Preliminary Remarks for the Second Part

Clarification on Attire (Monsignor-like Dress)

The Basilica of Saint Peter’s in Rome, where I was ordained, has a privilege given to, I think it was Pope Urban VIII who did it, that whoever is ordained in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s may dress as a monsignor, but he doesn’t have the title. So I dress like a monsignor, but I’m not a monsignor, I’m Father Hess. And, uh, or Father Gregory. If you want to call me Father Gregory, go ahead, that’s fine with me. And, uh, but the privileges given to a place are not at the discretion of the one who holds, holds them. That’s according to Canon Law. Uh, the privilege has been given to the place, so I use the privilege, except in, uh, Advent and Lent if somebody gets me a castor that’s all black. And, um, and this explains my dress. I’m sure that the same people who complained about my wearing black BDUs on the other tape are going to complain about my violet sash now, this here. (laughs) Let them. If they have nothing else to worry about, they must be very happy people. (laughs)

Recap of Previous Analysis and Preview of Current Discussion

I’ve shown you, and I’m sure it was tedious and boring for some, but it had to be, I’ve shown you how the council operates. How the council fathers, the experts, and the theologians dealt with something as sacred as tradition. I’ve shown you that they are, objectively speaking, totally dishonest in this council and contradictory to themselves. Now, going on in analyzing the, uh, the documents of the very same council, rest assured, I will not bore you with a full reading anymore. Because actually, uh, the document on liturgy is somewhat interesting to all of us because we suffer from the results of it. But, uh, the other documents in the council are so deadly boring that I might, fathers, fa- fall asleep right through the lecture of it. (laughs) Uh, I, I, I will never know, uh, I’m a man who likes to read, uh, Tom Clancy and Clyde Kussler and the, the real page-turners, you know what I mean. I will never find out what, and maybe the Holy Spirit, but I don’t believe in personal inspirations, maybe it was just the grace of God that enabled me to study this incredibly boring book five times over. I hope I’ve never have to do it again, but I, I fear, I’m afraid I might have to. Uh, the council is incredibly boring, incredibly loquacious, and packed with blah blah, and what we call verbal diarrhea. (laughs) Excuse me, but that’s what it is. It doesn’t say much, and the few things it says were disastrous, as you will see.

Humorous Interjection: Protestant Billboard Signs

However, uh, I forgot to give you another beautiful quotation. I’m a collector, and you could help me with that if you ever see, uh, those Protestant, uh, neon lighted, uh, uh, billboard signs outside the church with some wise cracks there, uh, uh, uh, write to me, collect them. Here’s one. „I was going to waste. Jesus recycles me.‟ (laughs) The other one, „Kmart is not the only saving place.‟ (laughs) Sorry about that digression from scientific precision.

Clarification on Quo Primum and Papal Authority

Binding Nature of Quo Primum on Successors

As an appendix to, uh, the, uh, to what I said about, uh, Vatican II and liturgy, I have to clear up a mistake. A missal in fifteen, in 1570 is not binding to successors. As a matter of fact, one of the most prominent traditionalists in this country said that. Their argument very often is the following, „Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of our Apostolic Authority, we give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass, in any Church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure and may be freely and lawfully used, nor shall Bishops, Administrators, Canons, Chaplains and other secular Priests or Religious of whatsoever Order, or by whatsoever Title it is designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced to coer- or to coer- or coerced into altering this Missal and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous Constitutions or Edicts of Provincial or Synod, Synod Councils and notwithstanding the usage of the Churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescriptions saving only usage of more than 200 years.‟ They say the same legal formula, „Can never be revoked or modified but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law,‟ was used by Benedict the Fif- the 14th when he dissolved the Jesuit Order. Therefore, if I was right in saying that Quo primum must never be changed, Pope Pius the Seventh, uh, was wrong when he, uh, reinstituted the Jesuit Order and went against the decree of his predecessor. These people do not understand that we deal with a disciplinary matter, not a matter of faith. If a pope dissolves the Jesuit Order, another one might as well say, „Well, we have the Jes- Jesuit Order back again.‟ I don’t know if this was good or bad…. judging to what happens today, it might have been a very bad decision, but that’s not the point. The point is, we’re talking about disciplinary matters. I told you that, uh, the pope cannot find his successors in disciplinary matters and matters of positive law. The way how mass is said, however, is not a mere question of discipline and positive law. If the oldest liturgical law of all is, uh, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, the law of what has to be prayed determines the law of what has to be believed, then Holy Mass is not only a question of faith, but the basis of faith. If you change Holy Mass around, and if Holy Mass is not what it was, then you have a different basis of the faith. That means you have, you have different laws of praying, you have different laws of believing. So, when a pope uses a formula like this on the question, „If I may wear violet buttons or not?‟ his successor might as well say, „I don’t care.‟ But if a pope uses this formula on something as important as the Roman liturgy, his successor may not say that. Therefore, I read again, abbreviated, „By these presence and by virtue of our apostolic authority, we order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this missal, and this present constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.‟ This constitution deals about the basis of the faith. It deals about matters of the faith. It cannot be revoked.

