lundi 1 octobre 2012

BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES – conference n°13


BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES – conference n°13

Vidéo en anglais :
Conférence à traduire en français s'il vous plaît, en vue de la publication d'un article puis d'un DVD sous-titré gratuit ou très peu cher, au prix des fournitures. Nous recherchons des bonnes volontés. Même si vous n'êtes pas spécialiste, ce n'est pas grave, vous pouvez quand même traduire ce texte. Cela nous aide. Nous vérifierons tout après. Si vous êtes volontaire, inscrivez-vous en cliquant dans une ou des cases du questionnaire à droite de la page et envoyez nous un mail pour nous le dire (Cf. onglet contact). D'avance, nous vous remercions pour votre aide précieuse.

Let’s conclude with the rest of the Syllabus, which is where the Archbishop’s mind was anchored - a summary of the errors of the poor modern world, which has been around for quite a while.  It’s ridiculous to think that the problem started with the Council.  The problem simply exploded with the Council.  The longstanding problem came to a head with the Council.

 

Moderate rationalism is less extreme but more dangerous than absolute rationalism.

 

8 - “Reason is as high as religion.”  Notice that reason no longer completely dominates but reason is “as high as”.  It’s moderate but it’s still rotten.  So philosophy is as high as theology.  Philosophy is the purely human mind working on reality, as much as it can grasp reality.  Theology is a mind illuminated by the Faith, way above reason.  To say that philosophy is as high as theology is to say, in a slightly more moderate form, that nothing overtops my human reason.

 

9 - “All dogmas come within nature.”  That’s simply ridiculous, and within the scope of natural reason – just take the Holy Eucharist.  What reason can get hold of God being substantially, truly and really present, body, blood, soul and divinity, beneath a little piece of bread and a few drops of wine?  It’s absurd to say that that comes within reason.

 

10 – “Any philosopher may choose personally to submit to an authority” like the Church, but philosophy cannot, so again it’s more moderate, more cunning, more slimy.  So philosophy - the pure, noble pursuit of itself - cannot submit to authority, but if any philosopher wants to - well, that’s his personal affair.  He goes to church on Sunday and he wants to submit his mind to the Church - all right, silly man, but philosophy, there’s no way that can submit to the Church.  It’s a false distinction, of course. 

 

11 - “The Church should tolerate errors of philosophy and allow it to correct itself.”  No.  What is philosophy?  Philosophy is the human mind working on reality, not just material reality but non-material reality, as well.  Any natural reality being working on by the natural mind - that’s philosophy, and so that “must not submit to anything above”.  The problem is again Original Sin.  With Original Sin the philosophy will not be able to work out its own errors.  It needs the Church to come in and say, “When you say we all evolve from monkeys, you’re talking nonsense.”  There’s no way that the human soul can have evolved from monkeys.  Evolution is nonsense in that form.  The Church cannot tolerate errors of philosophy because philosophy is liable, at its most glamorous, to sweep people’s minds with it, and it gets into the most terrible errors because of Original Sin, and if it’s not going to be able to correct itself, on evolution, for instance.  The Church is needed to, again not interfere with philosophy’s own workings, but definitely condemn stupidities that come out of the workings of philosophy.  That definitely the Church can do, and the Church must do, so the Church can’t leave philosophy to correct its own errors because it’s not going to do that.  The Church will condemn the errors overflowing but at the same time it will leave philosophy to do its own work.  The Church will have a respect for philosophy doing properly its own work, but it will condemn stupidities coming out of it.

 

12 - Then free science, the same thing – “Rome hinders the free progress of science.”  That’s simply nonsense.  There would be no modern science without St Thomas Aquinas’s marvellous grip on all reality.  Now that the Church has no more control over science, because the scientists reject all control of science, the scientists are getting into the most awful nonsense because it’s got no check on it.  The Devil wreaks havoc with the poor, little scientists’ minds when they’ve not got the Church to protect them.  So the Church firstly generated modern science.  Modern science is a spin-off from the Truth, of the huge Truth established by the Church and by her philosophy in synch with theology, especially from scholasticism and St Thomas Aquinas onwards.  Secondly, the Church is absolutely needed ever since then to correct the wild, crazy theories of science without the Church.   So Rome does not hinder the free progress of science, not at all.  That’s a modern Masonic myth generated from the example of Galileo.  Galileo was a jumped-up jackass who Bellarmine tried to calm down and stop him saying stupidities, but Galileo insisted upon his theories.  To this day it’s not certain that the Earth circulates around the Sun.  Scientists pretend that it’s certain, but apparently it’s not so.  I’ve never gone into the question, but it’s not as certain as the modern scientists pretend.

