BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES – conference n°13
Video:
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