Historical Interpretation by Popes

When Pope Pius X decided that the, uh, the Sunday, the Sunday during the year is to be elevated to the rank, practically to the rank of duplex prima classis, that meant the rank of a very important feast, he did not revoke or modify this constitution. He did not say, „This cannot remain valid and have the force of law.‟ On the contrary, he explained. He explained that he was restoring the importance of Sunday, because at the time of Saint Pius V, there were a lot less saints in the calendar than you will be find- you’ll find now. So at the- at- at- at the times of Saint Pius V, there were many Sunday masses in Green Chasuble. By the time Saint Pius X was pope, there were very few Sunday masses in Green Chasuble, because most Sundays during the summer have some saint to be celebrated, some saint more important than the Sunday used to be. And this is not good. This is not the intention of Pius V, and it’s not the old mass. So, he elevated the rank of Sunday in order to have the Green Chasuble, part of the sign that every sacrament is, in order to have the Green Chasuble and the Sunday celebrated again, and not just commemorated. The very fact, we talk about interpretation, is it the Herr Doctor Hesse who interprets this apostolic constitution or the popes? Yes, it is the popes, not the Herr Doctor Hesse. It is not Father Gregory who interprets this constitution. The popes did. And if those traditionalists who say that this is not binding would bother to read all the decrees that you find in the Roman Missal of Saint Pius V issued by his successors, including John XXII… or excuse me, John XXIII, you will see that the popes interpret the Quo primum as something unchangeable. Because up till 1962 with the missal of John Pa- of- of John XXIII, you always found at the beginning of the missal Quo primum and all the decrees of the other popes who changed little things, rubrics mostly. And the popes who dared to change things in the missal, even if it was only minor rubrics, explained why they did it. Now, if Quo primum was not binding to a successor, why would the successor want to explain himself that well? If he has the right anyway to change things, he doesn’t have to explain that. If the pope says, „From now on, every priest who is ordained in Rome will automatically have the title of Monsignor,‟ he does not have to explain that. If the pope says, uh, „I want- I want you to say the rosary, uh, not only every day, but on Sunday three times,‟ it might be a bit demanding, but he doesn’t have to explain why he wants it. He’s the pope. Why did all the popes after Pius V until Paul VI of most sollicitous memory, why did all these popes explain every single change they made? Because they knew that Quo primum was binding, so they had to explain, „Uh-oh, we did not go against Quo primum with what we did.‟ And they explained why what they did was not against the will of Saint Pius V binding them forever. This had to be cleared up. It is, uh, ridiculous to argue against the binding authority of this document, because it’s probably one of the most important ever issued, and it binds the popes. It binds the popes because of the Canon 13, the seventh session of Council of Trent, because of Injunctum Nobis by Paul IV that said, „We hold steadfast through all traditions, because of the, uh, tradition of the Church, because of the oath of incoronation, and because of all the teachings of all the popes until 1958.‟

Papal Teaching Authority: Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium

The teaching of the popes, what does that mean? What is the authority of a pope teaching?

Popes Bound by Tradition

The pope can bind his successor in many things. Why? There’s an old Latin saying, (Latin). „An equal does not have power in an equal.‟ Yes, right. That’s why, in all things that are left up to the individual pope to decide, he cannot bind his successor. But when the pope says, „This here from now on has to be considered part of tradition,‟ he doesn’t have to say that verbally, literally. He just has to say, „We condemn this error. We don’t want this to be discussed any longer. And I herewith say that’s what it is or that is what has to be done by all Christians, by all faithful.‟ Then he’s making this part of tradition.Now, the tradition (clears throat)… Tradition does not grow… Excuse me (clears throat). Tradition does not know change. We’ll talk about this in the next session. Tradition is something that has been concluded with the death of the last apostle. So the Pope does not add anything to tradition. He just says, „This is part of tradition. This always has been part of tradition.‟ And now that he has said that, no successor may say anything to the contrary. Never, ever. When the Pope in 1950 made the assumption of Our Lady a dogma, again, he did not say anything new. The apostles were witnesses to the empty grave. The Church has always believed that Our Lady’s in heaven with body and soul. And, uh, even before Pius XII proclaimed it a solemn dogma, Pius IX would not have had the right to say, „No, this is not true.‟ He would have put himself outside the Church. The Popes are absolutely bound to tradition, and this is the reason why Vatican II is unacceptable.

Analysis of Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)

We will now, and that’s the last thing for today, analyze some of the most important points of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium. Again, the first two words of the document. November 21st, 1964. It is not an irony, but providence of God that November 21st, 1964, Vatican II pronounced the worst of all heresies. On November 21st, 1974, on the 10th day of this horrible document, Archbishop Lefebvre pronounced the principles of the Society of Saint Pius X, saying that we hold ste- steadfast to tradition, that we are faithful to the eternal Rome, not the modernist Rome of today. What is this modernist Rome of today teaching?

