Fr. Hesse: Vatican II vs. Syllabus of Errors - Part 1

hesse

Fr. Hesse: Vatican II vs. Syllabus of Errors - Part 1

Transcript of the talk by Fr. Hesse: Vatican II vs. Syllabus of Errors - Part 1

Introduction of Father Gregory Hesse
Preliminary Remarks and Clarifications
Important Theological Distinctions
The Mandate to Speak Truth
Critique of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)

Beginning his systematic demonstration of Vatican II’s contradiction of the Syllabus of Errors, Fr. Hesse establishes crucial theological distinctions between objective and subjective judgments, material and formal heresy, and valid versus licit sacraments to clarify his methodology.
He corrects Canon 13 of Trent’s proper translation, which forbids any pastor whatsoever—including the pope—from changing liturgical rites, and explains the hierarchy of theological positions from dogma to probable opinion. Fr. Hesse defends his mandate to speak uncompromising truth by citing Christ’s words about bringing a sword rather than false peace. He dissects Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, showing how it blasphemously seeks „union‟ with heretics, confuses Christ’s presence in the liturgy, demands that texts be understood „with ease‟ contrary to the mystical nature of worship, and transfers liturgical authority from Rome to bishops’ conferences.
Fr. Hesse demonstrates how the council’s emphasis on „active participation‟ leads to Protestant and Pentecostal innovations, destroys traditional hierarchies, and ultimately produces the liturgical chaos visible today through vernacular masses and cultural adaptations that admit pagan elements.

Introduction of Father Gregory Hesse

Everyone, I want to thank you all for coming today to meet Father Gregory Hesse. He is, uh, recently beginning talks in Philadelphia, Medford, Oregon, and we’re very happy to have him here with us today. Next week, he will be speaking in New Orleans, and then Ohio and New York before his return to his home in Vienna, Austria. His trip to the US are being sponsored by Meta. You all, you’re all familiar with Meta. Yeah. Uh, Father Hess studied and worked among bishops and cardinals in Rome for 15 years. He has his bachelor’s from… Father Gregory Hesse. Accionis nostras quaesumus domine. Esperando preveniat adiuvandos prosequimcunque nostros oratio et operatio vertice in principio per te accepta. Finem tropicae Christum Dominum nostrum. Sancte Pio Decime, ora pro nobis.

Preliminary Remarks and Clarifications

On Drinking Wine and Christ's First Miracle

First things first, I heard some people disapproved of my drinking wine on the first video that was made in New Orleans at the, uh, in springtime this year. Those people who do not like me to- to drink wine and those people who do not like to see me drinking wine should remember what the first miracle was that Christ made. Do I have to say more? No. Thank you.

On Being a "Self-Appointed Theologian"

Some people… I have to correct another misunderstanding. Some people had the audacity to call me a self-appointed theologian. That is not correct. I hold a doctorate in theology of the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome. That means the pope appointed me a theologian, not I.

On Questions about Cardinals and Church Politics

Sometimes people ask me what, uh, Cardinal so-and-so meant and what he’s going to… W- When he said something and what he’s going to do in- in the future, and how is the relationship between the pope and the cardinals, and how is the relationship between the cardinals and the bishops and so on. And in my first tape, I said that this is, to me, a kind of theological Weekly World News and National Enquirer. I do not want to offend these papers, but don’t ask questions about what should be in the Rainbow Press and not in Good Theology.

Clarification of Canon 13, Council of Trent (Seventh Session)

There’s another thing that I have to clear up. I was quoting Canon 13 of the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent. And this canon, this is very important, this canon outlaws any f- future writing up of a new liturgy. This canon is unfortunately most of the times translated in a wrong way. Even with tan books… I can only recommend tan book- tan books to you, but sometimes, of course, everybody makes mi- makes mistakes, you just heard mine. Uh, sometimes things are not translated in a correct way, and that can cause a lot of confusion.

Now, Canon 13 of the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent in English, „If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church once to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be contemned or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones, let him be anathema.‟ That translation is wrong. It doesn’t say or changed by every pastor because in the Latin it says, „Si quis dixerit receptos et aprobatos Ecclesiae Catholicae ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione ad hyperi consuetos aut contemni aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitte audient novos alios per quem cumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse anathema sit.‟ „Per quem cumque,‟ by whomsoever. And that makes… That gives a totally different significance to this canon. If you say that if anyone says that the- the- the Catholic and the- uh, the- the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church can be changed by every pastor, you’re not saying anything new. We don’t need the Council of Trent to tel- to tell me that, uh- uh, I must not change the rites. I don’t need the Council of Trent for explaining to me that the- the- the Catholic liturgy cannot be changed around by every single parish priest. And that’s not what the council intended to say. As a matter of fact, the council is talking about, uh, people who, um, do not esteem the approved and habitual rites of the church because it says, „Once to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments these rites may be contemned.‟ And the council says whoever says they may be contemned is to be held outside the church. The Council of Trent says, „Whoever says that he can leave out things, something, words, sentences, meanings, gestures in these rites at pleasure by the ministers, he ought to be considered outside the church.‟

