Saint Vincent of Lérins pointed out, quoted by Vatican Council I, Saint Vincent of Lérins says, „There is a deepening in understanding of the truth, but Eodem sensu, eadem sententia, in the same sense and in the same judgment.‟ You cannot reverse the judgment of 500 years ago through a better understanding or because of a better understanding. You can only deepen the understanding. When in 1854, the 8th of December, Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, he did not say anything new. He just made sure that now we have precise terminology on what it means.

this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter, and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as it is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence, such disobedience…‟ I checked this with Latin. It is indeed such. ‟Hence, such disobedience, which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy constitutes a schismatic act.„ No, it doesn’t. Such disobedience as such does not constitute anything but disobedience. And the new code of canon law agrees with me, because the new… Mind you, the old canon law, of course does, because never in the history of the church was an illegal Episcopal consecration considered a schismatic act. Schism is automatically connected with the extreme penalty of excommunication. How come the church never put illegal Episcopal consecrations under the pain of excommunication until 1949 when Pius XII was faced with the National Church of China consecrating bishops against his will? The new code of canon law does not list when it says in Canon 1382 that the Episcopal consecrations without the mandate of the Pope are automatic excommunication, does not list this crime under the crimes of schism, under the crimes against the unity of the church. The new code of canon law does not mention the Episcopal consecrations in context with schism. So the Pope cannot. The Pope is bound to canon law unless he wants to change it. So number three is a lie. Number three is an error in moral theology.

Number four says, „The root of this schismatic act,‟ which it is not. „The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition.‟ So the Pope now accuses Archbishop Lefebvre of an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition, which is quite funny when you consider I have read everything that Archbishop Lefebvre ever wrote. And all I found was most unoriginal statements. Most unoriginal. He quotes the popes, he quotes the councils, he quotes the saints, he quotes the church fathers, he quotes the appointed doctors of the church, and he never says anything out of his own. Archbishop Lefebvre is one of the most unoriginal persons in this world as far as doctrine is concerned. God bless him for that, and we thank him for that. His concept of tradition is exactly identical with the concept of tradition dogmatically pronounced in Dei Filius of Vatican I, and dogmatically pronounced in the appropriate section and session of the Council of Trent. And it is completely in accordance with everything that was ever said about tradition in the history of the church until the infelicitous year of 1958. I say again, „The root of his schismatic act can be discerned in the incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition.‟ That tradition has a living character is a concept condemned so often that sometimes there’s so many quotations that I cannot, I just simply do not have them present. But you will find this in the Catholic Family News. It comes with this living character of tradition, which as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. „There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience, and it comes from the preaching of those who have received along with their rite of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.‟ This is exactly a definition according to everything that Pius X condemns in his encyclical against modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. But as this was my second conference in Philadelphia, I recommend you the reading of the appropriate issue of Catholic Family News. We do not have the time here.

Consequently, the council says in number two, „The council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God, and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society, as will make it a civil right.‟ Can you believe this? Let’s see what the Catholic Church says about that. In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemns this concept when he says in number 15, „From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd, or rather extravagant maxim, that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man a most contagious error, to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion, which for the ruin of church and state spreads over the world, and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantageous to the church. ’And what more certain death for souls,‚ says Saint Augustine, ’than the liberty of error?‚‟

The very proposal of religious liberty, something that was found among proud souls in the 19th century was condemned by Pope Pius IX. The document is called The Syllabus of Pius IX, syllabus of principal errors of our time, which are censured in the consistorial allocutions, encyclicals, and other apostolic letters of our most holy Lord, Pope Pius IX. It is a collection of statements from the writings of Pius IX issued by the Holy Office in the name of the Pope, sanctioned by him. And it gives a list of 80 statements. All the 80 statements are solemnly condemned in this document. And anybody who agrees with any one of these statements automatically ceases to be a Catholic. So understand what I’m quoting now is not the doctrine of the church. It is condemned.

