Okay, now before I start to speak about today's topic
I have to make three distinctions because I have found out that people have great trouble in
distinguishing the words objective subjective in the words material and formal
sometimes I have to point out that anybody who is not subject to the Roman
pontiff and who is not in union with the church cannot be such this tape or
listen to the the the audio tapes
One of the reasons why we cannot positively state that this Pope is not Pope is because, first of all, we need proof. We do not have this proof.
Some people quote the Apostolic Bull of Paul IV, cum ex apostolatu, against the present Pope, saying that Paul IV decreed that the heretic cannot become Pope.
Yes, but the papal election is an act of administration, not a sacrament.
It is not a theological procedure, therefore there cannot be an infallible pronouncement on it.
It is an act of administration, just like all elections, when in a monastery an abbot is elected.
This is a canonical election. The election of the supreme pontiff among the cardinals is a canonical election.
And those rules can not only be changed, but were changed a couple of dozen times over in church history.
Leo XIII changed the rules, Pius X changed the rules, Pius XI changed the rules again,
Pius XII changed the rules again, Pius VI changed it, and the present pope changed it again.
And none of them has ever quoted Pius IV again on this.
Now the bull who makes upostolato is an infallible bull as far as the doctrinal statements are concerned.
It cannot be infallible as far as an administrative role is concerned, saying that if a cardinal
was a heretic, even when he was a heretic and converted, he cannot be validly elected
pope.
To be validly elected pope, you need positive human law, a law of administration, and that
every single pope can change, much unlike the doctrinal laws, which no pope can change
ever.
If a Pope decides forever on a moral issue, his successor cannot change it.
He will put himself in schism with the church.
But a rule of administration and how it can be changed, and how.
In the beginning, the people of Rome elected to Pope.
Later on, it was the clergy of Rome.
And very much later on, only 1,300 years after Christ died and resurrected and founded his church at Pentecost,
Cardinals were the only ones to elect the Pope.
So if a future Pope says,
I don't want Cardinals to elect the Pope,
but all of the bishops in the world,
he's going to make a mess,
but that doesn't make the election invalid,
because it would be horrible.
I don't want to think of it.
But it doesn't make the election duly procedures required and to provide it
It doesn't make it invalid because it's an act of administration
And that's why I recommend the state of account is to be a little more careful with their judgments
The Society of same price the sense is not exactly composed of all idiots and none of them nowadays
considers the apostolic sea vacant, and the three priests, Father Sanborn, Kelly and Secada, unfortunately,
because they are otherwise very good theologians, unfortunately had to be kicked out of the Society of Sempiles the 10th,
for insisting on the fact that we do not have a vote.
To me, this is a neurotic statement, too, because you put yourself in a dead end.
Who's going to elect an ex-probe? I'll leave the question to you.
Now, we are in the topic already. I mentioned the Society of St. Pius X,
and Father Trainsher pointed out to you that you will not be excommunicated if you
use the services of the Society of St. Pius X. Why is this so?
I presume that you will see the tapes of my conference on Thursday, Fridays and yesterday.
I do not have the time to repeat everything I said there, so there will be a lot of references to my first, second and third lecture.
In my first lecture I explained to you how the crisis came about.
In my second lecture I explained to you what is wrong with the new mass.
And yesterday I explained to you what is wrong with Vatican II.
And in near future you will get a complete list of all the quotations of Vatican II,
which are definitely unacceptable to a Catholic.
And just reading those quotations, you will be able to see what I mean.
Even though you're not learning theologians, you will be able to use my list to see and understand what I mean.
I'll give you one example, we have that much of time.
Lumen Gentium 16 says that the Muslims, together with us, adore one merciful God.
This is blasphemy and heresy, because it might as well be that the individual Muslim tries to find the real one God.
But the consul says the Muslims, capital letter in Latin.
Musulmani no biskum adorant unum deo.
They do not adore one merciful God with us but against us because they deny the incarnation
and they deny the blessed Trinity and they use words which I don't want to repeat here
to describe with the idea of the Trinity.
And Vatican II has the blasphemous audacity to speak about them and the Jews praying to
the same God we do.
This is a thoroughly and entirely Masonic concept that cannot be accepted by any Catholic.
The Muslims are not only here, it takes their pagans.
And they do not adore our God because they do not adore Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Anybody who says they adore the same God we do because they are no biskum,
together with us, not along with us.
as one smart alec translated.
Together with us is no biskom.
If you say they adore one merciful God together with us,
then you sin against the first commandment gravely.
We adore Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Son incarnated men.
The word has become flesh.
You see, the situation is a disaster, and that's to say the least.
So in 1970, French seminarians of the Seminaire Francaise in Rome
were threatened with being kicked out of the seminary for the simple reason that they wanted to say the rosary and wear the cassock.
So they did not accept that, of course, and they asked Archbishop Lefevre, who at this time was contemplating to retire and live the rest of his life in a pension in Rome.