The Church as "Sacrament" and "Instrument of Unity" (LG 1)

It talks about the mystery of the Church. „Since the Church in Christ is in the nature of sacrament, a sign, an instrument that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men, she here proposes…‟ et cetera, blah, blah. This is number one of Lumen Gentium. Is the Church in the nature of sacrament? No. There are seven sacraments in the Catholic Church. There is no Christ sacrament, church sacrament, seven sacraments. We have seven, not nine sacraments. I know, I will be called a rigorist again, but the dogma has to be taken at face value. And Trent defined their seven sacraments, „And whosoever says there’s another thing but the seven sacraments, let him be accursed.‟ Anathema sit. The Church is not in the nature of a sacrament, but it is a perfect society. We’ll see that later. The Church is not a sign. The Church is an instrument. Absolutely, yes. But the Church is not a sign. The Church is not symbolic. It’s a reality. It’s a perfect society on Earth. It’s the instrument with which Christ saves. You cannot call it a super sacrament for that. It is the perfect society, the instrument which contains and administers, as the only legitimate one, seven sacraments. It is definitely an instrument of communion with God, but it is not an instrument of unity among all men. The Church is as much an instrument of unity among all men as I am Pope. I am Pope potentially. The Church is potentially an instrument of unity among all men. Actually, it is not. Christ said that, „He will cause wars, divisions, fights, family members fighting family members.‟ He said, „Who’s not willing to hate his own brother, mother, father, son in- for my sake is not worthy of me.‟ He didn’t mean the word hate in the sense we understand it today. The Latin word odire might as well mean avoid. Sometimes family members have to avoid other family members because they have the faith and the other ones don’t. Christ did not come to unify all of mankind necessarily. He only wanted them unified in the faith, not outside. So, uh, the Church may be an instrument of unity among all men, but it definitely won’t be. „Non veni pacem, mittere sed gladium. I did not come to bring the peace, the peace, but a sword.‟

The Church Growing to Maturity (LG 5)

Then we are faced with a new concept of the Church here in number five. This is not heresy. It is just truckloads of you know what. (laughing) „While she, the Church, slowly grows to maturity, the Church longs for the completed kingdom, and with all her strength, hopes, and desires to be united in glory with her king.‟ How does the Church grow to maturity if she’s a perfect society? The Church cannot grow to maturity. The Church is infallible. The Church is indestructible. The Church is perfect. The Church cannot grow to maturity. Pope Pius XII, in the same Humani Generis, said, „It is a, a daring and wrong concept to say that the Church can grow in experience and maturity.‟He condemned that. He said the Church is perfect. The Church is indestructible. Christ said, (Latin) Matthew 16:18, „And the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.‟

Indefectibility of the Church vs. Fallibility of Members

With this statement, I have to add, uh, a parenthesis right here. If the Church is infallible, if the Church is perfect, and if the Church is indefectible, then why do I say that the pri- the priests, the bishops, and the Pope today are off their track or in material heresy, material schism, and in a way, do not belong to the Church? Because they don’t. The Church is indefectible, not their members. I’m not indefectible. I am not infallible, and I am not perfect. I realize that every time I go to confession, how perfect, indefectible, and infallible I am. The, the members of the Church are not indefectible. The hierarchy is not indefectible, as far as the hierarchy is, uh, consistent of members. The Church, herself, is a perfect society. The Church, herself, is indefectible. Then, uh, if the Church is at the same time visible, where is the Church to be found? I understand it’s confusing, it’s complicated. Is Cardinal Archbishop Mahoney… Is he the Cardinal Archbishop of Los, Los Angeles? Yes, he is, and, and he’s appointed Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, but is he Catholic? No, he’s not. Materially, he’s schismatic and heret- and, and a heretic. These people do not belong to the Church. Pope Innocent III said, „It is quite conceivable that the future pope may teach heresy and put himself outside the Church.‟ Pope Innocent III did not say he ceases to be pope. He said, „It’s quite possible that the future pope may teach heresy and put himself outside the Church, in which case we do not… we must not follow him.‟ And he said, „The very fact that the pope cannot be judged by any authority on Earth should remind the pope of the fact that the less somebody is judged by human beings, the more he will be judged by God.‟ The Church is a perfect society as such, not in a majority. This is a horrible democratic concept of the Church. A father in this country… a priest in this country, whom out of charity I do not want to name, said that Father Hess obviously knows this, and the priests and all the bishops don’t. Okay. If that’s a point of reasoning, then we might as well draw up a new charter of the Church as a democracy. We’re not even this country as a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic, if you take the Constitution serious, which the president doesn’t, nor her husband. (laughing) But, um, this country is a constitutional republic. It’s not a democracy. But the Church is a monarchy, an absolute monarchy. The monarch is elected by designated electors. This is to say, the cardinals. The Church is a monarchy. The pope governs the Church, and if he doesn’t, then I can’t follow him. And if he pronounces heresy, then I will not agree with it. And if he gives wrong commands, then I will not follow them. I can. Saint Thomas Aquinas made that abundantly clear, and so did Innocent III, two named popes, Innocent III and Pius IX, and, uh, indirectly Eugene IV. I cannot follow him and I will not. But the Church, herself, is indefectible, and she’s not governed by a majority, but by tradition. Is it impossible that out of 3,500 bishops, 3,496 would go against tradi- 94 would go against tradition? Is it possible? Yes, it is. Yes, of course. They have not been promised the Holy Spirit. The majority does not decide what is right or wrong. If the majority decides what is right or wrong, I can tell you what is right or wrong. In that case, I’d have at least three girlfriends. (laughing) Oh, the majority would agree with that. Not the majority of Catholics, but the majority of Americans would. And the majority of bishops nowadays. Maybe. I don’t wanna be sued for libel. Maybe.