 

13 – “Scholastic philosophy is out of date.”  It’s only out of date in certain details because of the superior knowledge of phenomena that modern man has - microscopes, for instance.  The Middle Ages didn’t have microscopes, and therefore, for example, when meat went rotten, apparently with no outer cause, Aristotle had to make his theory fit that, but thanks to modern science and modern microscopes it’s now known that it’s little bacteria that turn into worms that rot meat, but the little bacteria, whatever is there, the causes of rot are actually already there.  The rot is not coming from nowhere, and that’s thanks to microscopes.  Therefore if Aristotle was alive today he would no longer have to punch a hole in his major theory in order to explain rotting meat.  The modern explanation, thanks to modern microscopes, fits entirely with the rest of the theory of Aristotle, and therefore he wouldn't have needed to make an exception.  Spontaneous generation, I think it’s called.  Without microscopes you cannot see the organisms arriving at the meat to rot it.  You can’t see the organisms in the meat, you can’t see them arriving at the meat, and therefore you have to have a theory of spontaneous generation.  That theory is no longer needed because now you can observe the little bacteria, which are responsible for that rotting.  Scholastic philosophy is not the hindrance of science.  It’s the very foundation of modern science.  Modern science would never have followed Plato, because Plato says that material reality is not all that real.  Aristotle says material reality is for real, and the Church took the side of Aristotle.  The Church is not hindering science.

 

14 - “Philosophical questioning need take no heed of supernatural revelation.”  Again that’s another form of saying that philosophy should be independent of theology.  It’s not true because natural reality is entirely in synch with supernatural reality.  It’s got no notion of supernatural reality.  Natural research has no notion of supernatural reality and therefore natural reason has only an incomplete grip even on natural reality, and therefore it needs supernatural revelation.

 

15 - We move from in principle to practice.  “Every man is free to choose his own religion” is a vast principle but it’s a principle applying to action.  A man is as free to choose his own religion as he is free to murder his grandmother.  If I’m a strong guy and my grandmother is frail, and I’ve got a dagger in my hand, I’m going to finish her off one way or the other.  I’ve got the physical ability.  I’ve got the freedom to do it in that sense.  I am free to do evil in the sense that I have the physical freedom to do it and I’ve got the free will to do it, but I don’t have the right to do it.  Nobody has the right to murder his grandmother and nobody has the right to choose his own religion.  He’s got physical freedom to murder his grandmother but he hasn’t got moral freedom.

 

16 - “Any religion enables men to save their souls.”  No way.  If a Hindu saves his soul it’s thanks to the truth, any truth remaining inside the Hindu religion which he holds onto, and then the grace of Jesus Christ which enables him to hold on to that truth and to be ready to believe the rest of Catholic Truth if it was explained to him.  Otherwise it’s absolutely not by Hinduism that any Hindu can save his soul.  It’s only by the grace of Jesus Christ that any man can get to heaven.  Can men be saved outside Catholicism?  Exceptionally, yes.  Normally, no.

 

17 - “One may always hope for the salvation of non-Catholics.”  One may only exceptionally hope for their salvation.  One may always hope – no, exceptionally.  That’s tough but that’s what the Church says.  That’s why there were always Catholic missionaries, in the hope of carrying the True Faith to these peoples.  The Archbishop was always deeply impressed by the Catholicising of the African pagans, the glorious effects that the Catholic Faith had upon these poor pagans, and, interestingly, he used to say he was a missionary when he was in Africa, and he was speaking from experience.  He said, “It’s not so much the sins of impurity.  The sins of hatred just as much.”  He said, “In Africa, till the Catholic Faith arrives, every man hates somebody else.  It’s this village that hates that village.  It’s this area that hates that area.  It’s this family that hates this family.”    Hate, hate, hate - until the Catholic Faith comes and then they learn to love their fellow men.  They don’t naturally love their fellow men.  They naturally hate some of their fellow men.  So salvation of non-Catholics is a really risky affair without the Catholic Faith, and that’s why when young men and women who were taught the Catholic Faith became missionaries - to go to these far lands in the hope of saving souls.

 