They were asking Archbishop Lefevre for help.
Archbishop LeFevre was not very convinced at first that he should do that, but however, they insisted, especially a certain Monsieur Tissier de Malleré, who is now Bishop Tissier de Malleré, insisted and kept insisting, and together with him, another French priest who is now, at the moment, the...
First, the second general advisor to the Society of St. Pius X.
So they found a house in Freiburg in Switzerland, and Bishop Henri Charriere of Freiburg, Lausanne and Sion, at the same time, gave them an official church blessing to found the society, the priestly society of St. Pius X.
And so it wasn't a work of the church.
Legally, regularly founded by a diocesan bishop in Switzerland.
And the society was canonically, therefore canonically means according to the regulations of the Code of Canon Law, canonically erected in 1970.
After a while, Archbishop Lefebvre found the house, which is still the French-speaking main seminary today in Econ,
that's in the Rhone Valley in Switzerland, the French-speaking part.
And it was about after one and a half years that Rome found out that they are celebrating the old Mass,
and they are teaching all this old stuff with Vatican II, who I wanted to do away with.
So, they sent in three investigators, Cardinal Garon, Cardinal Wright, and Cardinal Tabera.
who quote-unquote investigated right there in the place they all gave praise
on the whole outfit and said this is beautiful wonderful everything according
to the canonical regulations I wish we had that elsewhere back in Rome they said
the exact contrary which is typical for conciliar methods you lie cheat and
swindle
When you read Vatican II and its footnotes, you will find out that they light, cheat and swindle.
They, in one and the same sentence, footnote at the end, they quote the guy, a church father or somebody else,
quote it in the footnote in the first half of the sentence,
and then they say the contrary in the second half of the sentence,
and put the footnote after the second half of the sentence,
quoting, for example, in Largardium, it's based 22-2, the church father used Tenus,
Contrary to what Eustenus said, this is the method of Vatican II and the Noah's Order Church, the counterfeit church out there.
They reported to Rome that the seminary in Econ was not according to the standards of Vatican II, etc., etc.
You can very well imagine what they said.
And so Rome said, we're going to shut down this thing.
Archbishop Lefebvre, contrary to canon law, never even got a hearing.
let alone a cause at the competent Church Tribunal.
Never anything.
You can read this in detail in one of the books available at the bookstands of the Society of St. Pius X.
Archbishop Le Fevre was not even heard, which is against canon law.
And then the official closed down of the Society of the St. Pius X, not by the Pope, but by the Secretary of State, was silently acknowledged by Pope Paul VI, and Archbishop Lefebvre, the person concerned, never had had a chance to defend himself.
So this is the methods of, as Fr. Trincher pointed out, tyrants, who do not, they use
canon law when it serves their purposes, but they do not understand canon law, they do
not understand divine law, they do not understand eternal law, and they do not understand the
meaning of law itself, the purpose of law, justice.
So the Society of St. Pius X went on all the same. Rome explicitly forbade Archbishop Lefebvre to ordain priests.
However, in 1976 he did ordain priests.
against the explicit instructional Rome, and so they suspended him at the Viennese.
That means he was further on, according to what Rome believed,
further on he was not allowed to say mass except privately,
and he was not allowed to give the sacraments except in the case of emergency.
And this is exactly what we are in. We are in the case of emergency.
The Church provides jurisdiction, read Canon Law.
The new Code of Canon Law confirms what I say.
I do not have to quote the old Canon Law to make my point.
The new Code of Canon Law affirms in several canons the old law of emergency.
Now, why are we in an emergency? Well, listen to my lecture 1, 2 and 3 and you will see
we are definitely in an emergency with 99% of the hierarchy preaching heresy. You need
Catholic priests. You do not want to go to confession to a priest who says, oh, come
on, that's not a sin. What's the matter with you? Today's priests tell young people in
the confessional, it's all right to go to bed before you marry it.
This is not what you want when you go to confession.
You want to hear the Catholic moral theology also because otherwise the absolution is invalid.
So here some people, some conservatives, I'm not a
conservative, I warn you. I'm just plain Catholic. So some conservatives are
worried about the jurisdiction of the Society of St. Pius X. They are
absolutely not worried about priests who explain away sins of the confessional.
which makes absolution invalid.
They're absolutely not concerned and worried about priests to give general absolution,
which in 99.999 cases is invalid.
I have so far known only one single case of general absolution having been valid after the Second World War.
And that was on a plane that was threatened with a crash.
And the priest got up, turned around, grabbed the microphone, and said anybody who's a Catholic, do an act of contrition,
ego votes, absolve, opicatis, vestries, and so on, gave general absolution.
That's valid according to Pius XII.
It's valid according even to the decrease of the present Pope.
99.9% of all general absolutions are not valid.
Nobody's hooked up with that problem.
The conservatives are always worried about the jurisdiction of St. Pius X.
Well, I tell you, the Society of St. Pius X gets the jurisdiction for absolution out of canon law.