"Breaking of the Eucharistic Bread" (LG 7)

Uh, here’s an example of, uh, of, uh, insolicitous wording. „Really sharing in the body of the Lord, in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with Him and with one another.‟ Why can’t they say, „In the sacrifice of holy mass‟? This is not heresy, but why, why can’t they say in… Where is that? This, uh, yeah, uh, number seven. Why can’t they say, „In the holy sacrifice of mass‟? Why do they have to say, „In the breaking of the bread?‟ Underlining the meal again. Martin Luther, the head doctor, Martin Luther would have loved that.

"Subsists In" the Catholic Church (LG 8)

Now, we come to something that is not just an infelicitous wording, but downright heresy. Number eight, Lumen Gentium number eight. In the second paragraph, I read, „This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the creed, we profess to be one holy catholic and apostolic.‟ They say that, yes, but how?… which our Savior, after His resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. Him and the other apostles. Here we got the concept of collegiality. Christ did not say, „You are Peter, and upon all of you, I will build my church.‟ No, no, this is why in English it is still translated with the, disappeared in the usage of English, second person singular, „Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.‟ On thee, Peter. Not on you, Peter, and the apostles. On thee. Thou art Peter. (Latin) (laughing) This Church, constituted and organized as a society… Why did they have to say ’a society’? It’s not a society, it’s a perfect society. It is the only perfect society. It is at least, if you don’t wanna, if don’t, if you want to avoid the term perfect, at least say ’the society’. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church. I’ve explained this on the other tape, but I have to repeat it here. The Church does not subsist in the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger, let me always be careful, I don’t really don’t want to be sued for libel. I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger who said, „Yes, but the word esse in Latin, to be, is much stronger than the word subsistere, to subsist.‟ Uh, if he said it, then he is a very wicked, and sly, and subtle liar. If he said it. Saint Thomas Aquinas says, (Latin) „Subsistence is the most normal, is the most noble form of being.‟ He talks about God, Saint Thomas Aquinas does. Now, God subsists in everything. Unlike Pantheism, this is not God, except for an alcoholic. This is not God. (laughing) But God subsists in the existence of this bottle. God subsisted in the wine making for this bottle. God subsisted in the actions necessary to cap this bottle. And God subsists even in this tiny m- movement of my hand grabbing the bottle. He subsists to it. That means He gives it being. He does not identify Himself with it. This is not God. This is not God, and my actions here are not God. Therefore, the word subsist means He is not the bottle. He gives subsistence to the existence of this bottle. But the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Church of Christ does not just subsist in the Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. Why did the council say the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church? Because in that case, you can say, „Well, there’s other churches in which He subsists.‟ Our, indeed, the Pope, again, not I, the Pope is the competent authority to interpret this paragraph. (laughing) Well, he very competently interprets this paragraph when he says that the Russian Orthodox Churches, heretics and schismatics, are our sister Churches, to the point that he calls the Ukrainian Church united with Rome as something that separated itself from her mother Church. So now, as Bishop Fellay pointed out so well, or was it Bishop de Malareia? I don’t remember. So now, we are the ant. The Orthodox Church is our sister Church, and the Ukrainian Church is the daughter to the Or- Or- Orthodox Church. So it’s our niece Church. Complicated relations. (laughing) And that’s what I call verbal diarrhea. (laughing) Why does the Church subsist in the Catholic Church? That means it subsists to other Churches too, the Church of Christ. Because, it says in the same, number eight, „Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.‟ Now you got the re- the reason. Now the circle is full. Unity in the Church means we reunite with the heretics and schismatics, then the Church will be united. Therefore, it is quite logical to say that the Church of Christ subsists in this other sister Churches too, and that is why we are not united. Do you see the satanic reasoning behind this? I explained to you that the Catholic Church is always one and united. Therefore, the Catholic Church is the only one that is the Church of Christ. Now, Vatican II says we are not united because our sister Churches, the Protestant Churches, are not united with us. And that explains why the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church obviously is not the only one. If the Catholic Church was the only one, then the Protestants can only convert to the Catholic Church, but not reunited with us.They left the church. But, uh, the present Holy Father, who is the competent interpreter for this document, admired the heritage of Dr. Martin Luther several times when he was in Germany. Therefore, these gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, the Church of Christ now is not only the Catholic Church, but the sister churches too. They have forces impelling towards Catholic unity.

