Discussion in 'Videos, sermons and speeches' started by Deus Vult, Jun 26, 2017.
These transcriptions are a great gift, thank you!!!
Transcription Class 4
We will continue with Pascendi of St. Pius X (which) covers everything and remember that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, and it is one heresy. So we can say that a few years ago we used an example of our beloved modern culture that it takes every heresy and bring it to its perfection you will find it is not exactly the same but perfective. Like for instance: modernism, synthesis of all heresies - it is subjectivism reloaded - subjectivism re-adjusted. The same is true of every other heresy. So you take protestantism - all adjusted. You take every heresy and then twist it a little and you will get the modernist. Subjectivism is the easiest one to see - subjectivism, (like I mentioned earlier but forgot to complete the mentioning of it).
Subjectivism is the teaching that whatever each one of us believes is right.
What is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me. It is subjective. Whatever I feel is right - that is right. Modernists are against subjectivism. They are enemies of subjectivism. Modernists recognise that there is only one truth - only one truth. Just like Catholics recognise only one truth. BUT what does it mean? It is subjectivism reloaded. So, whatever I, the expert subjectively believe in my good estimation - that is objective truth. Whatever you believe, if it's different, it's wrong! Therefore MY subjectivism is right - your subjectivism is crap. So it's subjectivism but only the expert has the right to come up with an opinion. The right to come up with an idea. It is killing us right now in the resistance and in Catholic tradition in general. This idea! Because, we believe for instance - let's go back to the case of the Pope. Remember in 1820 the Alta Vendita. Replying here the application of the subjectivism problem. In the Alta Vendita the Masons said, we will destroy the Catholic Church through authority and obedience. Authority and obedience are very important to the modernist. We will destroy the Catholic Church through authority and obedience. We will raise obedience to the highest of all virtues and then through obedience we will beat the Catholics into subjection and bring them away from their faith. Which is what they have done in the last 200 years. There is a problem. How do they do that? They say, Catholics believe whatever Christ has taught and handed down by the Apostles, Sacred Scripture and Catholic Tradition What did they do? They emphasise the fact that the principle protecter of Catholic Tradition is called the Holy Father, the Pope. From being the principle protecter he became the only way to know tradition. The only way to know truth. The only way to know Christ. So instead of the Pope being the Vicar of Christ he takes on the role of Christ Himself. He is no longer just the Vicar.
The Vicar of the Diocese
As an example - the Vicar of the Diocese - whenever a Bishop would travel to Rome for his ad lumina visit - in his visit to Rome he'll be gone for months or years, because remember it wasn't easy to go to Rome in the days past and each Bishop is supposed to try to make a visit from time to time. It usually takes a few years. Or at least a year. During that time the Vicar would run the diocese. When the Bishop comes back to the Diocese he better find that it is in the same place as when he left - that whatever rules and regulations he made they better be implemented, and there better not be any NEW rules and regulations. The Vicar is supposed to keep things steady without making any changes until the Master returns. That's the Vicar. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. What the modernists did was they elevated the Vicar of Christ into becoming identical to Christ himself. Whatever proceeds from the mouth of Christ is true because Christ is the Truth. Modernists take this divine characteristic unto themselves. They started by getting Catholics to accept it by saying, you're not divinely inspired but the Pope is. Therefore the only way you can know what Christ teaches is whatever the Pope says. If the Pope changes his mind Christ changed his mind. In this way they got Catholics to abandon the Catholic faith when the Pope went bonkers in Paul VI in the 1960's. That is an example of subjectivism APPLIED.
