Gaudium et Spes: Christ Revealing Man to Himself

In 22, 2, (laughing) the Council blasphemously says, „In reality, it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.‟ Right. For Adam, the first man was a type of him who was to come. Excuse me. Who was to come. This is right. This is the prophecy of Christ to come, the new Adam. Christ the Lord, Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love fully reveals man to Himself and brings to light his most high calling.

The Revelation of the Trinity vs. Revelation of Man

So, for some reason, maybe because in the old days, they were not fully enlightened about what is really the Catholic religion, I grew up with the strange concept that in the New Testament, God reveals Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to us, the Trinity. Now, Vatican II teaches me that in His coming, Christ reveals man to Himself. Gaudium et Spes number 22 is one of our beloved present pope’s favorite statements. He quotes it over and over again. In the New Testament, man was not fully revealed to himself; but in the New Testament, we finally understood what the God of the Old Testament was. In the Old Testament, we only hear about God the Father. So Christ became flesh, became man in order to explain to us that there’s God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And He did not say, „Go in all the world and baptize in the name of the man, the man, and the man.‟ He said, „Go and baptize everybody in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.‟ And Saint Paul, talking about the New Testament, very clearly says that here God finally revealed Himself to us. Now, the council says, man was revealed to himself. Of course, if man is the center and summit of all the activities of the church, then man is God.

Christ's Union with Man: "In a Certain Way" vs. "Potentially"

He who is the image of the invisible God is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sins. Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For by His incarnation, He, the Son of God, has in a certain way… The council always loves that term, „in a certain way,‟ but they never say what. Has in a certain way united Himself with each man. I talked about this yesterday. I am pope. Hey, I want to see some reactions. (laughing) Oh, yeah. Potentially, I am. Yes, I am pope. Potentially, I am. I might be elected. (laughing) The probability is 0.00000… (laughing) If the council had wanted to tell the truth, which is obviously not the case—they did not want to tell the truth—if the council had wanted to teach the truth, I think 2,000 bishops, not all of whom were dummies, would have come up with a declaration saying, „For by His incarnation, He, the Son of God, has united Himself with each man potentially.‟ You don’t have to say, „in a certain way,‟ because that doesn’t mean anything. Potentially, He has. From the moment He died on the cross, He gave every single man the chance to say yes to Him. They don’t, (laughing) so He has not united Himself with every single man, no matter what the council says.

Critique of Vatican II's Methodology: Abuse of Quotations and Footnotes

And at this very point, as a parenthesis on the council’s methodology, I allow myself to digress a little from the content of the council to show you that these people, their methodology is something that in junior high school would be considered profoundly dishonest and unworthy of a scholar: namely, the abuse of quotations and wrong footnotes. I’ll show you what I mean. The council says, „Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed in Him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare.‟ Footnote 22. Footnote 22 says, „Confer the Council of Constantinople, 2 Canon 7. Neither was God the Word changed into the nature of flesh, nor His flesh changed into the nature of the Word.‟ Denzinger, 428. „Confer also the Council of Constantinople number 3. For as His all holy and immaculate and souled flesh was not destroyed by being deified, but persisted in its own state and sphere.‟ Denzinger-Schermetzter number 556. Confer the Council of Chalcedon. „Recognized in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.‟ Denzinger-Schermetzter number 302 footnote ends. This footnote, telling us that when God became man, the nature of God was not in the least touched, is now after saying, „By the very fact that He was assumed not absorbed in Him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare.‟ The footnote does not corroborate what the council says. The council postulates that now our dignity has been raised beyond compare because Christ became man. The Council of Chalcedon, the Third Council of Constantinople, and the Second Council of Constantinople condemned such opinions, or likewise opinions, or similar opinions. And now Vatican II, (hands clap) just like a junior grade high school idiot who wants to cheat his teacher into believing that he is capable of scientific work, quotes something totally out of context. (motorbike engine roars)