Not...
Canon Law says jurisdiction can be given either by the competent authority or by the church itself.
The church itself gives the jurisdiction for absolution or for marriages, as a matter of fact, in certain cases.
I'll give you one example.
A priest on a ship has all faculties automatically.
Sure, he's the only one who can be approached for confession.
Many of you commit a mortal sin on a cruiser and that's very easy with the temptations
out there.
You don't want to die, you don't want to go to hell in case you die the next day or
the ship sinks.
So you might want the priest to confess to.
This priest usually does not have the faculties of confession out there on the ship because
there's no bishop around who would give him the faculty.
So the church gives the faculties.
And in any case of emergency, not just in the case of danger of death.
See, canon law speaks about the danger of death, but it speaks about emergencies.
It does not exclude other emergencies, because canon law is never exclusive without explicitly
saying so.
That's one of the first canons in the book.
So the Society of St. Pius X has jurisdiction simply for the fact that there are no other
Catholic priests around, or not enough.
You're not, as a Catholic, you are not under the obligation to take a plane into another city in this country to be able to find a Catholic priest for confessing.
Do you want to confess, too?
That will be ridiculous. The church is never ridiculous, because Canon Law can never be above the highest law of the church, Canon 1725 of the New Code of Canon Law.
Suprema lexiclesia salus animaron. The highest law of the church is the salvation of souls.
It is absolutely and positively and definitely against the salvation of souls if you are forced
to confess to a heretical priest, to a priest who speaks heresy in the sermons, who celebrates
the Novus Audomysa, which is illicit and against divine law, and who gives the sacraments in
the Novus Audom, which is illicit and against divine law.
You don't want to confess to this priest.
So, uh, canon law cannot be above divine law.
That's absurd.
And Archbishop Lefebvre knew that, and this is why he was going on.
And he went on and on.
And then, uh...
He didn't get younger, so by the time it was 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre was already 83 years old.
Now, that's about usually the time to say goodbye to this world.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew the moment he was dead, nobody.
No bishop, not a single one, would be willing to attain young men to be Catholic priests.
What does it mean, Catholic priests?
Rest assured, I know the situation in seminaries all over the world, diocesan seminaries very well.
I could give you an explicit description of what is going on in modern seminaries,
but I can't because there's ladies present.
I'm not joking.
I could not possibly, in front of a present lady, tell you what is going on in new seminaries,
but take an educated guess on several perversions of the Sixth Commandment.
Novus Audubeshop, and except for at the moment, are six bishops at the moment.
All others are Novus Audubeshops, and are not willing to ordain a young man who refuses
Vatican II, referred to my yesterday's lecture, and who refuses to Novus Audubeshop, referred
to my lecture on Friday.
So, you cannot become a Catholic priest if you accept Vatican to approve this yesterday.
You cannot be a Catholic priest if you celebrate the Novosordo.
Approved this yesterday, the day before yesterday.
So, we were in a situation in 1988, and this is before the fraternity of St. Peter and
the Institute of Christ, the king, and similar organizations came about, mind you.
We were in a situation that there were two bishops in the whole world willing to ordain
Catholic priests.
Oh, I shouldn't do this.
Some people say I'm amazing if I do this sign.
I've learned my lectures.
So two, oh, oh, oh, two.
There were two bishops around who were willing to attain
young men who refused Vatican II and Danovus Ardo.
If those two bishops had if, if, mind you, if they didn't, if those two bishops had died and nobody else would have ordained priests according to the old laws of the church, the prophecy of Christ in Matthew 1618 would have turned out to be a lie.
That cannot be.
The moment Archbishop Lefevre realized that if he did not ordain bishops, if he did not consecrate the bishops,
apparently against the will of the Pope, I say apparently I will explain it later.
There won't be nobody left.
He was dead right in the spot because both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro may have died in 1991, three years after.
He had more than reasons enough to distrust Rome.
There is the famous story of the paper that Archbishop LeFevre signed the 5th of May 1988,
one or two months before the Episcopal Consecrations.
In this paper, which is usually presented by the Vatican as an agreement, another lie.
It was not an agreement, but the protocol of a conversation, a discussion.
So when Archbishop Le Fabre, on the 5th of May, signed a protocol, he signed a protocol – that's what it was, a protocol – not an agreement.
And still he had to take back his signature later on because
Now, in this protocol, they discussed the possibilities of having an organization with
the blessing of the Holy See to keep a traditional seminary and a traditional rite of mass going
as an exceptional thing, so to speak, as if the Novos Aldo Mises was ever a rite of the
church.
which is another lie. The novus or the missus, not a work of the church, it has no blessing
from the church, and it is against divine law, approve this. So the true right of the Latin
Roman Church, the Catholic Church of the Latin Roman right, is the old mass, canonized forever
by St. Pius III, 1570 with his decree, Grog Premoam, which you will be able to read in
Fr. Trenshirt's book.