Now, the Council of Trent has just said that nobody can change the rites. It doesn’t have to repeat it by saying changed by every pastor. The council in- in- in fact intended to say and said per quem cumque ecclesiarum pastorem, by whomsoever. Now, whomsoever includes the popes. The pope is a pastor of the churches, he’s Bishop of Rome, Archbishop of the Province of Latium, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Vicar of Christ, and servant of the servants of God…. the pope cannot write up new rites. That’s what the Council of Trent said. This is what Pope Innocent III said when he said, „If a future pope was to change round all the sacraments and everything, you do not follow him.‟ And at the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV had as his personal theologian, a certain Cardinal Torquemada, the uncle of the famous and saintly inquisitor in Spain. And Cardinal Torquemada wrote a book which is called Summa Ecclesiae. And in his book, Summa Ecclesiae, he says, „If a pope was to try to change all the rites and the sacraments, he puts himself outside the church.‟ Pope Eugene IV read that book, and he gave the title Defender of the Faith to Cardinal Torquemada.

Important Theological Distinctions

Before I start to explain to you the problems of Vatican II, I want to make some very important distinctions. I know this, in recent conversations, in discussions, even with famous writers, with famous learned men, very learned men, that there seems to be a great difficulty to apply the distinction of objective and subjective, even by people who are very learned and are quite able to explain the distinction to me academically. Still, they have a problem applying it. So let me make a few distinctions, starting with objective/subjective.

Objective vs. Subjective

Now, the word objective. You can check me, you can check me on everything I say. Check me with the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language if you don’t trust my explanation. Objective means something concerns the object, the thing. Subjective means something concerns the person. So when I pronounce an objective judgment, I judge facts and things or actions. When I pronounce a subjective judgment, I judge a person, and I do not want to do that, by the way. Objectively, this is a very good wine. Subjectively, not everybody might like it. Objectively means concerning the thing itself, what it is and how it is. Subjectively means what it means to me, how I understand it. When the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, in 1441, said that nobody who is not subject to the Roman pontiff, even if he was to shed his blood for Christ, cannot be saved, the pope was pronouncing an objective judgment. The pope did not say that all Protestants are in Hell. The pope said, „Objectively speaking, they have no chance to be saved.‟ Subjectively, what the Lord will do with them, we do not know. (Latin) The Church does not judge internal things. (Latin) The Church does not judge the dead. So this is the distinction of objective and subjective.

Material vs. Formal

There has to be a distinction of material and formal. Material means some- means something is there, it exists, it is there. Formal means it is e- it is declared as such. When I say that the present pope is a heretic, sometimes that causes raised eyebrows and harsh criticisms. I say the present pope is a material heretic. That means there is heresy to be found in his writings, and I will prove it to you, and I have proved it to you on the first tape. I do not say he is a heretic in the sense that he wants to say heresy, that he commits the sin of heresy. I would not dare to pronounce this judgment. Nobody can judge the pope anyway, and nobody can chur- can judge other people’s intentions and other people’s consciences. We can only judge what we see. I see there is heresy printed, so it is there. Material heresy. The matter of heresy is there. I do not say it is formal heresy. To show you the difference, the present pope always says, „In accordance with tradition, I say to you…‟ and then he says something wrong. Well, obviously, he doesn’t mean to say heresy, or he wouldn’t say, „In accordance to tradition.‟ But if he was to say, „Contrary to what the Council of Trent taught you, I say…‟ In that moment, he ceases to be pope, most probably, because that would be objective formal heresy, not material heresy.

Valid vs. Licit

There’s another distinction. It is unbelievable what people say after I held a speech or gave a sermon. I once said, „The new Mass of Paul VI, celebrated in Latin according to the book, most probably is validly celebrated.‟ And somebody walked out of the session and said, „Father Hess says the new Mass is all right.‟ I didn’t say it’s all right. I said it’s valid under certain circumstances. Valid means validity. It takes place, it is there. It is not licit. The question of liceity, is it licit or not licit, means is it allowed or not allowed? Under certain circumstances, the new rites of the sacraments may take place as well. That doesn’t mean they are allowed. See, the Russian Orthodox Church, the, the, the Catholic Church always recognizes the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has all the seven sacraments valid-… but not licit because they’re heretics and schismatics. They’re heretics because they say the pope is not infallible, never infallible, and they are schismatics because they say the pope does not have the primacy. But they celebrate validly. So you have to get this distinction right, valid and licit.