Hope for Resurrection and Salvation Outside the Church

Then the council speaks about the hope for resurrection. „All this holds true, not for Christians only, but for all men of goodwill in whose hearts grace is active invisibly.‟

Critique of "All Men of Goodwill" and Baptism "Re aut Voto"

Now, we have quite a fight about that in this country, considering that Leonard Feeney said that if you’re not baptized with the water and Holy Spirit, you cannot go to heaven. He’s just quoting Christ, and indeed he does. Christ said, „If you’re not baptized with the water and Holy Spirit, you cannot go to heaven.‟ The Council of Trent, in accordance with tradition, interpreted this line by saying, „Those who have not been baptized with the water and the Holy Spirit,‟ Re aut voto. That’s a literal quotation from Trent. „Re aut voto.‟ Indeed or in a votum. Now, the votum is not a vague desire to do good. The votum baptismi is the promise to get baptized. At least it is the promise to want baptism the moment you can, the moment you know about it. It is the votum, the promise to give up your own opinions, your own wishes, your own standpoints for God. This is not a vague desire. (coughs) It is not a vague goodwill. And that is how this line is to be understood. The gospel must never be interpreted out of context literally, because this is what Martin Luther did. Like, in another place, Christ says, this is the communion of the devoted mass of the Holy Eucharist on Thursdays. You can look up the direct quotation there. Christ says, „Who does not eat of my flesh and not drink of My blood will not be in heaven.‟ That would mean literally interpreted that no innocent child can go to heaven because he has not received the body and blood of the Lord. And even though sometimes in history it happened miraculously that an angel would come and distribute communion to an innocent child or a saint would come, some stuff like that, does not mean that all the innocent children who have not been able to receive communion are not in heaven. This would be against church doctrine, it would be against the defined doctrine of the church, Fourth Council of the Lateran. But this council here, and that explains why people sometimes go a little bit beyond the limits of church doctrine to fight this, which is very understandable. This council here says, „All this holds true, not for Christians only, but for all men of goodwill.‟ No, it doesn’t. Christ explicitly said that it is not enough to have goodwill and good works. Saint Paul explains that very well, too. You have to have the faith. The faith alone can save. Not the faith alone, but without the faith, you cannot be saved. Martin Luther said, „Sola fides, the faith alone.‟ The Catholic Church says, „No, you have to have the faith, the good works, the sacraments. But without the faith, you cannot be saved, no matter how many sacraments you receive and how many good works you do.‟

Council of Florence: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

As a matter of fact, it is about time to give you the literal quotation of what I quoted already several times over from the Council of Florence. Pope Eugene IV, proclaiming as a dogma of the church says… I give you the quotation first in Latin, because for those who want to look up things and do not have the sources, it will be easier. This is the Council of Florence in the year 1441 or ‚42. They had different ways of counting the years in those days. (Latin) signed by Eugene IV. When a council solemnly declares, saying, (Latin) that the church firmly believes, professes, and preaches, then this is to be considered extraordinary teaching. It is to be considered dogma. The paragraph reads, (Latin) Nullus extra Catholica ecclésiam existentis, non solum paganos, sed nec Judæos aut hæreticos aut schismaticos aeterni vitæ fíri posse participes, sed in ignem æternum ituros, qui paratus est diabolo et angeli ejus, nisi ante finem vitæ eadem fuerint aggregati. Tantumque valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solum in ea manentibus, ac salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant, et iunia, elemosinae, accettare pietatis officia, ac exercitia militiae Christianae praemia aeterna parturiant. Neminemque, quantascumque elemosynas fecerit etsi pro Christi nomine sanguine mefuderit posse salvari. Nisi in Catholica Ecclesiæ gremio et unitate permanecerit. In English. The church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that nobody who is outside the Catholic, outside the church, who exists outside the Catholic Church, neither… Not, not only the pagans, but also not the Jews, also not the heretics, also not the schismatics, can be participant in eternal life. They cannot (Latin). But they will go into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined with the church before the end of their life. And the council professes, believes and preaches that this ecclesiat-… The unity of this ecclesiastical body, we have again the Catholic concept of unity, not the heretical concept of Vatican II. The churches that are schismatic and heretical have to be united with us in order to have full union. The church has always enjoyed full union. So the council says, „And this unity of the body, of the ecclesiastical body, is worth so much that only those who remain within her and receive the salvation of the ecclesiastical sacraments, and profess them, and do their fastings and elemosynes, and all the other offices of piety, and all the other exercises of Christian virtues would have the eternal prize.‟ That means salvation. Only those who remain within her will be able to save, be saved. And then the council quotes a source of a saint, thus canonizing his scriptures. The council says, „Nobody, how often and how many elemosynes he might have done, even if he was to shed his blood for the name of Christ, cannot be saved if he’s not within the Catholic Church and its union.‟