And so they had no rights to give an exceptional permission.
They should have done the opposite, done away with the new right and got the old right back.
However, they offered Archbishop Le Fevre, an organization of Pontifical rights,
headed by a commission of seven members, and now get this, by a commission of seven members,
who would the seven members have been? Five chosen by the Vatican. The sixth one would
have been the one bishop. They would have ordained for that purpose, the very one bishop.
a member chosen by the Society of St. Pius X. We live in a Democrat where I don't, I don't, but
the Nova's order people live in a Democratic church. Now get this, five against two,
and the bishop here would have been chosen by Rome, so six against one.
He would have been a lot more honest to tell Archbishop Le Favour,
listen, we will not give you a bishop, we will put you on the pontifical right,
but we will decide what will go on.
and the future in 1988 was future.
And the future was to prove what Archbishop LeFevre suspected.
Because the fraternity of St. Peter was promised a bishop,
I can't see a bishop given to the fraternity of St. Peter's yet.
And we are almost 10 years after that.
The Indult masses, like in Providence, Rhode Island, the Indult mass,
the priest has to give communion in the hand, or he's not allowed to celebrate the mass there.
Monsignor Perle, who is the, uh, in charge, the Secretary of the Commission Ecclesia Day,
he asked the Indulth people in Vienna, Austria,
Said, why don't you keep coming in the hand, people make everything so much easier?
This is what Archbishop Lefebvre predicted in 1988.
So, when he found out, he went back to Rome, he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, when are you going
to give me this bishop?
I'm not going to live for long anymore.
And Cardinal Ratzinger said, oh, I can't give you a date.
I can't give you an exact date.
Archbishop Lefebvre tried again.
He said, well, how about the 15th of August?
Can I rely on your consecrating a bishop for my purposes the 15th of August?
Oh, no, I can't give you a definite answer on that.
Well, what do you call that?
In English, it's called stalling.
And stalling usually has not exactly an honest purpose,
except in war.
So Archbishop LeFevre said, OK, I see what's going on.
Emergency applies. Emergency is there.
We have a case of emergency.
The rules for self-defense.
The rules for defense apply.
And the 30th of June, 1988, he consecrated four bishops.
For a simple reason.
It's very easy to rub out one bishop.
I have lived in Rome for 15 years.
I know people who are capable of doing this.
There were three attempts on two of the paper of the both secretaries' lives.
Three attempts.
There was, uh, one of the Pope's secretaries, a certain once in your kabungo, somewhere
in Africa, I don't remember which dial says, once in your kabungo, a pretty good man, if
you handed him a letter for the Pope, he would hand the letter directly to the Pope, and
not to the secretary of state for the trash can there, or the paper shredder.
So they threatened him with life, and then they tried to kill him.
He was one of those curious creatures who would drive a bicycle in Rome, which means a daring person.
And he left Porto Santa Ana, and the car drove by and pushed him over.
Lucky the Italian drivers are extremely fast in reaction.
The front tire of a huge truck was right here.
So, they wanted to give Archbishop Lefebvre one bishop.
I once discussed this with Bishop Frele, and I said,
I hope it is not allowed to you to travel on the same plane,
all the four of you.
And he said, no, we are not allowed to.
Planes have been bombed for lesser reasons, like life insurance,
cashing life insurance, or getting rid of a politician over Bosnia,
or trying out what would be the reaction of the people with the TWA
applied over the Atlantic.
There are some people in the Vatican who would not drink for murder.
An Archbishop of the Federal realized he needed four bishops because by 1988 his organization was worldwide.
And he has a bishop in Argentina and he has a bishop in the United States, Bishop Williamson in Winona, the St. the local seminary.
He has a bishop in Switzerland, who is now the Secretary-General,
and he has a bishop in the United States.
The second bishop in Switzerland, Monsignor Thicier de Malare,
whom I mentioned before,
and those two bishops in Switzerland
are not always in Switzerland
because they have to do an awful lot of traveling
all over the world.
Last time I met Filet,
he had just been coming back from somewhere,
I remember not, yet the Philippines.
So these four bishops thank God they're young, but these four bishops are under a constant stress, they're in constant traveling and I thank the Lord we have six bishops now because there's the fifth one.
Muncio Ranciel in the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, which would be a story for another lecture.
And Muncio Lasso, a retired bishop from the Philippines, God bless him, who has joined the Society of St. Pius X.
This emergency, which can easily be proven in canon law,
this emergency caused Rome to found a new organization,
the fraternity of St. Peter.
Some of the priests, most of them, by the way,
not in disagreement with the consecrations,
the Episcopal consecrations.
That's another one of those tiny little dishonestists
or deviations from truth.
Or, as you put it in political, correct speak, untruth.
These, most of them, didn't leave the Society of St. Pius X because they were against the
Episcopal Consecrations, but because they wanted to leave anyway.
So now they had a new chance.
And the fraternity of St. Peter was founded for the only and exclusive purpose to get
people away from the Society of St. Pius X.