Elements of Sanctification Outside Visible Confines (LG 8 cont.)

Now, how about this, uh, „Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside these visible confines.‟ Is that true? Well, uh, no. Is, uh… When a, when a, when a Pr- when a Protestant pastor baptizes a little innocent Protestant child and a truck runs over them, and the, the poor innocent Protestant child goes to heaven, does that mean many elements of sanctification are found outside the Catholic Church? No. It means that the Protestant, the Protestant pastor administers the Catholic sacrament of baptism illegitimately and illicitly outside the church. Unless it’s an emergency, in which case every human being may baptize. But if a Protestant, uh, minister solemnly administers baptism in his Protestant garage, then, uh, or temple or cute little New England church, then he administers illegitimately, illicitly the Catholic sacrament of baptism. The sacrament that belongs to the Catholic Church, that is property of the Catholic Church. You see? So these, uh, the, the element of, of, of sanctification called baptism is not found outside the Catholic Church, but is abused outside the Catholic Church.

Anyone Who Fears God and Does What is Right (LG 9, 13)

Um, having discussed this, there’s another implicities wording here. Number nine. „At all times and in every race, anyone… in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness.‟ That’s right. At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. If the council had followed this, number nine of Lumen Gentium, they would have never said that there are elements of truth to be found outside the church, outside its visible confines. They would have never said that, uh, we have to, uh, uh, uh, strive for an ecumenical brotherhood with other churches. What is right? What is right? Well, converting to the Catholic Church, of course. What is right? Saint Augustine says, „There are Catholic things outside the church, and there are many un-Catholic things inside the church.‟ Yes. That’s abuses, sins, sacrileges, the new liturgy, stuff like that. (laughing) Un-Catholic elements inside the church, if it’s still inside the church. And there are Catholic things outside the church. Oh, yeah. I found one of the most beautiful sermons on the devil in Saint Thomas Church in New York, which is Episcopalian. They still talk about the devil. The pastor there, may he convert to be a Catholic one day. I would hope, I would hope for that, because he seems to be a good pastor. The pastor of, uh, the rector of Saint Thomas Church in New York, Fifth Avenue, 52nd Street. Uh, you find these sermons, uh, you just donate a quarter and you take the sermon back home. Very beautiful sermon on the power of the devil, on the traps the devil sets in order to make us perish our soul. Excellent sermon. So that, that is a Catholic element outside the Catholic Church, but it’s not an el- an element of sanctification. It is a help for conversion. It is something that exists outside the Catholic Church. And for a sheer coincidence, not because of destiny, might be a help for conversion. This is how this is to be understood when Saint Augustine says, „There are un-Catholic things in the church and Catholic things outside her.‟

The Church as Pilgrim, Joined to Heretics and Schismatics (LG 14-15)

Number 14, „Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on Earth, is necessary for salvation.‟ Fine, I’m glad they say it in number 14. In number 16, they don’t. „He’s present to us in His body, which is the Church, a pilgrim on Earth.‟ What’s the purpose of a pilgrimage? To find grace and enlightenment, to improve, to mature, to mature your spiritual life, to improve your spiritual life, to get better. Same mistake as before. The Church is perfect. She cannot be a pilgrim of her… One thing follows the other. „The Church knows that she’s joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christians, but who do not, however, profess the Catholic faith in its entirety.‟ It means the heretics. Mm-hmm. „And have not preserved unity or communion under the success of Peter.‟ That means the schismatics. So let’s translate this and read again. The Church knows she’s joined in many ways to the heretics and schismatics. I would’ve liked the counsel to explain to me in what way, uh, the Church is joined to heretics and schismatics when the Church says they are outside the Church. The Church dogmatically defines that they are outside the Church. How can she be joined to them? This is, to go back to the theological sense- centuries. This is not heresy. It is close to heresy. „These Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit.‟ That is heresy and blasphemy. „For by His gifts and graces, His sanctifying powers also active in them.‟ Interesting. „And He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood.‟ This is direct heresy against the Council of Florence, then Sanger-Scholometz of 1351, Pope Eugene IV who said, „Even if they shed their blood for Christ, they cannot be saved.‟ Again, I repeat, objectively. But the counsel pronounces objectively, of course, because the counsel, just like the whole Catholic Church, the counsel cannot judge the dead. The counsel cannot judge the internal intentions. The counsel cannot judge souls. The counsel can only, like the Church can, only judge objective ways of getting, of being saved. So the counsel, he ta- speaks objectively, by nature, objectively. „These Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit, for by His gifts and graces, His sanctifying power is also active in them, and He has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood.‟ This is the exact contrary of what the Council of Florence says. Therefore, the counsel right here is in heresy.