18 - “Protestantism is part of the true religion and it enables men to please God.”  The Catechism says no.  Protestantism is not as good as that.  There can be good Protestants but it’s despite their Protestantism.  It’s not because of their Protestantism.  Protestantism is bad news.  17 and 18 are tough but that’s the truth of the matter.  I was talking to an undoubtedly good person, a German Protestant woman.  She’s of an advanced age.  She must be around 70.  She’s a decent person.  She’s a revisionist.  She hates the lies of the modern world.  She’s undoubtedly got quite a bit of grace, but she’s resisting Catholic Truth.  She’s running into it because she came and visited me because I’m a revisionist.  Originally it was a friendship that arose over revisionism.  The fact that she hates the Big Lie definitely puts her in line to receive some grace.  She loves truth but she’s resisting Catholic Truth.  She had an uncle who was a Catholic priest, and she often talked to him.    She told me this last time.  She’s a good soul, but I don't know whether she will save her soul.  Protestantism is not as good as that, even a good, decent person like her.  She said, “I’m not conscious of sin.”  I doubt if she’s committed many major sins, but what about that First Commandment?  She may not have broken the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, I would think she hasn’t broadly, even very little, but the First and Third Commandments?   She goes to a Protestant service, but she realises the service is nonsense.  She realises that the Protestant pastor is all over the place, like the modern Catholic priests, probably not as bad as the modern Conciliar priests, and obviously the thing is tugging at her.  I hope it goes on tugging at her, but she needs to be tugged at, because if she dies in her present state - she’s a good soul but is she good enough to save her soul?  Do I have the right to hope that she will save her soul?  The Syllabus says no.  That’s how important the Catholic Faith is.

 

Now we move into morals, and morals divide into section V, VI, VII, VIII - the limitation of the Church’s right.  That, of course, is absolutely the 19th century - the fight of the Freemasons against the Church.  VI - the State’s rights unlimited; VII - natural and Christian ethics; and a special section of its own – VIII - marriage.  There is a special section on the errors of marriage, because that’s the twentieth stitch which the Masons were undoing in order to be able to arrive at divorce, abortion, euthanasia, child molestation, paedophilia - all of these things flow.  Somebody compared marriage to an atom.  If you smash the atom there’s an incredible explosive force let loose.  If you smash the family there’s an incredible explosive force let loose to destroy society and destroy human beings, who need a proper, well-constituted family.

 

Church’s rights limited, firstly – again straightjacket the Church so that humankind will be left vulnerable.  If they’re not protected by the Church, morals, the family and natural life will be laid wide open to attack by the Devil, so you’re going to cramp the Church firstly, section V, and then you’re going to let loose the State, VI, liberate ethics, VII, and liberate marriage, VIII.  The principles of limiting – 19 and 20 – are very important.  The principles are always the most important, and then a stack of applications of the principle, limiting doctrine, worldly power, communications, immunity and so on.  That’s all details, but it’s precious details.  It’s kind of out of date in a way but it’s nevertheless very illuminating to see how the Freemasons cramp the Church. 

 

19 - “The Church is not a perfect society.  The State defines her rights.”  A perfect society is one that has within itself all it needs to fulfil its own functions, so the Masons are pretending that the Church does not have all it needs in itself.  The Church needs the State – error.  The State is a perfect society.  It has all it needs in itself to achieve its purposes.  The State does not have in itself everything necessary to save souls.  Only the Church has that, but it does have everything necessary in itself to organise natural society.  So the Church is not a perfect society, and it needs the State, and the State defines her rights – terrible error.

 

20 - “The Church may exercise authority only as allowed by the State.”  Again you see the subordination of the Church to the State, the subordination of God to man, the subordination of the supernatural society to the natural society, the subordination of grace to nature, putting man and nature above God and above grace – terrible errors.

 

21 - Limits as to doctrine, so the State is going to presume to tell the Church what’s true and false.  “The Church cannot define that it is the True Church.”  Of course the Catholic Church - endowed, created, instituted and illuminated by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only God-Man, of course that Church can state it’s the only true Church, but the State is going to say it can’t.

 

22 - “Catholic teachers and writers are bound only by defined dogmas.”  That’s a moderate error because it’s admitting that Catholic teachers and writers are bound by defined dogmas.  It’s admitting that, and that is why it’s a moderate teacher, but it’s then saying that outside of defined dogma Catholic teachers and writers can say and think what they like.  No, because the Church teaches, and with a great force, much more than just defined dogma.  Everything in the Ordinary Magisterium, without being defined, is yet pretty seriously true, like the wrongness of artificial means of birth control.  Paul VI did not solemnly define the wrongness of artificial means of birth control.  The Church has always taught it.  It’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium.  It’s infallible but it’s not defined.

 

23 - “Popes and Church councils have both erred in doctrine and they have overstepped their bounds.”  Well, you can find popes making mistakes, like John XXII stating that the souls don’t enjoy beatitude until the general judgment.  That’s an error, and John XXII stated it.  He made a mistake, but he wasn’t teaching on faith and morals.  He wasn’t teaching infallibly.  “They’ve overstepped their bounds” - perhaps here or there exceptionally but definitely not generally.

 

24 - “The Church has no worldly power and may not use force.”  No.  The Church may use force.  It will often not use force but it may use it.