Ain't that nice?
An organization like this does not have the blessing of the Holy Spirit, because the church
does not do things like this.
The church does not do that, enough about the fraternity of St. Peter.
Why did I say before that Archbishop Le Fay ever consecrated those four bishops with the will of the Pope?
What is the will of the Pope?
What is it?
Now, at the present pope is a man who says Christ is really substantially present on
the altar in mass.
And then he celebrates a mass that never mentions this fact.
So what does he mean?
In another one of his encyclicals, the pope says, only if you have the full Catholic truth,
you can be saved.
And then in another place he says, Christ does not deny salvation to the efforts of efforts,
mind you, of Protestant churches.
Doesn't mean the individual Protestant, maybe, but the efforts of Protestant churches never.
So what does he mean?
Well, if I'm nice to the probe and I'm respectful to the probe, and I have to choose between
one of his two opinions, I will choose the one that confirms my church prediction.
Now, if the pope says to Archbishop Lefebvre, I don't want you to attain these bishops,
but at the same time in writing he has signed the new code of canon law, which in canon 1725
says the highest law of the church is the salvation of the soul.
and Archbishop LeFevre was able to prove that the salvation of the souls depended on correct theology,
on correct confessors, and on the only right of the Roman Catholic Church.
He had the will of the pope, the real will of the pope, the will of the vicar of Christ,
the will of the successor to St. Peter, not the will of Carl Wojtiva, John Paul II, again,
another one of those contradictions.
So what would he have gone according to?
I mean, you don't choose the heresy, you choose the orthodoxy.
So, he went on, and as a matter of fact, at the Peace Group of Consecrations, the 30th
of June 1988, the Mandatum, a Postolikum, was read.
The Mandatum, a Postolikum, is a letter, and there is a prescribed formula for it that
says,
I, John Paul II, bishops of the bishops of the Church,
a beaker of Christ, the bishop of Rome, archbishop of the
etc, primate of Italy, and primate of the
West, and patriarch of the West, and
and servants of God, hereby allow you, bishop so-and-so, or archbishop so-and-so, or cardinal
so-and-so, or anybody in good standing with the Catholic Church, to consecrate the following
priests, da-da-da-da-da.
to the bishophood.
Archbishop Lefebvre, of course, could not put in the name
John Paul II, so he set the church exactly according
to canon law.
If my bishop refuses to give faculties of confession to me,
and one of you comes to me and says,
father, I want to confess to a Catholic priest.
Could you hear my confession?
I got, in that moment, latest in that moment,
I get the faculty from the church, and that is declared in canon law. Archbishop LaPevre
received the faculties to consecrate those bishops because of the emergency situation
in the church provided by canon law. These were canonically correct consecrations.
And that's basically the story of the Society of St. Pais the 10th, and...
Unlike me in rather mild terms, but very definitely,
acknowledge the fact that the present probes and cyclicals are packed with heresy.
The fraternity of St. Peter officially agrees with Vatican II.
and officially agrees with the friends and popes and cyclicals so they're not Catholics
officially objectively they are formerly not Catholics formally in their heart I don't
know I have friends in the
opportunity of St. Peter's who are good priests, but formally they're not Catholics.
Formally they're in heresy because they sign and affirm officially, formally,
objectively heresy, which means Vatican II.
and the same with the Institute of Christ the King.
The Institute of Christ the King found it by Monsignor Vák
and because I was stupid enough not to see what was going on
and I like to have this on tape because Monsignor Vák never tells anybody about it.
The Institute of Christ the King could only be found it because I was the bum
who made it possible that he had four priests ordained.
I'm not going to say here how I did it, and so he was able to start the Institute of Christ, the king, because now he had six priests, instead of two.
Unfortunately, because as much as I like the Institute of Christ, the king, as much as
I like their priests, and I really like them, one of them is my best friend.
Once in your vak, come celebrate it with the prop, second eucharistical prayer, together
with Dom Jarrar Calve, the abbot of the Benedictine monastery in France.
that he found it to celebrate the old riot.
They celebrate the 1965 riot, if you call that the old riot, I don't know.
And both of them come celebrated with the Pope.
Something which in the old liturgy you had only at Episcopal consecrations and in quite
a different form of today than today, they both can't celebrate it with the Pope's second
eucharistical prayer.
I have seen the picture.
So you know what's going on?
You cannot say that the Novus Ardo is against divine law and then celebrate it for the
the grammatical reasons.
Either you mistakenly say, this is the liturgy of the church, then it might as well celebrate it,
or you say what I say, it's against divine law, and that's the reason why I'm not celebrating it,
and you can also not do it for diplomatic reasons.
do not say, if the fraternity of St. Peter, and if the Institute of Christ, the king,
do not say that the Novus Ordos against divine law, then why do they celebrate the Old Mass,
because it's more beautiful?
Okay, they're running a museum.