Number 15, „Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason he shall consider true.‟ Condemned sentence.

Number 16, „Man may in the observance of any religion whatever find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation.‟ Condemned sentence quoted by Vatican II as doctrine in the aforementioned document and this document.

17, „Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true church of Christ.‟ Condemned statement.

18, „Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.‟ Condemned statement in the collection of Pius IX. Not literally quoted by Vatican II, but indirectly. The syllabus makes sure that the document on religious freedom written up by the council fathers is un-Catholic, contradictory to the teaching of the church. Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that. Nobody of the so-called halfway 50% or 45 and a half percent traditionalists who say Father Hess should not break with the church by saying that Vatican II is heretical, anybody who says that is really in contradiction to the present prefect of the congregation of the faith who said, „The decree on religious liberty is certainly an anti-syllabus.‟ And the syllabus is the list of condemned sentences, which I just quoted to you. So Cardinal Ratzinger says the same thing that I do. Why he does not draw the consequences is not for me to judge. But the decree on religious liberty is definitely to be condemned. And it is, as a matter of fact, the point in which Archbishop Lefebvre said, „No. I will not sign anything anymore now.‟ Some of the first documents nonetheless, they contained all the errors Archbishop Lefebvre signed, and he said, „Because at the time, we were not able to imagine that a pope would sign documents that are wrong, so we submitted.‟ Understandable error. And I can tell you, I’m a witness to this error because I committed it myself many years ago. I said, „It’s impossible that the Pope signs things that are against the faith.‟ I have learned my lesson and so have you.

„It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore, he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.‟ The church never said that anybody may be converted by force. But at the same time, the church said, „If you do not conform your conscience to our teaching, you will,‟ excuse me if I say it in the Irish way, „go to hell.‟ And now Vatican II requests the states to turn this into a law. In number four, „Therefore provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead,‟ or whatever that is, „with public worship, help their members to practice their religion and strengthen them with religious instruction and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.‟ So please, contribute to the next donation to build a mosque in Los Angeles. The Pope sent a delegate to the official opening of the Islamic mosque in Rome. Friends of mine in Rome, who belonged to a group that is called Very Right Wing, but they are very Catholic, catapulted slices of salami into the mosque. God bless them. Actually what, they’re good people. See, we shoot them with slices of salami. The Quran says in Surah 47 that they ought to kill us. Well, Vatican II is certainly a perverted council because it’s actually here requesting from the civil authorities to give complete freedom to other heretical, schismatical, and pagan religions.

And this is something that has been again condemned by Pius IX in the syllabus. I quote, „Number 20: The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.‟ This is now in the Balamand statement I quoted before with the Orthodox Churches. „Number 21: The church has not the power of defining dogmatically that religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.‟ Vatican II doubts it all the time. They do not say exactly the same, which was condemned here, but they always say something which comes out the same. Because if the Catholic Church, if the civil authorities that always throughout the tradition of the church had to submit to the Pope. Remember Gregory VII excommunicated the German emperor for not submitting to the Pope. And Henry VIII was excommunicated, rightly so, because he split with Rome. Now Vatican II says, „This is all right.‟ And as a matter of fact, the Pope together with that abomination of a so-called bishop calling himself the Archbishop of Canterbury, being a layman of course, because their orders are definitely invalid as Leo XIII declared dogmatically in his Apostolicae Curae. The Pope together with a layman in Canterbury blessed the people. If I had been stupid enough to be there, it would have worked out.