 

25 - “Bishops have a worldly power which is granted by the State and therefore revocable by the State” - once again putting the Church under the control of the State.  If the power of bishops comes from the State, obviously the State could take it back.  The State does not give the bishops their power.  It’s the Church that gives the bishops their power.  You can see the Masons constantly encroaching upon the rights and privileges of the Church in order to limit the Church.

 

27 - “Popes, bishops and priests must have no care of worldly things, nor any worldly authority.”  No.  They will need some care of worldly things.  The Church will need to own the local Mass centre.  Otherwise if the Mass centre still belongs to the laity, the laity are liable to try to tell the priest what to do.  It often won’t happen but it’s liable to happen, so the SSPX insists that the laity hand over the property to the SSPX, and now the SSPX is going crazy.  But that is to say that accidentally the lay control of lay property may turn out to be a blessing, like in today’s circumstances of the SSPX, but as a principle it’s wrong for the laity to control property used by the Church.  In practice it may occasionally be OK, but in principle it’s wrong.

 

The Archbishop himself advised several people back in the day to purchase property themselves and turn it into Mass centres.

 

And hold on to the property.  The Archbishop was foreseeing what’s happening today.

 

But it was necessary at the time, as well, for whatever reasons.  We’ve seen recently, last year, in fact, that the Archbishop’s former chauffeur, Max Barret, was taken to court by Bishop Fellay and he who shall remain nameless, Krah, and they tried to steal the property from him.

 

That’s it.

 

And they lost in court.

 

And Monsieur Barret was right to hold on to the property, as is now clear.

 

They locked him out of his own property.

 

It’s unbelievable, but there it is.  Every principle allows of exceptions, but exceptions don’t make good principles.  That’s the point.  Every principle must allow of exceptions, but exceptions make bad principles.  Hard cases make bad law.  So as the general law stands, the Church does need to own property.  It’s absolutely wrong to say that the Church should never own property. 

 

28 - “Bishops may not publish letters from the Pope without the State’s permission.”  That’s a key point, because today with the internet everything’s communicated everywhere, but yesteryear when communications were more controllable locally, the States tried to stop the bishops from promulgating what the Pope was saying, because the Pope has tremendous power and authority, and if the bishops published a letter coming from the Pope, it had the Pope’s authority and not just bishop’s authority behind it.  So the State tried to stop the bishops from publishing what the Pope was saying.  This especially applied in France, because the Pope was against Gallicanism, the French Catholics saying we in France know best, to hell with Rome, and so the State tried to stop the French bishops from using the authority of the Pope to say what Rome wanted. 

 

29 - “The Pope may grant no favours not asked for by the State” - again putting the State above the Pope.

 

30 - “The immunity of Church and clerics arose from the civil law.”  The immunity of Church and clerics from civil law was a gift of civil law - no, it’s a gift of the Church.  It’s in the Church’s nature that priests’ crimes should not be tried in the civil court, but, of course, that depends upon them definitely being tried in an ecclesiastical court.  A wise State won’t mind leaving the Church to settle her priests’ problems as long as the Church does settle her priests’ problems.  What bugs all the heck out of common sense is when the paedophiliac priests are protected from persecution by the Church, like has been going on today.  That’s when the State reasonably has an objection.  But as long as the Church was doing its function of disciplining its own priests then the State wouldn't mind if the Church insisted upon its own courts, but it is reasonable and proper that, for instance, the clergy should be tried only in Church courts.

 

31- “Church courts for worldly cases involving clerics must be abolished.”  No, because it’s a question of protecting the common good, protecting the prestige of the clergy.  If a priest misbehaves and everybody knows it and he quietly disappears from circulation, OK, the priests don’t lose the prestige, but he does disappear.  The Church is looking after business.

 

32 - “The clerics’ immunity from military service may and should be done away with.”  Normally clerics should not go into military service because a seminarian should not be taught how to kill.  Ultimately military service is about learning how to kill.  Killing is not the business of the priests.  It is the business of somebody.  Somebody’s got to kill, if necessary, to defend the good of the State, the State from aggression, for instance.  The French State enlisted the clergy in the First World War, for instance.  That’s absolutely against Church law.

 

33 - “The Church’s authority has no exclusive right to teach theology.”  Of course it has, because the teaching of theology goes with the grace of the priesthood.  The priests understand theology in a way in which the best of laymen can’t understand theology.  A good layman can get a good grip on theology.  It’s my little experience that there’s a certain grace that even the best of laymen don’t have to understand theology and to teach it therefore.  You don’t expect priests to be able to teach about engineering.  There’s a special grace which the priests do have.

 

34 - “The Pope being monarch of the Universal Church is a medieval idea.”  The Freemasons are wanting to do away with the Pope’s control and his prestige, but the Papacy is a monarchy.  It’s not a democracy, the Church.  On the other hand, Our Lord was not a democrat, but know that people never had a better friend than Our Lord.  The Church is not democratic but the people never had a better friend than the Catholic Church when she’s in her right mind because she looks after the people, both in this life and in the next to make sure they get to heaven.