If it was not against divine law, on direct commandment of my bishop I would have to celebrate it, right?
If the Pope tells me that in a Dominican monastery somewhere, they don't have a priestlift, it's only brothers,
and please father has to celebrate the Dominican right for them, I will say, yes sir!
Anytime you want, the Dominican right, the old Dominican right, of course, you know?
Fine, I have to obey.
The reason why I cannot obey the purpose, because I am bound to the Divine Law, and
the new right is against the Divine Law.
Therefore, I am not allowed to celebrate it.
I commit a sin if I celebrate it.
I did celebrate it.
I didn't know.
So, subjectively, I did not commit a sin.
Objectively, objectively, it was horrible what I did.
I'm ashamed that I didn't find out earlier, I'm glad I didn't have to confess it.
So these people are running a museum.
Anybody who receives his faculties and his blessings from Ecclesia Day,
or except for useful purposes, I got the decree of Ecclesia Day here.
Now this is on paper, they might take it back, but I'm definitely afraid of this.
Here's the decree of the Ecclesia Day,
a conviction that allows me to celebrate mass privately in the old right.
Aha, but sometimes it's useful.
I don't believe in this. It's null and void, but sometimes it's useful.
And if they want to take it back, let them take it back. Okay, I got my travel luggage altar.
I've celebrated mass in hotel rooms. This is the situation we're in.
We're back to the catacombs. Thanks to part of six.
The reason why I mention the fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the king is not to put them down, especially not the members.
Monsieur Wack, the founder of the Institute of Christ the king is a friend of mine for now eighteen or nineteen years.
And some of the priests of the Institute are friends of mine and some of the priests of the fraternity of St. Peter are friends of mine.
friendship usually is especially among men, something that does not necessarily concern
religion and politics, with me a lot more politics than religious advocates,
companion friends, and I love them, but they're Republicans. And so the reason
why I mention them is to explain to you why I want you, if it is possible, to go
to the masses of St. Pius the 10th.
Now, if you happen, I don't know the geographical situation here, if you happen to live around
the corner of the chapel of the Institute of the Christ the King or the fraternity of
St. Peter and the chapel of the Society of St. Pius the Thames is two hours away, of
course you're allowed to go to the, provided it's the old mass and they don't give communion
in the hand there because like they do an in-dought masses or if you live around the
corner of the in-dought mass.
they do not commit sacrilege there. You are allowed to go there, but I warn you, first
of all, there's two dangers. First of all, in their sermons, you cannot be sure you
will get to the doctrine of the church.
With the Society of St. Pius X, even if a sermon there might be incredibly boring, it will never be against the doctrine of the Church.
With the Indoch Mass and the fraternity of St. Peter, there's a probability that they
will tell you the truth, but you don't know.
And there's another thing.
When you go to communion with the Society of St. Pius X, you definitely know that the
little hosts distributed to you were consecrated by one of the priests of the Society of St.
Pius X within the Old Mass.
With the Indock Mass, you might get the host that some liberal, hippie 1968 generation
priest, in an invalid celebration, attempted to consecrate.
So there are only cookies, crackers.
With the fraternity of St. Peter, you can go to communion without hesitation.
Because if it's their own chapel, if they are not just borrowing the chapel,
if they have their own chapel, then it's only them who celebrate there,
so the sacrifice of Sacramento is valid.
Now, as far as the issue of validity is concerned, I highly recommend you to read both of the
printed out books, who explains in painful detail and very precisely, and quoting all
the necessary authorities, why the new mass in English language is with the highest probability
invalid, invalid, that means the sacrament is not taking place.
It's just like going to an Episcopalian Church, except that the right with the Episcopanence
is a lot nicer.
And there's no time and space here to explain the issue of validity, read for the French
Church books.
However, you have to be careful, if you can't go to anywhere else but to the Indoch Mass,
go but don't go to communion.
You don't have to.
The church says you must go to communion once a year.
Once a year, you'll be able to drive three or four hours to the next chapel if you have
to go that far to the next chapel of St. Paul's to Ten and receive a definitely, positively
valid communion there.
See, the thing is, I'm not saying that 99.9% of the churches or parishes in this country
do not celebrate mass anymore, do not have the bless of sacrament and tabernacle anymore.
I do not say that.
I only say one thing, which innocent, innocent, innocent, the third said, you always must.
Now, this is official to her church doctrine, you always must adapt to safer course.
You are not allowed to take chances with the sacraments, you're not allowed to.
If you take chances with the sacraments, you're in sin.
So if you don't know about the validity, stay away from communion, you don't have to.
That's one of the greatest mistakes in our days.
I don't see people going to confession, but I always see them going to communion.
Either they're all very, very, very, very holy.
Or they don't care.
And it's a mistake to think that you have to go to communion in any case.
And don't make the mistake a religious sister recently made in my presence saying, oh, father,
but I have a problem.
I have to go to communion.
Otherwise, all the sisters will see that I do not go to communion.