Act vs. Potency

Then, there’s something very important to be said about today’s usage of language, and here I want to give you the distinction of act and potency. The entire philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas is based on the distinction of act and potency. A thing, anything, anything that is, can be in two ways: actually or potentially. Something that is might be already what it should be and is, and it might be something else in the future. Vatican II and the present pope do not use this distinction because they’re based on a different philosophy, and that causes a lot of confusion. When the present pope says, „Our people are saved,‟ is he right? Yes, he is right. Oh, yeah. Oh, yes. Our people are saved in potency, potentially. Possibly they are saved. Possibly. When Christ, Christ died on the cross, in order to enable mankind to be saved. Doesn’t mean that everybody will be saved, and actually, not everybody is saved. Our Lady showed the children that Hell is packed with people when she appeared in, in, uh, Fa- in Fatima, in 1917. So, when I speak English, you will agree with me, I have to submit to the rules of speaking English. When I speak, I have to submit to the rules of speaking. I do not think you would appreciate it very much if I was to tell you, „I am pope.‟ I am pope, potentially. So is every male present. I am pope, potentially. As long as I tell you that possibly I might become pope but the probability is zilch, you will say, „Yes, okay.‟ (laughs) But if I was to say to you, „I am pope,‟ you would say, „This guy is nuts.‟ Rightly so. If I say to you, „Possibly, possibly, in as far as potentiality, possibility is concerned, Christ saved everybody,‟ he did not as far as the actuality is concerned save everybody because there’s enough people who say no. So, uh, I try my best to submit to the rules of the English language and to the rules of language, and I request the pope to do the same. I have a right to request it because he’s our supreme teacher, and I have a right to demand from my supreme teacher that he uses the language correctly. So I want him to say, „Not everybody is saved, only potentially everybody is saved.‟ So far for the distinctions.

Heresy, Schism, Error, Disobedience

Then there is a difference between heresy, schism, error, disobedience. Schism means, „I separate myself from the Church, not denying anything of the faith itself, but I separate myself from the Church, denying the Church authority.‟ If I tell you that you shouldn’t listen to the pope when he says something wrong, I just tell you what Pope Innocent III said. I just tell you what Pope Pius IX said. If I was to tell you, „You should not regard this pope anyway,‟ then I would lead you into schism. Do not deny the power of decision to the pope. Look, President Clinton is president or not? Yes. Unfortunately, yes. (laughs) She is pre- uh, um, excuse me. He, he, he is president. (laughs) He is president. Is she, uh, is he the, uh, is he the, the, the supreme commander of the Armed Forces of the United States? Yes, unfortunately. Yes. We must not deny this. We have no right to deny this. But if he was to tell me as supreme commander that I should disregard the Ten Commandments, I will say, „No, sir. I will not.‟ I reject the command. I do not reject his power to give the command. And this is our relationship to the present pope. We are sorry for what he does, but we do not deny that he is pope. We do not deny that he has the power. We do not deny that only the Catholic Church is the right church. We do not deny that the Catholic Church has to be led by the pope as the Vicar of Christ. (coughs) Anybody of you who denies that is in schism with the Church.

What does heresy mean? Heresy means, materially, objectively, first of all, heresy means you deny or doubt a defined doctrine of the Church. If you’ll say, „Our Lady was not immaculately conceived,‟ you’re a heretic. If you say, „I’m really not sure if this really happened,‟ you’re a heretic. Materially first, because you might have misunderstood something. Formally, if you say, „I don’t care what the Church says, it’s not true.‟ You might be in error. Contrary to heresy, which means that you know the dogma of the Church and you deny or doubt it, you might have an, uh, a mistaken understanding of what the Church says. You might be erroneous. Sometimes this present pope is-… in error, sometimes it’s in heresy, materially. If I have to suppose that there is something the church defined that he has to know, and he says something to the contrary, then I see he is a heretic. If I see that he misunderstood, clearly misunderstood a dogma, then I have to talk about error. Always judging objectively and materially.

Disobedience has nothing got to do with schism or heresy or error. When Archbishop Lefebvre denied the pope’s command not to consecrate bishops, well, at first gl- at first glance, he was disobedient. I have explained in my other tape why he was not disobedient. He was disobedient to a wrong and unjust and dangerous command coming from the pope. He was not disobedient to tradition and the will of Christ. But in a, in no case, and from no viewpoint is it justified to say that he’s in schism. Schism means to deny the authority of the pope, not to disobey a command. I’ve explained that. These distinctions must be clear in your minds, otherwise you will not understand what I’m g- about to say.

Loci Theologici (Theological Places/Positions)

And then there’s something that I have to explain about what is called in Latin, the loci theologici, the theological places, the theological positions. I told you that something might be heresy and something might be erroneous, but there are finer distinctions than that. A Catholic truth can be de fide divina, by divine faith. That is when the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence or First Vatican Council declared a dogma. It might be de fide catholica. That is when the church has always believed it. De fide catholica means the church has always believed it, it’s part of the faith, like the creed. De fide definita means the church has always believed it but once in history, a pope made a definition. When in 1854 Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, he did not tell us anything new. He just made a definition about what it is exactly to mean.