 

35 - “A general council or popular act could move the Papacy from Rome to anywhere.”  Providence has wanted the Papacy in Rome.  There was a little while during the Middle Ages when the Papacy moved from Rome to France.  It was not a good idea because the moment the popes moved to France, they came under the French monarchy.  The French monarch had a special influence on it.  The Papacy moving away from Rome is a punishment of the unfaithfulness of Rome.  It was restored.  St Catherine of Siena’s special mission was to get the Pope to come back to Rome, which he finally did, and the Papacy has been in Rome ever since.  At the end of the world we know that Rome is going to lose the Faith, and Rome will be the seat of Antichrist, but that again is an exception which doesn’t make a good principle.  Once again hard cases make bad law.  Rome is where God wants the Papacy to be.

 

36 - “A national council can make definitions” - a national council, I presume, of the Church.  The error is that, for example, a French national council could make definitions.  It is nonsense.  The State can insist on them – nonsense.  Definitions can only come from the supreme authority of the Church, from the Pope in Rome, until Rome loses the Faith exceptionally.

 

It’s like the Church in China at the moment.  They have a State-controlled Catholic Church.

 

That’s a good example.  The national Church in China is off the wall.  Accidentally, the national Church in China has kept the Tridentine Mass, but now it’s under pressure from Rome.  Since Rome has said, “Oh, you’re not so bad as all that.  Let’s make it up,” the national Church in China said, “OK, well, let’s make it up.”  “Well, in that case you’re going to take the New Mass.”  It’s unbelievable.  It’s such a mess today, and now the SSPX is in a mess.  Who can blame poor Catholics for going bananas today?

 

37 - “National churches can get out from under the Pope in Rome” – nonsense. 

 

38 - “The Pope’s exaggerated claims were partly responsible for the Orthodox schism.”   That’s an error.  Generally if you look at each of these questions, undoubtedly there’s a provocation here and a provocation there, there’s an error here and an error there on the part of the Catholic clergy, but when it comes to settling these grand questions, I think what you find if you look at the history and look at the details is that the Catholic Church was extremely reasonable.  The Catholic Church went nine yards to try to accommodate people that were disagreeing with it, but then there came a point when the Catholic Church said, “We can make these concessions but no more,” and if you look at it it’s reasonable what the Church officially said.  There may have been this misdemeanour, that misdemeanour, this exaggeration, that exaggeration on part of this or that clergyman, this or that bishop or this or that pope.  For example, Alexander VI, the Borgia pope, who supposedly had a lot of little babies scattered all over Rome because he was a naughty boy, nevertheless when it came to official business he was a good pope.  He made good decisions for the Church.  His private life didn’t bear examination, but again the liberals blow up all his errors and make him into a horrible pope, but actually I think if you look at the history of it he was a very reasonable pope.  When he was acting officially he was very reasonable.

 

State’s rights unlimited, the principles, the applications and the conclusions.  Again the principles are important. 

 

39 – “As all rights come from the State, the State’s rights are unrestricted.”  No, the State is only the State.  It’s got nothing to do with the supernatural, which is above the natural.

 

40 - “The Church’s teaching is opposed to the good of human society.”  That’s absolute lunacy.  Nothing looks after human society better than the Catholic Church when the Catholic Church is left free to do so, but men don’t leave it free.  They want to tie it knots, like the Freemasons.

 

41 - “Even a non-Catholic State has a right over sacred things.”  Exsequatur means “let it be carried out, let it be performed”.  A non-Catholic State has a right over the Catholic Church - nonsense.

 

42 - “If Church and State law conflict, State law prevails.”  No.  Again so long as Rome is in its right mind and there’s a clash of the laws, you could appeal to Rome, and for centuries and centuries the Roman decisions would be reasonable.  The Catholic people submitted to the local priest, because if the priest went bananas they knew they could appeal to the bishop.  If the bishop went bananas they could appeal to the nuncio.  If the nuncio went bananas they could appeal to the Pope.  There were a lot of safety mechanisms built into the Church hierarchy and structure.  Now you appeal to Rome and you get nonsense.  After the Second Vatican Council there were many priests that were all ends-up, good priests who wanted to celebrate the Mass and so on, they were being oppressed and thrown out by their bishop.  They appealed to Rome, and Rome sided with the bishop.    That’s because Rome has gone crazy, but for centuries and centuries and centuries Rome was sensible.  Rome was just.  It took time but Rome would eventually decide on the side of justice.  You could always appeal and appeal again.  In the Society there’s no appeal.  Because of a problem in 2004, in 2006 the Society decreed that there’s no appeal to an order of the Superior General.  It’s not Catholic.  There seemed to be at that point in time no alternative, but it’s not Catholic for there to be no appeal.  That’s an intrinsic difficulty of the situation in the SSPX, and now, of course, since there’s no appeal the Society’s going crazy because the Superior’s gone crazy.  How could you avoid it?  It’s a problem of the times.