I said, that's very easy.
Grab a sandwich.
Five minutes before a mask.
Let them say you do it.
What are they concerned with?
What the others think or say or what of the last judgement will be said to them?
Don't worry, go to the society of St. Pais-Tentes as much as possible and if this is really too
much for you, because you would have to go to far, or if the roads are rather won't
be much ice here in winter in Louisiana, but in New England there is.
I repeat what I said in one of the other lectures because it's of extreme importance.
The third commandment does not say you have to go to mass.
The third commandment says you have to keep the Sunday holy, actually it says the Sabat,
but well, the Sunday.
You have to sanctify Sunday, that's the third commandment.
It is the church that says you have to go to Mass.
The church can only give positive laws.
So the church has to provide the possibility for you, it is the church duty to make sure
you can go to Sunday Mass.
So if the church does not provide you with its own liturgy, this is the fine dogma of
the Faith Council of Trent.
The faithful have the right. God give it right.
To receive the sacraments in their own right.
My own right is not the noghous order of Paul VI of Infillicitous Memory.
My own right is the everlasting mass, the mass, the la mesti tu joure, the favor called
it, the mass of all the times.
That is my own right, not a newly written up right.
And in this context I quote Trent again.
7th section, canon 13, you will find it in Father Trencher's book, canon 13 of the
7th section said, whoever says that one of the pastors includes the Pope, right?
It doesn't say one of the pastors subject to the Supreme Pontif, it says one of the
pastors, when he includes the Pope.
Whoever says that one of the pastors is allowed to omit or add anything to the liturgy or
to write up a new liturgy, he's outside the church.
If Pope Paul VI had said that, he would have seized to be Pontiff, most probably, he never
said it, he just did it.
He never endorsed it either.
He never put his signature to a decree that says, you have to use the new right.
So, as the faith said, you must not create the new right.
The Council of Friends said, you cannot create a new right.
And part of the six did not say we have to use the new right.
So the book he created, the book he had written up by a couple of bureaucrats,
this book is just simply null and void.
And all part of the six says, in his introduction to the book,
the constitution of Potolica Misareva Manum of 1969,
he says, I like this book and I add three eucharistic or prayers.
Nowhere does he say you have to use it.
So if you use it, you're going against divine law,
divine council of trend, you're going against divine law
established by Pius V forever,
and you think you're obeying something
which was never decreed by Paul VI
of most infillicitous memory.
So you understand what I'm saying?
The new mass is illicit, it is not my right, the Council of Trent defined that I have the
right to hear mass according to my right.
So what do you do if you cannot have the old mass?
Because it's too far away.
Father Schmittberg, I once said, and I think he's an authority on those things because
Father Schmittberg is not known for being overly indulgent with people.
Father Schmittberg said, if you have to drive for more than an hour to get mass, then you
are dispensed.
Well, the European standards.
I mean, one hour in Europe is like five hours in Texas, right?
So your conscience will have to tell you what you do.
But in New England, on icy roads,
I would never tell anybody to drive an hour to ask.
It's ridiculous. You don't have to risk your life for something.
The church guarantees to you and does not give to you.
You are not obliged to risk your life for that.
Absolutely not.
The Church has dogmatically defined that you have a right for the Old Mass and it doesn't
give you the Old Mass.
We need a so-called excommunicated group to provide so-called, I will come back to that,
we need a so-called excommunicated group to provide us with what the Church guarantees
dogmatically defined in the Council of Training.
This is ridiculous.
So, you will hopefully not misunderstand when I am said you are dispensed, when it is sub-guardied
in Commodore's The Church, and the great in commodity.
What you do in that case?
Oh, you sit home, you say an additional rosary to the rosary as you usually say.
Oh, don't please, don't give me the cheap thing.
Like you say a rosary every day, and then you see one on Sunday instead of going to Mass.
And then you have to understand that you will have to do a little bit more on Sundays, to sanctify Sunday.
If you are among the good and wonderful people who say the daily rosary, then please say a second or third one on Sunday.
And take your Sunday mistle and read the Mass.
You don't have to read the entire Mass, it's one of those mistakes people who want to come celebrate
with a priest like me who celebrates Mass in 20 minutes.
And then they can't keep up and afterwards they say,
I couldn't follow you and they say, what, what's the matter with you?
You want to come celebrate? Read the reading at the Gospel and pray.
In the old days you didn't have a mistle to follow Mass.
The priest would tell you, say a rosary, or he would give your hand to your book with a mass devotion.
So don't pretend you have to understand every prayer. You don't understand it anyway, and
Don't think that you have to follow the priest with every single line. He says I once met a woman in Rome
Who put herself visibly to everybody right here up there with the author and then at the at the canon she went like this?
So everybody could see she knew even the cannon by height.
Now, this is what I call mental disturbances,
and in politically correct news speed,
wisdom challenged woman.
Woman, excuse me, with a Y.