Relationship with Non-Christians (Jews and Muslims) (LG 16)

Now how about all the poor Japanese who have never had a Ca- Catholic missionary until the year 1500-something? I don’t know. Leave me alone. Give me a break. I don’t know. The Church doesn’t know. We don’t know. God doesn’t tell us everything. God doesn’t tell you what I say in confession. Thank God. God doesn’t tell us everything. I don’t know what happened to the poor Japanese until the first Catholic missionary showed up and baptized the first Japs. I don’t know. And I don’t even try to find out, I have other problems. (laughing) People are so hung up about the Buddhist monks in Bhutan and the, the, the Japanese until 1500 that they forget to save their own soul. Number 16, „Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways.‟ The Church, that means. Those who have not yet received the Gospel. It would’ve been nice if they had added, „Potentially.‟ They might convert and then they are in the Church, so potentially they are related to the Church. Potentially they are in the Church. Actually, they are not. „There is first that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh, in view of the divine choice, they are people most dear for the sake of the Fathers, for the gift of God and without re- repentance.‟ The Jews, of course. Now, are the Jews related to the Catholic Church? I’m talking about the Jewish faith. I’m not talking about the individual Jew. Is the Jewish faith, whatever they call it, the Mosaic faith, all the different… The Hasidim and whatever, are they related to the Church? No, they’re not. Saint Paul says quite clearly, „The Jews rejecting Christ do not even see the truth of the Old Testament, but through a veil or a curtain.‟ Do the Jews pray to the same God we do? No. Is the God of the Old Testament the same God of the New Testament? Yes. But as they do not accept the God of the New Testament, they also reject the one of the Old Testament because they are identical. You see? Those people who contradict me on this point, I’ve got them in a beautiful trap. (laughing) Either you say the Jews do not pray to the same God or the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the New Testament.I’ll leave the choice with you. Saint Paul is very clear on that. The Jews have rejected God when they crucified Christ. All Jews? No, the Jews. Not the individual. I don’t know about the individual.

Purpose of Office Holders (LG 18)

In number 18, the council says, „The holders of office who are invested with a sacred power are in fact dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren.‟ No, sir. They are not. I am not. I am not empowered, and the purpose of my being a priest is not to promote the interests of you. I am here to promote your faith and the interests of God. I’m here to promote your following the Ten Commandments, which is at least what the Sixth Commandment is concerned, not your interest, really. Beg your pardon, but at least with most people, right? Starting with me. The Sixth Commandment is not my interest. My interest is to follow God and his orders, to say, „Yes, sir,‟ to God. I do not promote your interests. I promote your salvation, and therefore God’s interest, because God wants everybody to be saved. But not without the individual’s agreement.

Collegiality and Supreme Authority (LG 22, 25)

In number 22… No, it’s not 22:2. (laughing) In number 22, the council says, „And if the bishops…‟ In the church. „And if the bishops whilst loyally ex- respecting the primacy and preeminence of their head…‟ That’s optimism-… „exercise their own proper authority for the, for the good of their faithful, indeed even for the good of the whole church, the organic structure and harmony of which are strengthened by the continued influence of the Holy Spirit. The supreme authority over the whole church, which this college possesses is exercised in a solemn way in an ec-ecumenical council.‟ The College of Bishop doesn’t possess any supreme authority. Only the pope does. And then they say… You see? This is the, a dev- it’s a devious way of thinking, talking, writing, and preaching. When the bishops, together with the pope decide on something, the supreme authority of the whole church is talking. Yes, because why? The same council later on says it. Because of the authority given to the pope. So the supreme authority in the church is not the College of Bishops, but the pope. The same council says if the College of Bishop decides without the pope or against the pope, it’s not valid. The decision is not valid. Therefore, why? Why? Why does the council say here, „The supreme authority over the whole church, which this college possesses.‟? The College of Bishops does not possess any supreme authority. The pope has it, and only because the pope has it, the College of Bishop has it as long as they confirm what the pope says and agree with what the pope says, or have their pronouncement confirmed by the pope. I’m turning pages here because most of it is such tiring blah, blah. „Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do however proclaim infallibility infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions, namely when, even though despairs throughout the world, but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with…‟ Excuse me. Okay. „Throughout the world,

Restoration of the Diaconate (LG 29)