„Number 22 of the condemned sentences: The obligation by which the Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.‟ This is a necessary requisite in order to be able to have dialogue and in order to say that the other religions can save you too. I have told you what the other Popes have said about a hierarchy of truth. And at the end of the list of condemned sentences, we will see what Pius IX said about new theories on the powers of the state and the relation between church and state. In number 77 condemned sentence, „In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.‟ This sentence has been condemned. Now, the document on religious liberty asks the civil authorities to turn religious liberty into a civil right. What was the result? The Constitution of Colombia in South America said that the official state religion of Colombia is the Catholic religion, the Catholic faith. The pope, Paul VI, had them remove that. The Vatican exercised pressure on the Colombian government for more than three months until they gave in and canceled that paragraph of their constitution. Archbishop Lefebvre, who was well-versed with the different constitutions of the different parts of Switzerland, different provinces of the Confoederatio Helvetica, which is Switzerland, the Helvetic Confederation, said that in one of the French-speaking parts of Switzerland, to be precise, the Rhone Valley, the Canton Valais, their local constitution held the Catholic religion as the state religion. The apostolic nuncio in Switzerland forced them to remove that paragraph. This is the interpretation of the document on religious liberty. So let no man say that I viciously interpret it in a way they don’t. They interpret it even stronger than I would have ever.

Another condemned sentence is 78 of the syllabus. „Hence it has been wisely decided by law in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.‟ Now, this is a direct quotation from Vatican II that has been directly condemned by Pope Pius IX, okay? Number 79. „Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship and the full power given to all of overtly or publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.‟ Mind you, this statement is saying it is false to say that the pest of indifferentism is provoked by civil law allowing all religions. Vatican II demands from civil law to allow all religions and foster them and help them. Number 80. „The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to the terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.‟ This has been condemned. „The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.‟ The Roman Pontiff, believe me, has not only come to terms with them, he superated their own desires in his own secularism and in his own indifferentism and in his own treason to the Catholic faith. He’s a traitor. To make sure he understands it, in Polish, the word is zdrajca. Religious liberty, Vatican II says, „Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.‟ It’s time to put the Jehovah Witnesses on welfare, isn’t it? „Also included in the right of religious freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching.‟ The special value of their teaching. Yes. How about the Islamic viewpoint on women? I’m surprised that Hillary hasn’t come out strong against Islam. Heil Hillary. „Also included in the rights of religious freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching for the organization of society and the inspiration of all human activity.‟ This is not coming from Andrew Love, if you know whom I mean. This is not coming from the White House. This is Vatican II. These groups have the right to decide in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the form of religious upbringing which is to be given to their children. This is why now when a Catholic marries a Protestant, there’s no further demand of having the children baptized Catholic. Doesn’t matter anyway. „The civil authority therefore must undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in an effective manner by just legislation and other appropriate means. It must help to create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life so that the citizens will be really in a position to exercise their religious rights and fulfill their religious duties and so that the society itself may enjoy the benefits of justice and peace which results from a man’s faithfulness to God and his holy will.‟ Who are the only ones who fulfill the holy will of God? The Catholics. Nobody else. Vatican II says they all do.

I think this is sufficient as far as the document on religious liberty is concerned. Another last quotation. „The freedom of the church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the church and public authorities and the whole civil order.‟ This is right, of course. „The church claims freedom for herself in human society before every public authority. The church also claims freedom for herself as a society of men with the right to live in civil society in accordance with the tenets of the Christian faith.‟ So now here, we have for the first time a proper understanding of religious liberty. Why is it that the Catholic Church has never publicly condemned the First Amendment to the American Constitution? Because the popes have always known that if a country is not Catholic anyway, we might as well use their ideas about religious liberty. This does not make a teaching. Vatican II turned it into teaching. The First Amendment to the American Constitution adopted in 1791 is not teaching. It’s a workable arrangement. Nothing more. The American Constitution is not a document that teaches the people, it is not a religious document. It is not a document that says, „This is what you have to believe.‟ But, „This is how we are going to organize our society.‟ And in our society with all the religions coming over from Europe, just think of the Mayflower that never sank, unfortunately, with all these religions coming over, the state had little choice. It might have strived for a more Catholic constitution, but anyway, it’s not a teaching document. The scandal here is that Vatican II now turns something that we had to tolerate for 200 years into teaching. „At the same time, the Christian faithful in common with the rest of men have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience. A harmony exists therefore between the freedom of the church and that religious freedom, which must be recognized as the right of all men, and all communities must be sanctioned by constitutional law.‟ It is sanctioned by constitutional law in this country, but where in this document is the mentioning of Christ the King? Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas pronounced as a solemn truth to be held forever that Christ is the king of all societies, and that only in the kingship of Christ we are fully dignified human beings, as Pius X said, „The dignity of the human being lies in his being a Christian.‟ This document, even when it talks about the freedom of the Catholic Church itself, does not mention Christ the King. This goes to show you in which spirit these things were written.