 

What was the reason for that?

 

The Laguérie affair in 2004, because Laguérie tried to appeal to Rome against Bishop Fellay.  He had his reasons for appealing, but he couldn’t do it.  In fairness, I think Bishop Fellay at that time tried to get some kind of mechanism with Rome set up, but you can’t appeal to the wolf to protect the sheep, so he couldn’t go to Rome, and therefore the poor, little, old Society said there can’t be an appeal against the Superior General.  You can understand in the crazy circumstances, but now that rule that there’s no appeal against the Superior General means the whole Society is going crazy.

 

43 - “The State may nullify or alter concordats, regardless of Rome’s wishes.”  A concordat is an agreement made between the Church and the State, whereby the Church renounces some of its privileges, its normal and natural privileges, in return for the State granting certain guarantees and liberties to the Church.  The Masons say that once a concordat has been fixed, the State can fool around with it.  No.

 

44 - “The State may interfere in matters religious, moral or pastoral.”  No.

 

Notice there are four errors on education – 45, 46, 47 and 48 - because the Masons know how important education is, and the Church knows how important education is.  It’s the formation of the next generation.  You’re getting to the children. 

 

45 - The Masons say “all direction of schools in a Christian State should come under the State and no longer under the Church.”  The State does its best to kick the Church out of education.  It’s criminal. 

 

46 – “Even in Church seminaries the method of studies comes under the State.”  That’s simply ridiculous.  What on Earth does the State know about the formation of priests?  It’s incapable.

 

47 - “It is good for society for all public schools to come under the State and not under the Church.”  It is crazy, because only the Church can form the ideas in youngsters to get to heaven.  The State is incapable of believing in heaven as such, or organising or knowing how to teach so as to get children to think of heaven and to organise their lives with an idea of getting to heaven.

 

48 - “Catholics may approve of an essentially naturalist education for worldly ends.”  That’s a huge error, but a lot of Catholic parents think, “If I have got a good, naturalist school with good science teachers, good language teachers, good mathematics teachers, then it’s a good school and I can put my child in there.”  No, because if there’s no teaching about how to get to heaven the children are naturally going to grow up thinking just of how to get a good job with plenty of money and how to make it in this life.  They’re not going to learn how to make it for the next life.  It’s a disaster to put children in a school where they’re not going to be thinking of the next life.  It is not enough.  You can’t say, “This is a good school, therefore etc.”  I was in a very good Protestant school, Winchester College.  That’s not a boast.  It was my parents who chose it and put me there, but it was a good school.  There was no idea of the Faith.  Interestingly, a lot of it is in synch with the Faith, but I never learned anything about the Catholic Faith at that school.  What I picked up afterwards was in synch, because Winchester College was originally a Catholic school founded by a bishop, William of Wykeham.  It was founded for the formation of priests, and so a lot of things that I picked up at school are in synch with the seminary, when I came to the seminary later, but I never learned anything about getting to heaven at Winchester, good school though it was.   I’m very grateful for the naturalist education that I got there, but it was only a naturalist education.

 

49 - “The State may cut off bishops from the people and it may cut off bishops and people from the Pope.”  No, the communication between Pope and bishops and people has got to be left free so that the Church can do its work for the salvation of souls, and the State may not interfere. 

 

50 - “The State can put bishops into dioceses before the Pope does so.”  You may remember, if you know a little Church history, the tremendous arguments there were - the Investiture Dispute in the Middle Ages between who appoints the bishops.  Who appoints the bishops is crucial, because the bishops are crucial inside the Church.  A good bishop has an enormous good effect.  Bad bishop has an enormous bad effect.  The bishops are where it’s at.

 

51 - “The State can dismiss bishops and create bishoprics and bishops.”  It’s just nonsense.

 

We move on to religious institutes.  Those are very important.  The monasteries and the convents are very important, so the Masons try to interfere with that.

 

52 - “The State can fix the age for religious profession and it can bar from religious vows.”  It is interesting how the Masons hate religious vows, because they know the power of religious vows to stabilise religious vocation, and they know the power of a religious vocation.  A faithful monk’s prayers or a faithful nun’s prayers do a great deal of damage to the Devil, and so the Devil has his Freemasons try to interfere with the religious vows.    You can only take religious vows when you’re 30 years old – that’s the kind of thing a State would say, and the Church, before our crazy age, would say no.  Relative youngsters, let’s say aged 18, can definitely make a religious vow for the rest of their life.