In, uh, number… This is an extensive number, 29. At the end of number 29, now the council finally starts to make proposals. „It will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy.‟ The Council of Trent did not want that. „But it pertains to the competent local episcopal conferences…‟ This is 22:2 again. (laughing) „… of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff to decide whether and where it is of, of, of fortune that such deacons be appointed. Should the Roman Pontiff think fit, it will be possible to confer this diaconal order even upon married men, provided they are… they be of more futur- more mature age…‟ Whatever that means. I’ve met imbeciles at the age of 80. (laughing) Not imbeciles again, but always been imbecile. „And also on suitable young men, for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain enforced.‟ At least that. Uh, this is destruction of the diaconate, because the diaconate is s- is a, a state of orders towards the priesthood.The Council of Trent explicitly said, „We do not want you to give minor orders to people who do not strive for the priesthood.‟ And that’s very rightly so, because believe me, celibacy is not easy. You need the graces of the office. And the graces of the office come with the priesthood, not with some benedictions. They come with the diaconate, but not as much as a priest gets them. Also, uh, if somebody wants to live a celibate life, why wouldn’t he want to become a priest anyway? Unless he becomes a brother in the monastery, which is entirely different, not to be compared to the diaconate. And again, the council does not talk about the minor orders. Consequently, Paul VI attempted to abolish them. Attempted, I say, because he did not outlaw them, first. Second, uh, he- his, uh, decision is invalid anyway, because, uh, the sub diaconate at least goes back to the time of the apostles.

Laity, Religious, and Clergy (LG, unknown para.)

Everything that has been said of the People of God is addressed equally to laity, religious and clergy. Where’s the hierarchy? (laughing) I- I’m- I’m very glad if at the last judgment I’m judged exactly as you will be. I’d be glad about that, because I know it won’t be that way. I’m a priest. I’m above all of you, so I will be judged first, and I will be judged a lot more harshly than you will. But make no mistake, Hell is Hell, wherever you end. (laughing) The rest is blah, blah. Blah, blah. Blah, blah. (laughing) Blah, blah. The pilgrim church, an entire chapter on the pilgrim church. I’m not gonna bore you with this.

Appendix: Chapter on Our Lady (LG Chapter 8)

Then finally, there’s an appendix, chapter eight, on Our Lady. Many council fathers wanted the council to speak in a separate document on Our Lady. Cardinal Koenig of Vienna said, „No, there’s need- no need for it.‟ And believe it or not, by the time the council was finished, I think some people would agree with me when they say, „Thank God the council at least didn’t say much about Our Lady.‟ Nothing good would’ve come out of it anyway.

Explanatory Note on Theological Qualification

At the end of this document, which is ending my conference today, at the end of this document, there’s an explanary- explanatory note. Announcement made by the secretary general of the council at the 123rd general congregation, November 16, 1964. A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification. I explain. Remember when I said, when I talked about the positions of, uh, uh, the theological positions, when I said something is of divine faith, defined faith, close to the faith, (Spanish language 00:02:43), a reasonable sure- we’re sure about it, or it’s just probable? This is what is mean- what’s meant here, theological qualifications. Mm-hmm. That means, is this council dogmatic or not? A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the scheme, The Church, on which a vote is to be taken. The Doctrinal Commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi- the modi,„ that means the different ways of, ‟proposed to the third chapter of the schema, The Church.„ That means Lumen Gentium. ‟As is self-evident, the conciliar text is to be interpreted in accordance with the general rules which are known to all.„ That means face value. So please, uh, don’t try to tell me that all this can find- can really find a Catholic interpretation. On face value it doesn’t, and that’s good enough for me. On this occasion, the Doctrinal Commission referred to its declaration of March 6, 1964, which we reproduce here. I quote, ’Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of this present council, the Sacred Synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such. Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of supreme magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledged and acce- accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the council, which is clear from the subject matter and its formulation following the norms of theological interpretation.‚ That means, the council is at most ordinary magisterium, not extraordinary magisterium. I read Pope Pius XII on ordinary magisterium to you, and I explained what the, in a context with what, uh, uh, Pope, uh, Innocent III and many other popes and saints and Doctors of the Church, I forgot to mention Saint Robert Bellarmine, say the council does not have the authority of ordinary teaching, because in parts of its documents, it contradicts directly. You have seen a few of the heresies. The ones I’m going to tell- to talk about, uh, at the next session will be even be worse. Because the council contradicts ordinary and extraordinary magisterium in the past, the council cannot claim the authority of ordinary magisterium. Archbishop Lefebvre asked Cardinal Pericleo Felici, the secretary of the council, on the theological qualifications, in addition to this declaration. And Cardinal Felici said, ‟Well, of course, as far as those, uh, those things are concerned that the council quoted from former councils anyway, they have to be upheld.„ Of course. But as far as the new things are concerned, they have to be taken with care. Now, taken with care means you look at how the church interpreted things in the past, and how the church took position to documents in the past.