Then you might have a theological judgment, which is called fidei proxima, closest to the faith. That means it’s not a dogma, but the church has always believed it, and it could be a dogma anytime. Like for example, the Co-redemptrix, the fact that Our Lady has had the first role in helping with redemption. That will have to be defined eventually for the simple reason that many people are confused about what it means. Did Our Lady redeem us? No. Our Lord did, and only our Lord. Then why may she get the title of Co-redemptrix? What does it exactly mean? Well, I’m not the pope and I won’t define it, but the pope should in the future. But it is a sententia fidei proxima, that means you may not deny it without fear of punishment from God.

Then there is a sententia certa, that means it is not actually of the faith, but, uh, we are very sure about it. Then there’s something which is sententia communis. That means we might not even be sure about it, but everybody says so. Not in the sense of democracy, but in the sense of historical accordance, in the sense that, uh, most of the saints agreed on it, most of the theologians in, in history and church teachers agreed on it, and most of the popes agreed on it. That’s a sententia communis. And then you have a sententia probabilis. It is probable, that means. We don’t know exactly, but probably that’s what it is. Like, uh, the old question, what happens, uh, in certain circumstances if somebody who is not, uh, uh, in the state of grace dies with an act of contrition? Church always said if he does a perfect act of contrition, he will be saved, but we don’t… It’s not a dogma. It is most probably so. Most probably he will be saved. It is, uh, the sententia probabilis means we don’t know any better than what we got here. Probably this is what it is, but, uh, uh, we have not yet understood sacred scripture and tradition enough to be sure about it.

Ecclesiastical Censures

And then there’s the ecclesiastical censures. I’ve been criticized for calling Vatican II a heretical council, because they said there’s many true things in here, many true quotations, and then there are many quotations in here that are definitely not heresy, but just strange, ambiguous, funny, weird. So let me make… let me, uh, uh, uh, explain these terms to you. If something is heretical, it is directly denying a dogma of the faith. If something is heresy proxima, close to heresy, it is not actually denying literally a dogma, but it’s coming pretty close to it. If something is erroneous, it is not denying a dogma, it’s just making a mistake about it. If something is errori proxima, closest to an error, it is not wrong in itself, but by circumstances. If something is temeraria, it means it’s rather daring to say so. In the first document of Vatican II you will find a lot of things that the church considers daring. It’s daring to say so. What does it mean, it’s daring to say so?

Now… the fact that priests in the traditional rite of the Latin church say the Leonine prayers after mass, the three Hail Marys, the Salve Regina, and so on, has been established by Pope Leo the 13th. They cannot possibly say it’s an ancient tradition, right? But if I was to say, „Oh, we don’t need that,‟ obviously it’s not heresy. It was not defined that we have to say it. Obviously it’s not close to heresy. Obviously it’s not erroneous because we’re not talking about the truth or the faith. If I was to say we don’t need the Leonine prayers, I would say something that is daring, because how dare I say it? How dare you say it? And at the same time, it’s malis sonans. It doesn’t sound good. It never sounds good if you criticize tradition. And it is piarum aurium offensiva. It’s offensive to pious ears. Somebody tells me, „I don’t give a damn about the Leonine prayers,‟ I’m offended, because I hold them dear to my heart. They’re more needed than ever before nowadays. If somebody really expresses his, uh, his, uh, uh, viewpoints like this, I’m offended. I’m offended in my pious ears, because in my piety, in my submission to tradition, in my accepting what is tradition, in my respect for Leo the 13th, I’m offended. And it is scandalous too when done, when done in public, because some other people will be offended and say, „What’s this guy? What’s his authority? How does he dare to say Pope Leo the 13th was wrong?‟ Now, I will say to you in certain circumstances that, uh, John the 23rd, Paul the 6th, John Paul the 1st, and John Paul the 2nd are wrong, and sometimes even Pius the 12th in his actions was wrong. How dare I say it? Well, when I say it, I explain it to you. I do not just say that’s a fact and you better, you better believe it. That would be daring and offensive, and this is another sin here of the church.

The Mandate to Speak Truth

So before I start a detailed lecture of some of the scandalous documents of Vatican II, let me quote the Gospel. „But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.‟ Some people say, „Why does this Father Hess not… Why is he not kind and nice like all the others? Why does he fight? Why does he draw a sword when we want peace?‟ Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Latin) Some say this Father Hess is a rigorist. Let me quote another rigorist. „For verily I say unto you, till heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.‟ Why is it that Father Hess wants to say the truth, the truth, the truth, and not some nice and kind things? Because Our Lord didn’t say, „I get you… I, I, I give you a little bit and little bit here and a little bit there of the truth.‟ No, He did not say that. He said, (Latin). „I am the way, the truth, and the life.‟ He said, „I am the truth.‟ God is the truth. He’s not a truck full of truth. He is the truth. He does not give us one truth and another. He gives us Himself in holy communion, and that’s how we are united to the truth and that’s how we have to be united to the truth. And that’s why I always say I don’t care who it is, but if a priest lies to you, that’s the worst sin. „But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.‟