Gaudium et Spes (Continued): International Order and Authorship

I will skip most of the scandalous statements in Gaudium Et Spes. I have given you the worst ones. But let me quote 88, „Christians should willingly and wholeheartedly support the establishment of an international order.‟ Oh. (laughs) This was written by Paul VI, not George Bush. (laughs) I have given you the most important quotations to document Gaudium Et Spes, and at least to some of the present people’s surprise, I will now tell you who wrote this document. It was not George Bush, indeed. Indirectly, it was the so-called Blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of the Opus Dei. I do not say that. His successor and former secretary, Dom Alvaro de Portillo says so in the introduction to one of the books of Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. I’ve learned to be careful with pronouncements on the Opus Dei. They’re very vicious in discussion, especially in written discussion, as Father Paul Kramer will prove to you in his book, at least concerning one of their priests. The introduction written by Alvaro de Portillo says that at the time of the council, while Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was not able to attend all of the sessions, his secretary was there as an expert, Alvaro de Portillo. And Alvaro de Portillo, in his foreword to the book says that, „Gaudium Et Spes expresses very clearly the majority of the thoughts and ideas of the founder of the Opus Dei.‟ And indeed, there are witnesses to the fact that when, in the time of Pius XII, membership in the Communist Party was under excommunication, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer admitted communists into his Opus Dei without asking them to leave the party. This is how much the future saint, quote-unquote, respected the pope’s orders.

Critique of Modernism and the Role of Laity

Here we see a pernicious doctrine coming up that puts the laity as the basis of all change. I have just been quoting Pius X’s encyclical on modernism. And even though I did so in Philadelphia, and you will be able to read about it in the Catholic Family News, I will read the most important point of Pascendi Dominici Gregis to you. In the edition of the Saint Paul editions, you find the encyclical letter of Pope Pius X on the doctrines of the modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis together with the syllabus condemning the errors of the modernists. This is another syllabus, not the one of Pius IX. They have their own numbers in their edition, number 27, the pope says… The pope is talking about the methods of the modernists who destroy faith. And he says they believe in the principle of change.

Thomistic Philosophy vs. Modernist Principle of Change

Thomistic philosophy says that a thing is what it is, res est quod est. Thomistic philosophy is based on the principle of non-contradiction. A thing, one and the same thing, cannot be and not be at the same time. That’s impossible. From the same viewpoint, nothing can be and not be at the same time. As a matter of fact, not just from the same viewpoint, but things cannot objectively be and not be at the same time. It is not possible that I am a priest and not a priest at the same time. It is not possible that this is a magnifying lens, and at the same time it is not. And if some rude person would abuse this wine glass as an ashtray, it does not become an ashtray. It is a wine glass abused as an ashtray. But even if it was to be found as an archaeological finding in 200 years from now, and they would say, „Hey, wait a second. What is this? I’ve never seen this before,‟ because Hillary meanwhile abolished alcohol again. (laughs) Might say, „Okay, I’m gonna stamp out my joint here.‟ (laughs) And he calls it an ashtray. Does that make it an ashtray? No, it doesn’t. It’s still a wine glass abused as an ashtray. Things are what they are, and not anything else. In modern philosophy, on which unfortunately, the present pope’s philosophy is based, things are not necessarily what they are. It depends on the century, the view of the culture. It depends on how I see it. It depends on how other people see it. This is not an objective basis of thinking. It is, as a matter of fact, lowering oneself into pure and total subjectivism. Subjectivism is something to be condemned, also because subjectivism means that everybody’s right. And that is, of course, a lot of nonsense. Only one thing can be right, not many at the same time. A thing is what it is, and nothing else. This is a wine glass and not an ashtray.