 

53 - “The State should not protect religious institutes and it may suppress them.”  In 1905, when the Masons passed as a law the separation of the Church in France and French State, the religious communities had to flee France to be able to continue, and that’s when England picked up a few religious communities, and greatly benefited. 

 

54 - “Kings and princes are above the Church in determining jurisdiction.”  In other words, the State tells the Church what to do and the Church doesn’t tell the State what to do – always the same principle.

 

55 - “Church and State should be separated from one another.”  It is the famous, notorious principle of the separation of Church and State.  No.  It’s very useful and very normal for the policeman and the priest to work together in the village, so it’s very useful and very normal for Church and State to work together on the national level, and that’s what God wants.  God wants Church and State to work together.  He does not want the priest to get into politics, but He does want the politicians to obey the Ten Commandments, and they must obey the Ten Commandments for the good of all the State, and the priests will guide the politicians how to obey the Ten Commandments.  That’s normal and natural - the union of Church and State.

 

We move into natural and Christian ethics.  The principles – “Neither God, nor religion, but matter, facts, numbers and might.”  They are rotten principles.  Application – secularism and nationalism.

 

56 - “Laws of morality need no divine or natural backing or sanction” - “If there is no God, why am I a colonel?  Why am I a captain in the army?  If there is no God, I am not a captain.”  The officer in Dostoevsky realises that his little hierarchy in the army depends upon the much greater hierarchy of all men underneath God.

 

57 - “Moral sciences and laws should come under no religious authority” - you don’t need God in morality and morals.  You do.  If there is not God behind morality and morals, morality and morals are flyweight and of no significance and men will disregard them.  You can’t fabricate a morality without religion, without God.  It’s insignificant.  It’s a piece of paper that will just get torn to pieces. 

 

58 - “Only matter matters” - we’re back to number 1, which is there is no God, there is no spirit, there is only matter, so it’s the corollary of number 1. 

 

59 - “Morality centres only on money and pleasure” - morality centres on success, duties are nothing, whatever happens is right, and might is right.

 

60 - “Authority rises only from adding up numbers and material forces.”  That’s democracy and materialism making right and wrong.  If the Houses of Parliament pass an abortion law then it’s perfectly OK to abort – no.

 

61 - “Right is what succeeds even if it is unjust.”  In other words, there’s no such thing as right or wrong outside of my power to do what I want.

 

62 - The applications of these terrible principles – “The Church must not intervene in any questions of right and wrong” - right and wrong are purely secular.

 

63 - “It is lawful to disobey legitimate rulers and to rebel.”  That’s the lawfulness of revolution.  No.  Revolution is not Catholic.  That’s why it’s so difficult to revolt against Bishop Fellay, and he’s using the full force of his Catholic authority to impose Conciliarism upon the Society.  It’s difficult to set up a revolution.  It really is not easy.    People say to me, “Why don’t you go down to the General Chapter and depose Bishop Fellay?”  It’s easier said than done.  It is difficult, especially in our age, because today the Masonic revolution has triumphed, and therefore sanity wants to revolt against the revolution.  The Archbishop was not a rebel.  He was a rebel against rebellion.  Things get very complicated in a sick, crazy, revolutionary, modern world.

 

64 – “Love and service of country excuse perjury and they excuse any crime against eternal law.”  How many of you know the statue of Edith Cavell in London?  What’s written at the foot of it?  “Patriotism is not enough.”  That was an upright Protestant.  She was operating as a nurse over on the Continent, and the Germans shot her as a spy.  It’s a noble statue.  Then there were still some noble English people.  Today they’d have to make a statue of a dishrag.

 

65 - As I said, marriage is the twentieth stitch being undone.  The key error “Christ never raised marriage to being a sacrament.”  Christ did raise marriage to be a sacrament in order to really fasten that twentieth stitch and to give the marriage strength and tightness against being dissolved, broken up and so on.  My goodness, how right He is when you watch the devastation that divorce wreaks in society.  All the popes said, “You introduce divorce, you’re going to wreck society,” and it’s exactly what’s happened.  It’s clear.  The Church knows.  The Church has got 2,000 years of experience to know these things.

 

66 - “The sacrament of marriage lies in the nuptial blessing extrinsic to the contract.”  That’s an interesting point.  No, the sacramentality of marriage is not by the priest blessing the marriage at the nuptial Mass.  The sacramentality of marriage is by the fact that the two people are baptised Catholics.  If they’re two baptised Catholics and they marry, it’s bound to be a sacrament, regardless whether the priest blesses it or not.  It’s an interesting technical question but it shows how the Freemasons are trying to undo it.