Critique of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)

Now, let’s have a closer look at the first constitution of Vatican II. It is called, like, tr- in the tradition of the church, you name papal or conciliar documents usually with the first two or three words in Latin, so it’s called Sacrosanctum Concilium of December 4th, 1963. … yeah. But they are wrong. When Father Kramer… I recommend the book to you. When Father Kramer, in his theological vindication of Roman tradition, says that Vatican II did not want the Novus Ordo Missae, he’s right. He’s right in the sense, which he explains very well, he’s right in the sense that what the new, Novus Ordo Missae came out to be is far beyond what Vatican II wanted. But Vatican II blasphemously wanted to change the liturgy. And how. And we will see how.

Aiming for Union and Adaptation to the Modern Age (SC 1)

„The sacred council has set out to impart an ever increasing vigor for the Christian life of the faithful, to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change, to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.‟ This concept of union is erroneous and has been condemned by Pius the 11th in his encyclical Mortalium animos on ecumenism, condemning what today is called ecumenism. Pope Pius the 11th in his document Mortalium animos says it is absolutely wrong and to be condemned to say that the church is not in union.In the creed, we see (Latin). The church is always one. The church is never divided. The Protestants are not Catholic Church, not in union, Protestant Church, not in union. The Protestants are heretics outside the church. The Russian Orthodox Church is not our sister church, as John Paul II says. The Russian Orthodox Church is outside the church, because it denies the papal infallibility. That’s a dogma. They are not in union with the Church. They are outside the Church. The Catholic Church is always one, and it is always in union with itself. So, we must not adapt liturgy and change liturgy around in order to achieve union. What union? We have it. There’s no need to achieve it. We have it. (Latin). But no, number one of Sacrosanctum Concilium wants it to adapt more closely to the needs of th- of our age and to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.

Revising Rites in Light of "Sound Tradition" and "Present-Day Needs" (SC 4)

And while the council, in number four, says, „Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawful recognized rights to be of equal right and dignity.‟ That means Latin right, first of all. „That she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The council also desires that, when necessary, the rights be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs.‟ On one hand, the council says that the reform must be according to sound tradition, but then the council says to meet present-day circumstances and needs. Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei called this request scandalous, rash, and offensive to pious ears. So what Vatican II is saying here has already been condemned by a previous pope. And Vatican II, needless to say, is contradicting itself, as we will see in some of the fir- of the, the, uh, following points.

Confusion on Christ's Presence in the Liturgy (SC 7)

In number seven, the council confuses… I don’t say it denies, I don’t say it explains in a wrong way. I just say it confuses the presence of Christ in the Church by saying, „To accomplish a great- so great a work, Christ is always present in His church.‟ How is He present? „Especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of m- of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, the same now offering through the ministry of priests who formerly offered Himself on the cross, but especially in the Eucharistic species. By His power, He is present in the sacraments, so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word since He himself who speaks when the Holy Scriptures are read in the church. Lastly, He is present when the church prays and sings, for He has promised where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.‟ So how is He present now? How? In the old days, the church would never have written a paragraph li- like that because the church would have said, „Christ is substantially,‟ that means body, blood, and with it, His soul and divinity, „present in the tabernacle and on the altar during the sacrifice of mass. He is spiritually present when two or three are gathered in His name.‟ Like when you say a rosary together, you can get a plenary indulgence for that, but not when you say it alone, unless you say it alone in front of the blessed sacrament. „So when two or three are gathered in my name, I’m amongst them.‟ That’s a spiritual presence. And He is present in persona in the priest offering, because of course, when I say mass, Christ is offering the sacrifice, not I. This is why I don’t say at the words of consecration, I don’t say, „This is the body of Christ,‟ but at the word of s- of the words of consecration, I say, (Latin). „This is my body.‟ So I lend my voice, unworthy instrument that I am. Believe me, I am. All priests are. Unworthy instruments that I a- instrument that I am, I lend my voice to Christ and he says, (Latin). „This is my body.‟ So he’s present in persona. But the council does not make these distinctions. The council says he’s present. And indeed, this is one of the reasons why in number seven of the Instituti Generalis Missalis Romani, the institution had to use the Roman- the new Roman missal. In number seven it says, „The mass is when, uh, Christ is present, because, uh, He said, ‚Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them,’‟ which is a heretical definition. And the fact that later on, some of the, uh, uh, d- def- part of the definition of the Council of Trent was added doesn’t change the fact that the first part cannot be a definition, but attempts to be.