„What is the final meaning of man’s activity in the universe?‟ The council doesn’t give the answer, believe me. „The people of God…‟ That’s the church, we have seen that in Lumen Gentium, the people of God, identical concept to the concept of the church. „The people of God and the human race, which is its setting renders service to each other.‟ Oh, now the church together with all the other human beings, we render service to each other. Again, tell your Hasidic neighbor that you are rendering service to him. He will say, „What? I have not seen it.‟ In number 12, the same scandalous document says, „Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously…‟ Almost means we do not. „Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit.‟ That is Satanism. This is the result of Jacques Maritain’s attempt to reconcile humanism and Christendom in his horrible book, L’Humanisme Integral, Integral Humanism, which was translated into Italian, Umanesimo Integrale, by a certain Giovanni Battista Montini and forwarded with the most praising terms. Giovanni Battista Montini was Paul VI. The very concept that the churches work towards man as their summit and center, it is Satanism because it is substituting God with man. It is putting man in the position of God. Gilbert Keith Chesterton said about this, „If you say I am, and you do not specify what you mean when you say I am, then you pronounce the Word of God, you pronounce the name of God. You claim the name of God for yourself.‟ „The vision of a haloed host that weep around an empty throne, aureoles dark and angels dead, man with his own life stands alone.‟ „’I Am,‚ he says, his bankrupt creed. ’I Am,‚ and is again a clod. The sparrow starts, the grasses stir, for he has said the name of God.‟ Gilbert Keith Chesterton knew what it meant when you put man in the position of God. The only time of the year in Holy Mass that I break the sacred rubrics of mass is on Passion Sunday when Christ in the Gospel says, (Latin). „Before Abraham was, I am.‟ This is the second time of two times, the second time in the Old and New Testament that God says His own name. The Hasidic Jewish neighbor I quoted before would be scandalized, absolutely totally scandalized by Gaudium et Spes Number 12 telling him that his religion is ordained towards man as the center and summit. He will say, „Oh no, it is not. It is God.‟ Because he knows that he commits a mortal sin if he even, in his religion, names the name of God. Yahweh, I Am. God Himself says it only twice in Holy Scripture. When Moses faces the burning thornbush on Sinai and he says, „Who are you?‟ And God answers, (Latin). „I Am who Am.‟ And when Christ says (Latin), „Before Abraham was, I Am,‟ contrary to Vatican II, the Jews react very consequentially. They pick up stones to stone him because he had just said the name of God referring to His own person. They were wrong. Of course the Jews were wrong. They did not recognize Christ as the Son of God, but their reaction was at least logical. You cannot say I am and not add anything. I’m a man. I’m a priest. I’m 44 years old. I’m a doctor of theology. But I cannot say I am. Only God can say I Am because God is infinitely simple being. And when Moses asks Him, „Yes, but what do I tell those people down there who you are?‟ God says, „Tell them that you met the one who is.‟ Qui est. Nothing else. Just the one who is. And that is why from that day on, the word Yahweh, I Am, was so sacred, so sacred that whoever pronounced it was subject to capital punishment.

The logical consequence of that is Vatican II saying in Number 21, „Although the Church altogether rejects atheism…‟ Although. It’s always although and then but. Yeah. Although we are all Catholics, but… Yes. „Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without dialogue.‟ Uh-huh. I guess one of the Council Fathers was George Bush when he said the New World Order. Yeah. No, I take that back. I don’t dislike George Bush half as much as the people who wrote this. He’s not a Catholic bishop.