 

67 - “By natural law marriage is dissoluble.”  No, even by natural law, regardless of the sacrament of marriage, marriage is not dissoluble.  “The State may dissolve it.”  No.  Marriage is not a sacrament by natural law if the two are not baptised, but even by natural law two pagans that hook up together in the most solemn way that they know how, a pagan man and a pagan woman that join together, it’s until death, even without them being Christians.

 

68 - “The State alone and not the Church may impose impediments which absolutely block marriage” like a brother marrying his sister.  The Church may not impose absolute blockages to marriage.  Only the State may impose them - once again the State above the Church.  Interestingly, a sane State legislating on marriage ends up legislating very like the Church, and will often consult the Church for how to make laws on what marriages must be absolutely and by nature intrinsically forbidden.

 

69 - “Only the State ever granted to the Church to impede marriages.”  No.  The right was given to her by Jesus Christ.

 

70 – “Any Tridentine anathemas to the contrary are not dogmatic or they are not contrary.”  In other words, the Masons are denying the right of the Council of Trent to lay down what are and are not impediments to marriage.  Again the Masons are trying to stop the Church making her own laws on marriage.

 

71 – “Not Tridentine but State prescriptions are necessary for marriage validity.”  Notice all of these errors on marriage and the importance for Masons to undo marriage, to undo Christian marriage, to undo natural marriage, and the importance of the Church to hold together natural marriage and to hold together the sacrament, because that’s the bond which holds together the family, which is like bricks to the wall of society.  You can’t make a strong wall with crumbling bricks.  You can’t make a sound State with crumbling families.  Marriage is at the heart of the common good of the State, let alone the family.

 

72 - “Marriage being nullified by vows of chastity started in the Middle Ages.”  No.  If you make a vow of chastity you cannot marry, unless you get dispensed from the vow.  That’s what the Church says.  So if try to marry tomorrow, I take a woman through some ceremony with some nutty priest, it’s not going to be valid until and if I get dispensed from the vow of chastity.  That didn’t start in the Middle Ages.  The Masons are trying to say, “If it started in the Middle Ages then they can stop now.”  No, it goes right back to the origins of the Church.

 

73 - “Christians can marry civilly without it being or having to be a sacrament.”  No.  If two baptised Catholics marry it’s going to be a sacrament regardless of whether they have a wedding ceremony or not.  They should have a wedding ceremony.  They definitely should marry in front of a priest.  From the Council of Trent it wouldn’t be valid unless they married in front of a priest, but it’s not the marrying in front of a priest which makes it a sacrament.  It’s the fact that the two are baptised and are intending to marry till death do them part.  That’s what makes it a sacrament.

 

74 - “Marriage cases and betrothal cases come under State jurisdiction.”  No.  They come primarily under Church jurisdiction.

 

Lastly, the conclusion - the Pope and the modern world.

 

75 - “Some Catholics don’t accept that the spiritual power can also have worldly power.”  The Masons are trying to divide and rule.  OK, there are some nutty Catholics who believe that the spiritual power can’t have worldly power, but there are also Catholics who believe that the spiritual power can have worldly power, so the Masons are trying to divide and rule. 

 

76 - “It would be far better if the Holy See gave up its civil authority.”  No.  The Church needs its civil authority.  It needs its properties and so on. 

 

The last four are real doozies. 

 

77 – “Today Catholicism should no longer be a State religion.”  That’s also in Quanta Cura.    It’s directly contradicted by Vatican II. 

 

78 - “So it is right for Catholic States to allow public practice of other religions.”  No.  The State may tolerate the public practice of false religions where not to tolerate would hinder the salvation of souls.  Today that would very often be the case, because if today a Catholic State tried to hinder the public practice of false religions, you have so much liberalism amongst the people that they would all protest, “Oh, that’s against liberty!”  They would hate the Church, and so there would be more harm than good done to the Church.  In that case the State could tolerate the public practice of false religions but only because the people are so corrupt.  

 

79 - “To allow the public practice of non-Catholic religions does not corrupt the people.”  The Pope is saying, “It does corrupt.  That’s an error.  Therefore it does corrupt the people.”  Of course, if you believe in the Catholic religion then you can understand that, but if you don’t believe in the Catholic religion that doesn’t make sense.

 

It’s only a very, very limited corruption.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Bishop Fellay is only a limited corruption.

 

You’ve got it.

 

Finally 80 is a classic – “The Pope must move with the modern times.  He must be progressive and liberal” – error.  He’s got no need to move with modern times, and he’s got no need to be progressive, and he’s got no need to be liberal.  He needs to be a man of the Truth, of the natural and supernatural Truth.  He needs to be a man of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Church, and in line with all his predecessors.

 

END OF CONFERENCE