The Pope is the expert on matters of religion. Only the expert on any subject has the right to make statement about that subject. Everyone else must agree with the expert because he is the expert. This is not reason, nor is it the teaching of the Catholic Church. The expert is supposed to tell us the way things really are and the expert is called an expert because he understands how things really are better than we do. (An example) He is only an expert if he knows well how cars work. He is not an expert because he went to mechanic school and got a PhD in auto mechanics. He is the expert because he actually knows how real cars work and how to fix them. THEN he is called an expert. That is the Catholic and correct view. But the modernist's view is not that. So subjectivism - what matters - whatever the Pope says - THAT'S Christ teaching. Now, get a modernist Pope. Get a Pope who follows the modern garbage and the people will follow him. Next level down. We follow Bishop Fellay. Bishop Fellay is OUR expert in OUR world. That expert decides we don't need Archbishop Lefebvre any more. We don't need to follow the teachings of our ancestors any more. He's the expert! Therefore we follow HIM. And if he says we're going to go with modernist Rome it's not the same as 1988; it's not the same as 1974 - times have changed which is called 'evolution'. We have a new situation. Who is going to guide us through it? - only the expert. This is modernism applied. With regard to one heresy alone - subjectivism. Not subjectivism simplere but subjectivism reloaded - subjectivism perfected to the modernist sense. And the same is done with every single heresy under the sun. Everyone! So subjectivism is the easiest one to demonstrate.
Then, what is the next danger? Well, whatever Bishop Williamson says. Then whatever Fr. Pfeiffer says. Whatever the experts on CathInfo say. Or whatever this expert says or whatever that expert says and all of it is wrong. We don't follow what Fr. Pfeiffer says, or what Bishop Williamson says, or what B. Fellay says or even what the Pope says. We follow what Christ says, and these other representatives of Christ are supposed to repeat to us the same thing. The point here (to go through every single detail in Pascendi is impossible) but it takes us five minutes to go through it in class and most of it has been on the first section. The principle thing here is understanding the SYSTEM. If you understand that it's easy to apply.
Philosopher, Believer, Theologian, Historian, Critic, Apologist, Reformer. (See diagram in Conference 1).
- there are two guys that are downright unimportant, temporary and will die. They are the Believer and the Theologian. So the Believer and the Theologian, these guys have a short life. First of all, you see the Philosopher, the Historian and the Critic the Apologist and Reformer - they are relating.
THESE guys die - Believer and Theologian. But they are necessary as steps . Steps to do what? Prepare for the coming of the Antichrist. That's what they're really doing. Steps to prepare for the complete corruption of human society. To make a new Christendom which is the exact opposite of the real Christendom. Remember, our Lord said: Thou art Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my church. The Rock of Peter, the Rock of Christ, the Rock of the Faith. These three are one. The Blessed Trinity is everywhere inside of our faith. The Rock of Peter, the Rock of Christ, the Rock of Faith. That's the Rock that we're built on. Satanism is built on change. Quicksand. Everything is change. Everything is becoming. Everything is fluid. Nothing is stable except one thing. There must always be something stable. That is the unquestioning authority of Satan. The unquestioning of the one in charge. Everything else is fluid and flexible. Our religion is the true religion built on a rock. Satanism, modernism is built on sand. We must understand the true modernist, the leaders of the modernists - they are not modernists. They don't believe this crap. They just teach it. You are supposed to believe it (pointing to hearers). The real modernist is Atonist.
He understands how God made the real world. He understands how the real world works. He knows that God created it. He knows that God created it in six days. He knows the Catholic Church is the true church. He knows that outside the church there is no salvation. He knows that his master is Satan. He knows that his battle is going to be lost. He knows he will be damned for all eternity. He doesn't doubt these things. This knowledge is important for the leaders of modernism because they must understand reality before they can twist it. I mentioned an example earlier to a couple of you - that if you know for instance that if I take a Bic lighter and I want you to burn this house down, and I put it on this wooden table in this spot over here it won't burn. But I know if it goes on this spot here it will burn - so what do I do? This lighter is not going to burn the house down. Look I put it over here see (first place) no problem so why don't you take it over there (second place) I have got to leave. So you take it and put it over there (second place) the house burns down. How did that happen? It happened because he knows exactly where the fire lights; he knows exactly where the fire doesn't light. Where he puts the lighter he puts it where it doesn't light but he tells you to put the lighter where it DOES light. In order for him to be able to DO that he must understand reality.