Modernist View of Evolution: Conservatives vs. Progressives

Now, as things change naturally, we have a dialogue between the changing things… in this dialogue, we have to discuss from different viewpoints. And so, Pius X, who was an extremely intelligent and experienced person, very well analyzed the deepest problem of the modernists. He says, „There are the conservatives and there are the progressives.‟ You’veheard that before, didn’t you? „Although evolution is urged on by needs of necessity, yet if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition. Tradition is represented…‟ This is what the modernists say, not Pius X, okay? „Tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition. And in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress.‟ So this is the conservatives. That means Cardinal Ratzinger would condemn a heresy because he, being an authority behind closed walls, not understanding anyway what’s going on in the world, not aware of the needs of the faithful, naive, academic, full of dust- (laughing) … will have to defend tradition, at least to a certain point, which he does. But, „The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them, especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life.‟

The Role of Opus Dei and the Influence of Liberalism

This is exactly why you have the Cursillo and all the basic groups, and why you have the laity telling the bishops what they need, and why you have all the laypeople saying the prayers of the faithful instead of saying the prayers the saints wrote. This is why we have a discussion between the progressives and the conservatives. And here comes in the role of the Opus Dei. The Opus Dei has sworn a particular fidelity to the Papacy, just like the Jesuits long ago. Long ago. (laughing) The Opus Dei defends whatever the pope says. They’re absolutely loyal to the pope. They are not absolutely loyal, if ever, to the teaching of the Church. They are loyal to what the pope says now. If the pope now says that the Muslims together with us adore one merciful God, the Opus Dei will say, „The Muslims together with us adore one merciful God.‟ If the pope says now there must be dialogue with the non-Christians, and the Holy Spirit can be found in other religions, and that the Spirit of Christ does not deny salvation to other churches such as the Protestant, then the Opus Dei will say, „Yes, absolutely, that’s what it is.‟ And if the present pope says that every human being is entitled to choose his own religion, the Opus Dei will say, „Yes, that’s exactly what it is.‟ If the pope, on the other hand, says that you must not practice artificial contraception, the Opus Dei will, for the same reason, say, „Yes, exactly, you must not.‟ If the pope says abortion is murder, the Opus Dei will say abortion is murder. And this is the difference now to the liberals. The liberals will always say what they like in the Opus Dei and in the pope, and they will condemn what they do not like, because why is this? Well, Vatican II has given them full authority. So has the present pope. They are the ones who cause the change in tradition. They are the ones with their inner needs and with their religious experiences, and with their own pondering the facts come to the conclusion the Holy Father has said, „I must find myself.‟ (laughing) He did. He did, he did, he did. Redemptor Hominis, I think it is. „The Holy Father has said now find, I must find myself. I only can find myself in sex.‟ (laughing) „So probably, the Holy Father has to change his opinion on artificial contraception. Also, at the same time, I heard that my local bishop said that I may take the pill, but my local parish priest said that I may take the pill, and the bishop said the same thing, and the Holy Father’s not chastising them. So maybe in reality the Holy Father thinks the same thing. I don’t know.‟ I’m quoting a lady, literally, her name will not be named. You wouldn’t know her anyway. But this is a literal quotation. „My parish priest said it’s all right. His bishop did not say anything against it when confronted with the question, and the pope did not yet criticize the bishop for anything.‟ So this lady finds herself in wild sex. (laughing) This is the needs of the faithful, as it is called here. This is the inner needs. This is their contribution to the development of tradition.