Full, Conscious, and Active Participation (SC 14)

In number 14 of the same constitution, the church ignores… I mean, excuse me, Vatican II, not the Catholic Church. Vatican II ignores another distinction. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to what… to that full con- conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy and to which the Christian people, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people, have a right and obligation by reason of their baptism. In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else.But this is not heresy. It is not, uh, it’s not denying a dogma. But it is conducive into the heresy of saying, „A priest cannot celebrate alone.‟ Because if the council… Why does the council want the, in the restoration promotion of the sacred liturgy that the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else? That means that the, uh, uh, uh, the full and active particip- participation by the people is the most important thing. Indeed, in the s- in the third so-called Eucharistical prayer of the abominable mass of Father VI, it says, (Latin). You do not stop to con- to, to gather the people so that the mass may be sa- may be sacrificed, may be celebrated. Do I need the people to celebrate mass? No, sir, I don’t. Matter of fact, in today’s condition, the way things are now, most of the times when I’m back in Vienna, Austria, I celebrate the mass entirely alone. I don’t even have an altar boy. Go and, go and try and find an altar boy in Vienna. Good luck. I ain’t found one yet. (laughing) So when I celebrate mass, I celebrate it alone. Well, there are some heretics running around who say that I must not do that. But that is, that is heresy, because Council of Trent condemned that explicitly. And here Vatican II says, „The most important thing is to make sure the people can participate.‟ Oh, no, it isn’t. The most important thing is to keep the tradition of mass.

Texts and Rites to be Understood "With Ease" (SC 21)

And consequently, consequentially, excuse me, in number 21, the council says, „In this restoration, both texts and rights should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as it is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community.‟ What does that mean? Until Vatican II, they did not participate as a community? Uh, how do I understand this? See, Vatican II is certainly the, not, not the clearest council in history, uh, if I’m allowed to this understatement of the century. (laughing) The Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease. (laughs) This is one of the most unrealistic and stupid things I’ve ever heard in my life. (laughs) Uh, you think I got my doctorate just by, uh, hanging around and easily understanding everything? No, I didn’t. As a matter of fact, uh, the university which gave me a doctorate did not help at all to make me a good theologian, because now they teach Vatican II. They also teach Vatican II. Sometimes, however, they teach Vatican too. (laughs). And, uh, I didn’t learn much there with the exception of a few Dominican fathers who I hold in great esteem and where- and fond memory. Most of the teachers there were just quoting the theologians that wrecked Vatican II and the church. I have studied theology for 10 years, more than that, because I started to get interested in theology before I went to Rome, before I decided to become a priest. I really started to study theology in 1974. That’s a few years ago. I have not yet understood every single part of mass. So how do you think… What do you think the result would be in a liturgical reform if we make sure that other people understand with ease? That makes putting up and totally imbecile, right? Something s- so downright, downright stupid that, th- the village idiot will understand it. The mass is not supposed to be understandable for the village idiot. The mass is not even supposed to be understood by the people. The mass is supposed to represent the entire faith of the church. The oldest liturgical rule is still lex orandi est credendi. The law of what has to be prayed constitutes the law of what has to be believed. If liturgy does not explain the faith to me, I do not know what to believe. But liturgy does not explain the faith to me in a scientific manner, like in a lecture. Liturgy is, by definition, as all sacraments, a sign that represents the specific grace that comes from the sacrament, ex opere operato, by the work itself, by the sacrament itself, not the one who celebrates, not the one who receives. But by the sacrament, it’s from the sacrament itself. And, uh, the liturgy shows the people what is the faith. How come that in the old days when people were not able to read and write, they understood the faith? They taught their children in the… they raised their children in the faith. They explained the faith to their children. They did not even un- th- they were not even able to read English, let alone Latin. The mass was said in Latin every day. Nobody was able to understand that except a few very learned people. Most priests are, believe me, believe me, most priests are totally incompetent as far as Latin is concerned. Most priests are not able to translate Latin, they’re not able to read Latin, they’re not able to understand Latin. In the old days, it was o- one of the most common things that you had a priest who was illiterate. He couldn’t even read the missal, he had to learn it by heart. I’m talking about many centuries ago. Saint Gregory the Great, when he was pope, he said he will not consecrate a bishop who does not know the 150 Psalms by heart. Why? Because most of them couldn’t read well anyway or not at all. So how do you make them say the Breviary? We’ll come back to this later. How do you s- make them say the Breviary-Yeah. Well, Gregory the Great said, „You will learn the 150 Psalms by heart. You will know them by memory.‟ Because this was the only way to make them say the bravery. Do you think they understood the Psalms? No. Definitely not. I have never pretended to understand everything in the bravery. I don’t. Saint Chrysostom, I think it was who said, „Don’t try to understand prayers, say them.‟ (laughing) And now the council wants me… The council wants us to change a liturgy into something that is understood with ease? That’s impossible. Either you give up the highest principle of liturgy, which they did, or the people will not understand it with ease. Why do you think the Council of Trent, that was a little bit more intelligent than Vatican II, why do you think the Council of Trent insisted on the priest teaching the people about Mass in their sermons? The catechism of the Council of Trent gives you a whole load of titles for sermons on, uh, the difference between the offertory, the consecration, and the communion. Well, in the old days when people were not able to read and write, good priests taught them from the pulpit what the Mass is. Good people told their children what the Mass is about. It was understood with ease in comparison today. With all the confusion going on today, every priest celebrating his own right, every priest, uh, uh, preaching his own truth, people don’t understand anything anymore. When Archbishop Riardo Feva wrote a letter to, uh… An open letter to confused Catholics, he was addressing almost all of the Catholics. Yes. Absolutely, because almost all of the Catholics are totally confused. Even here, among us, there is confusion, confusion, and confusion. So the Mass is understood less than ever today. This is the result of obeying Vatican II in this point.