Historical Context: Congregation of the Index

At the- in the old days, there was an index, a list of forbidden books. There was a proper congregation in the Roman Curia, Congregation of the Index, just on that topic. (clears throat) Just, uh, uh- there was a few pious and learned priests-… who would read through endless boring and stupid books in order to find out if they’re acceptable to Catholic or not. Now, just to show you how the church thought about that once upon a time, the wonderful novel by Alexandre Dumas, The Three Musketeers, was put on the index because Alexandre Dumas made fun of the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Cardinal Armand Jean Richelieu… Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, cardinal and archbishop of Paris, grand admiral of the king, Louis XIII, was a criminal. He signed the contract with the Turks against the Catholic Empire of Austria. He was a criminal. He bribed Protestant, uh, uh, he, he bribed Catholic… Uh, h- he bribed, excuse me. He bribed princes and counts in Germany in order to become Protestant, therefore binding their local territory to the Protestant religion, and therefore destroy the power of Austria against France. Cardinal Richelieu was a politician of the worst kind. He was the Clinton of his age. (laughs) (laughs) And yet, because he was a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the church did not approve of a lay author making fun of him in a book. If you say that’s exaggerated, I agree. I’ve read The Three Musketeers four times over. (laughs) (laughs) And I read… And I saw practically all the movies based on the book. And I love the book. And Cardinal Richelieu was a criminal. But anyway, the church found it scandalous just because they made fun of the cardinal, of a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Now, you can imagine how the Congregation of the Index treated a book that contained heresy. Back home, I have a very good translation of the Bible into German written by, uh, Van Ess, V-A-N-E double S. Van Ess. The Van Ess Bible is on the index because it contains a few minor errors. It’s been put on the index, even though it’s the Bible, it’s been put on the index because of a few minor errors. Take an educated guess (laughs) what the congregation of the Index would have done with this book. (laughs) (laughs)

Rejection of Vatican II

And this is why, and be very careful about the distinction I’m about to make, this is why I reject Vatican II. (German). (German), I reject Vatican II as a whole, not in each line. That would be heretical, because they… Occasionally Vatican II quotes the Council of Trent, and Nicaea, and whatever. I quote… Or excuse me, they quote, uh, old councils. And a- as far as they do that, they proclaim the doctrine of the Church. But as far as the new things are concerned, as Cardinal Felici said, they have to be taken with care. Therefore, I solemnly reject this book. I reject Vatican II in its entirety, not in every single line, as such. I reject this book as… because it contains heresy, not because everything in it is heresy. (clears throat) The, the, the translation of the Bible made by Martin Luther is not entirely wrong, but it has always been rejected by the Church because of a few mistakes deliberately or erroneously inserted. The Church rejects a book the moment the Church finds one single grave error in the book. If the Church has always done that, then I have to do so. I’ve just shown you a few errors. Let’s just call them errors. Some people get upset when I pronounce the judgment on what is heresy, what is not heresy. I couldn’t care less what they say. But anyway, uh, at least some of the things in this council are erroneous. Therefore, I reject it. And you have to if you want to stay Catholics. Thank you. (clapping)

Questions and Answers (Part 2)

10 minutes of questions and answers. Please ask important questions. And give me… Uh, wait, before I answer a question- (clears throat) … I retain the right to reject the question- (laughs) … without personal offense. Anybody is personally offended because I reject the question, he did not understand. We don’t have enough time to answer all the questions. I will choose what question I consider important. Ask.

Q1: Accuracy of English Translation of Vatican II Documents

Questioner: Is there any chance that the English translation is improperly translated from the Latin?

Q2: On a Priest Saying the 1962 Mass

Questioner: Uh, one of the traditional priests was saying the mass 23rd, do you know if there’s any, uh, violation there for primo?

Q3: Where Do Catholics Who Disagree with Vatican II Go?

Questioner: I’m a little confused in this because where it is… If the church is doing this or if the Vatican can sort of establish them. Where then, if… W- And you’re, you’re educated. That sounds like to me. Where are they going to go? Where are the people who, who don’t agree with this? Where, where, where’s the outlet for them? How are they going to… Who’s going to establish something?

Q4: Best English Bible Translation Today?

Questioner: Father, what, in your opinion, is the best Bible today in English?

Q5: On Archbishop Thuc's Consecrations

Questioner: Uh, Father, on the subject of self-consecration, do you consider

Q6: On the Society of St. Peter (FSSP)

Questioner: What about the St. Peter Society founded by the Holy Father 15 parishes throughout the United States?

Q7: Use of Latin in Confession and Other Sacraments

Questioner: Do you believe in the, um, Latin of course, but to what extent should Latin for example, the confession? Would it be more valid than the-

Q8: Was Vatican II Pius XII's Idea?

Questioner: Is there any truth to the initiation of Vatican II being, uh, accountable to Pius XII? Uh, what? Was it his idea when he kicked off Vatican II and then it was, uh… been held on by John XXIII and the pope following him?