That's your wisdom challenge person who thinks that she must
can't celebrate with the priest by saying everywhere he says, don't.
But at home, if you don't get to Mass,
take your time for reading the missile. God will accept it as your Sunday duty to be fulfilled.
Naturally. And there is in the hospital who's got 12 hours of service there, can't go to Mass.
And somebody who is lying in the hospital in bed can't go to mass but he has to sanctify
Sunday and if it is only in intention.
He has to sanctify Sunday because God himself cannot dispense from the third commandment.
Because the three commandments concerning himself he cannot dispense of, God cannot dispense
you from believing in him, from having to believe in him.
God cannot dispense you from not abusing his name, and God cannot dispense you from fulfilling
Sunday obligations.
If the church does not give you the possibility of fulfilling your Sunday obligation the way
the church wants it, then it's the church part of you can't do it, and not yours.
And now as far as the excommunication is concerned, well I told you that Archbishop Lefevre was
indeed in reality following the official formal, according to church tradition established
will of the supreme promptive.
So the excommunication is invalid, of course.
According to Canon 1325, I believe it is.
Don't kill me if I made a mistake.
Of the new Code of Canon Law, which was signed by the present
Pope in 1983, according to this new Code of Canon Law,
If somebody commits a crime against a canon of this book,
even if he erroneously is in good conscience,
he cannot be punished with the full punishment.
So the excommunication provided by a canon,
forgot which one, for illegal and illicit episcopal consecrations.
does not apply, give it, and Cardinal Ratzinger said so, and recently at the
regarding the University in Rome, a doctoral thesis was accepted with the
highest mark that proved this to be a fact. So the only one who is still saying
that Archbishop Lefebvre is communicated is the fraternity of St. Peter, needless to
say, and the indulged people. Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't say it,
The Pope privately doesn't say it, he's not honest enough to come out in public against
his fraudulent decree of 1988, to which I will come back, and the Gregorian University
right under the eyes of the Pope, except the doctoral dissertation on the subject, saying
that Archbishop Lefebvre is not discriminated.
And recently Cardinal Ratzinger was asked by a pious lady in Germany, why the congregation,
why the
Why the secretariat for the non-Catholic religions does not extend its ecumenical activities towards the society of St. Pius X. Cardinal Ratzinger in writing,
answered in writing, the society of St. Pius X is not outside the church, it is only
disobedience, which of course we know it is not. We know they are not
disobedience. But Colonel Ratzinger put in writing that the society of St. Pius X is
not outside the church. He dares to contradict his pope, who in 1988 in the
document Ecclesia Day, three times says they're outside the church.
So, who is right again?
Well, this is the thing with the Novus Order,
the conciliar Church of the New Advent, as the Pope calls it.
I would have never dreamed of this term.
The Church of the New Advent is fraudulent.
Because today it says this, and tomorrow it says another thing.
And what do you call a man who today says this,
and tomorrow it says another thing?
Well, for the correct speak would say he is a man who has chosen the lifestyle of untruth.
And the Document Ecclesia Day, not only as I pointed out in one of my previous lectures,
is heretical against the dogmatic constitution of the Theilius of the First Vatican Council
on the Tradition of the Church, quoting Dave Erbo, number eight of Vatican II, which gives
an erroneous interpretation of tradition.
It is also fraudulent, as far as canon lies concerned, because it just does not mention
the necessary canon, which explained that Archbishop Lefevre, the four bishops who he
consecrated and the co-consecrator Bishop Castromaya, thank you, never were excommunicated.
So, I cannot call the Pope a liar because I do not know if he deliberately lies.
I can't definitely call him an ignorant of canon law.
That's not a sin.
I have to presume in charity that he did not deliberately lie.
In this case, I have to conclude that the guy doesn't know his own canon law.
Sorry.
But Ecclesia, they prove what I say.
The Pope does not know his own canon law.
And this has been proven.
If you want to read the 600 or 700 pages for the Mary of the Archdiocese of New York presented as his Doctor of Dissertation
then just call the Archdiocese of New York that will provide a photocopy.
And so I think I have pretty much explained the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.
I should almost as a gag to this as a joke at what happened when Bishop, what's his name for
Ariel or something like this, of Hawaii? No, no, the Bishop of Hawaii. But who cares what his name is?
The Bishop of Hawaii, there's a Catholic group there who wanted Bishop
to come over to get confirmation to their children. So the local Bishop of Hawaii
Well, with Rome, of course, not being the fastest ever, it needed some two-and-a-half
years, but then Rome took the excommunication back and told Bishop Ferrelli, or whatever
he's called, of Hawaii, sorry, pal, you cannot excommunicate them because they're not outside
the church.
He said he can suspend them.
Fine. This is a disciplinary, not a theological punishment.
And that's bad enough.
But just to show you, Rome does not know where they stand,
but unless I can tell you one thing, I know where I stand.
Thank God. Thank you.
Cheers.
Your friend, the new receiver, all the way!
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
Hallelujah!