Regulation of Liturgy by Bishops' Conferences (SC 22:2)

In number 22, this will be the number I will quote most often. Number 22:2. In order to give you the context, I’ve been accused of misquoting Vatican II out of context. Number one, 22, number one. „Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the church that is on the Epistolic See, and as laws may determine on the bishop.‟ Number two. „In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy, which, within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops conferences legitimately established with competence in given territories.‟ So far, it means nothing else but some things will be decided not by the Holy See, but by the bishops conferences. But then throughout the rest of the document, they only quote number 22:2. When I’m… when I’m through with this document, you will see what 22:2 really means. You will see the real context of 22:2.

Love for Sacred Scripture and Revision of Liturgical Books (SC 24-25)

In number 23, excuse me, 24, this council says, „Hence, in order to achieve the restoration progress and adaptation of sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that sweet and living love for sacred scripture to which the venerable tradition of Eastern and Western rights gives testimony.‟ Aha. So the church before Vatican II had no sweet love for liturgy. Excuse me, for sacred scripture. So they didn’t have sufficient love for sacred scripture. „The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible. Experts are to be employed on this task, and bishops from various parts of the world to be, uh, to be consulted.‟ So they want us to rush up. Hurry, hurry. We need this reform right now. Yesterday. They want more sacred scripture. Why? Because the Protestants want more sacred scripture. Because for the Protestants, there’s… there’s no tradition, there’s only sacred scripture. So now we have endless quotations from sacred scripture that nobody understands anyway, and we have much less of the beautiful traditional prayers of the church. And we got the reform indeed, as the council requested very, very soon, four years after the council had ended. (laughing) I say again, number 25. „The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible. Experts…‟ I’ve heard that before. „Experts are to be employed on this task and bishops from various parts of the world to be to con- to be consulted.‟ After having heard number 25, do you really believe Vatican II did not want a new liturgy? „Are to be revised as soon as possible.‟ Then we need experts to do this and bishops from various parts of the world. Well, maybe Vatican II just wanted, uh, uh, said, „As soon as possible,‟ it means after 20 years, 50 years. I will come back to number 25 later. You will see what the council really meant. See, one of the ways… Yes. … of confusing people is to say something in number 22, then quote it in number 75, 120 and put it out of context. Pius VI, when he condemned In Nocturam Fide, the Synod of Pistoia said, „It is the typical strategy of the reformers, the liberals to use ambiguous terminology, to use things that can be understand one way or the other.‟ And then they tell you, „We didn’t say that,‟ but they act according to it.Father Schillebeeckx, who was one of the great, great, great, great grand theologians of Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre quotes him in one of his books, said, „Well, now we use ambiguous terms. After the council, we will know how to interpret them.‟ (pauses)

Promoting Active Participation through Acclamations, Gestures, etc. (SC 30)

In number 30 of the same constitution, it says, „To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclimations, responses, psalms, antiphon, hymns, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time, a reverend’s silence should be observed.‟ Well, that’s the one thing we didn’t get. (laughs) This is a Protestant Pentecostal request. This is when people participate, „Whee!‟ (laughs) This is when people run around like crazy for exchanging the sign of peace. „Hi.‟ (laughs) And this is when mostly women are running around in the sanctuary, busy all the time with I don’t know what. (laughs) It is Protestant and Pentecostal to think that the people should participate in Mass that way. The priest and the altar boys are sacri- are, are, are celebrating Mass. The people assist. They do not celebrate.