Pius X on the Laity as a Factor of Progress

All of this can be reduced, and I quote now Saint Pius X again. „All of this can be reduced to the following. ‚Already we observe the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church.’‟ Saint Pius X on Vatican II’s concept of tradition. The laity as the factor of progress in the church. One of the things that Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of the Opus Dei, never got tired to insist is, to say that the Church is based on the laity. It is not. As Archbishop Lefebvre very well said, „The Church is essentially a priestly church.‟ God, the pope, the bishops, the priests, and the laypeople. The latter of whom cannot be anything without the clergy, and cannot have any proper vocation. There are some among us here who exercise an admirable mission (pauses) among the non-Catholic members of the Church of the New Advent. Their mission has my blessing. Their mission cannot be a mission if it is not blessed by a priest. Their mission is not a mission if it is not blessed by the Church, and if it is not asked for by the Church. If the Church did not want some of you to do this wonderful mission, then you would not have a mission. You would just be doing your own business. But because the Church, because the priests, and because the bishops, because Archbishop Lefebvre said, „We must inform the people, because we must tell the people the truth.‟ We must inform them. And because I, as a priest of the Catholic Church, say unto you, „You must inform your family, your friends, your neighbors.‟ You have the mission. This mission comes from above, like I have received it from above. I have been asked to inform the people, and Archbishop Lefebvre received his mission when at his own consecration. The book of the Gospel was put on his head like this. (pauses) This is the moment a bishop receives the mission. This is the moment he receives the power to teach in the name of our Lord. And only when he receives this, he can, with imposition of his hands at the priestly ordination, give this mission to a priest. And I give it to you with my blessing. (applause) (Benedicite Omi Potentis, Patris Filii et Spiritus Sancti descenda super vos et per mannes eis semper.)

Questions and Answers

Questions and answers. Please, when you ask a question—Speak, speak out loud please. Yeah. Please shout and scream so you can be heard on the tape. Yes? (?). Hey, we should do one thing. Who wants to ask a question? Come up here to this table and speak into the microphone, please. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be shy. (laughing) The one who laughs about questions is dumb, not the one who asks them.

Q1: Did bishops signing Vatican II documents cease to be Catholic?

Questioner: The first question is, um, do you think that all the bishops who signed the documents at the Second Vatican Council, uh, ceased to be Catholic because they signed those documents?

Q2: Is the Chair of Peter vacant (Sedevacantism)?

Questioner: Uh, Father, could you please comment on, uh, the allegation that the Chair of Peter is vacant?

Q3: Are Sedevacantist groups in error?

Questioner: At the see of the countries have stated the chair is an empty inspired default. They’re an error, right?

Q4: Can Vatican II be reconciled with tradition or must it be repudiated?

Questioner: Um, Father, in light of all that you have said about Magis II, is it possible or desirable to reconcile with tradition and with authentic church doctrines, or must it be entirely ?

Q5: Is the election of the Pope an act of the Holy Spirit?

Questioner: Um, I was a normal brainwashed conciliar Catholic, and I… I was taught that the election of the pope was, uh, an act of the Holy Spirit. Yeah.

Q6: If Jesus is always with the Church, what part is He with?

Questioner: The question was, „If Jesus… if Jesus promised to be always with the church, what part of the church is he with?‟

Q7: Where is the one true Church now (practical question)?

Questioner: (clears throat) I’d like to try to clarify a question and follow up on it. The idea is, where is the one true church now? Much of the magisterium has said theoretically, a certain percentage, 40%, 50%. If not now, but in the future.

Q8: Advice for a man with a priestly vocation?

Questioner: Father, if a man comes to you and says, „I think I have a vocation to the priesthood, Father,‟ what advice would you give him as to how he could realize that and save his soul?

Q9: Is the new Catechism trustworthy?

Questioner: No, another? Yeah. Uh, Father, is the new Catechism trustworthy?