No Special Exception for Private Persons or Classes (SC 32)

Number 32, accordingly says, because people are now very important, they have to be there anyway. „In the liturgy apart from the distinctions arising from liturgical functions or sacred orders, and apart from the honors due to civil authorities in accordance with liturgical law, no special exception is to be made for any private persons or classes of persons, whether in the ceremonies or by external display.‟ So we are all equal now, in liturgy too. Not just by constitutional law in this country, but now we’re all equal in the liturgy. Now, how about… How about the old count of a village somewhere in Europe, who entirely out of his own money, built a church? He’s to be… Sit somewhere back there. He has to sit somewhere back there. He may not have his proper seat up front. Why not? Is there a hierarchy? Well, yes, believe me. In the conciliar Church, there is a hierarchy more developed than ever before in the Church. There is Madam Co-priest, who stands right next to the celebrant- (laughs) … holding the host at the Ecce Agnus Dei. There is Madam Reader, there is Madam Diacon, Deacon. There’s Madam Acolyte. (laughs) They have a hierarchy and how? And they fight over it. „No. No. I’m going to say the reading next Sunday.‟ „No, you are not.‟ „No, I’m sorry.‟ „No, I’m sorry. You will not say the reading next Sunday.‟ „No. This is my job. I’m the reader in this church. And I will do it.‟ „No, and you will not stand next to the priest holding the host at the Agnus Dei.‟ „I do that by tradition in this parish. I’ve done it from the very beginning Father came to, uh, take over this parish. And I will do it tomorrow too.‟ (laughs) They have new, entire new classes now. (laughs)

Prayers Said in the Name of the Entire Holy People (SC 33)

33 says, „Although the sacred liturgy is principally the worship of the Divine Majesty…‟ I’m glad they remember that, „… it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful.‟ The sermon, yes? That’s what Council of Trent said, the sermon. „For in the liturgy, God speaks to His…‟ Sorry, „To His people, and Christ is still proclaiming His Gospel. And the people reply to God, both by song and prayer.‟ I can take that to point. „Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who, in the person of Christ, presides over the assembly are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.‟ No. No, they’re not. Many of the prayers in the Mass are not said, said in the name of the people present. Many prayers are. Council here says all of them. That’s why they changed round the term „I‟ to „we‟ in the new liturgy. The prayer after the, uh, Agnus Dei in Mass, the priest says, um, „Domine, qui dicxisti, pacem meam da vobis, pacem meam, pacem meam da vobis; ne uspícias peccáta mea.‟ Do not pay attention. Please forgive me my sins. The priest says, „My.‟ Priest doesn’t say our, he says, „Mine.‟ So the priest is praying to God, that’s his prayer, and it’s a silent prayer. It’s not a prayer of the people. Many other prayers in the Mass are in the „I‟. At the offertory for example, the priest says, „I offer you this Immaculate Host.‟ „I‟, because he’s speaking in the name of Christ. It’s not the people who offer up the Immaculate Host, it is Christ who offers up the Immaculate Host. So first of all, there are many prayers that are not said in the name of the people, and the people cannot answer to it, and they don’t say, „Amen,‟ as a matter of fact. During the entire canon, nobody’s allowed to say, „Amen.‟ Only at the end of the canon, at the Per Ipsum, you may say, „Amen,‟ but let the altar boy do it anyway. And, uh, so therefore, the priest is offering Mass, the priest is offering Mass, the priest is offering Mass. He does not preside over the whole community offering Mass. If somebody dares to call me Mr. President, I’m gonna kick him out. (laughs)

Use of Latin and Vernacular (SC 36)

Then, the council demands, in number 36, one, the use of the Latin… Now you will get a classic example of what modern theology is all about. 36:1, „The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rite.‟ Number two, „But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people.‟ Oh, it’s to be preserved, but then it might be of great advantage to the people. „May frequently be of great advantage to the people. A wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.‟ And you will hear them. Number three says, „These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesia- ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2…‟ You see? They quote 22:2, not 21, not 22:1. 22:2, all the time. Bishops Conferences. Bishops conferences. „To decide whether and to what extent…‟ Uh-oh. „… the vernacular language is to be used. Its degre- its decrees have to be approved, that is confirmed by the Apostolic See. Where circumstances warrant it, it is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.‟ Number four. „Translations from the Latin for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority already mentioned.‟ So, there is one line saying the use of the Latin language must be preserved in the Latin rite, and then they say, „But you can have the vernacular.‟ How far you can have the vernacular, you will see in following paragraphs.

Respect for Qualities and Talents of Various Races and Nations (SC 37)

Number 37. „Even the liturgy of the Church does not wish to impose a rigid uniformity.‟ Well, they don’t. They really don’t anymore. „The Church does not wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community. Rather does she respect and foster the qualities and talents of the various races and nations. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indos- indissolubly bound up with the superstition and error, she studies with sympathy, and if possible preserves intact. She sometimes even admits such things into the liturgy itself, provided they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.‟ What’s the true and authentic spirit of a liturgy whose first purpose is to make the people participate? Of core- of, well, of course. You got half-naked girls running around and saying Prayers of the Faithful. Uh, well, yeah, I can show you the pictures. Uh, you have the pope, uh, at Mass, during Mass, uh, wearing the feathers of a tribal chief of a Native American tribe, instead of…… vicious and downright satanic religions. Uh, if you do not believe what I say, then I recommend to you to turn on the TV every time the pope travels.