The average modernist is a dupe who believes this system, who falls for it and therefore is easily led. The leaders of the modernists are satanists, they are the leaders of the world, they are genuinely evil men and they understand the truth. They know what they are doing. Who are these individuals? Very difficult for us to say precisely which one is which but they are real and they are there. How do we get modernist thinking and what are the principles of that kind of thinking when it produces ANY heresy - it's a heresy producing system. We begin with agnosticism.
The first thing we know about everything is that we don't know anything about anything. And we're absolutely certain about that! So the first thing we know is no man can know. What does that do? It gets rid of all the other authorities. The priest says, I know that if you're bad you're going to hell. If you do good and follow the teachings of Christ you can go to heaven. The priest knows what's true and what's false. How do we solve a problem? Just say look, no man can know these things. This gets rid of any authority of anyone who has genuine authority and takes away their fire. That's phase one. Then what. Vital Eminence! We're going to then produce a new reality. We begin by saying, we don't know there is a god. No-one can know there is a god. We discover through vital eminence after a while we have produced god - and god is real. We don't know there is a god. There most certainly is a god. And he's real. Later on, we will discover that THAT God is actually a creation and not a creator, therefore not God and there is no God and we're atheists. No-one can know there is a god. We're certain there is a god. We're certain that God is not God. We are certain there is no God. Those are the satanists. Absolute certainty that we don't know and no-one can know. Certainty that god is real and god exists - this is the conservative stage. The guy's converting he used to be an agnostic right? But now he's moving forward - now he's sure there IS a god. He's got to be converted. Later on we discover that the God that is the real God is not the God that we thought was God. And then we're going to discover sure enough he is not god at all. Atheism. And then guess what? Guess who is God at the end - the man in charge becomes God. There's going to be a God at the end. That God will be the antichrist.
How do we go about studying anything in history? First step, Pope St. Pius X explains this. The first thing we notice - Transfiguration. The second thing that happens is DISfiguration. Always important to use big words. Because it impresses people. Doesn't matter that it doesn't mean anything - that's irrelevant. So the first thing that happens is Transfiguration. The second is Disfiguration. It's not the feast of the Transfiguration. It's not August 6th. Let's take a man in history - let's say - well, we'll start with our Lord Jesus Christ. The first thing I know is that I don't know anything about him and neither does anyone else. So, a priest tells me that Jesus Christ was this man who was born near a town called Bethlehem. He was raised in obscurity which was very interesting. Then when he was thirty years old he re-appeared on the scene. Possibly when he was twelve he appeared on the scene also in the temple. He then made miracles, he died on the cross, he rose from the dead, he founded a church. I can tell you with absolute certainty that no man can know that really happened - agnosticism! The true expert had to say that no man can know. The first sign that someone is an idiot, and the first sign that someone is a bigot, and the first time that someone needs to be put into an insane asylum is if he tells you that he knows. So I tell you, I know that Jesus Christ is God and he is. I know that he's the creator of the universe. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God and all things were made through him and without him was been made nothing that has been made. That is a nut! Why is he in there? Because he says he knows when we know that no man can know. So the priest is dead in the water. The historian, the true historian, the true priest, the true philosopher, the true critic and the true apologist are dead. He wiped them out on Day 1. Now what are we going to do. We're going to discover the transfiguration is what happened. We know that this man Jesus Christ, miracle-worker, rose people from the dead, rose from the dead himself - we know that this man can't be that. Well, you know, certainly shouldn't be that.
We have two principles whereby we know this cannot be. Two very important principles, and St. Pius X says these principles have no explanation. You just have to believe them. These principles are in every - I have noticed myself in the last fifteen - twenty years every modern movie and modern stories follows these two principles.
The first principle.No man ever does the extraordinary. There are no heroes.
The second principle which is concomitant and goes with it - every man works only for self interest.
These are principles and indisputable dogma for the modernist. St. Pius X points this out in his encyclical. No man ever does the extraordinary. So if you find something extraordinary for instance, raising someone from the dead, actually multiplying loaves - it didn't happen - why? because no man does anything extraordinary. Miracles are ruled out. There can be no miracles because there can be no miracles. He said it was a miracle, it is not a miracle because there can be no miracles. That's it! No proof needed. No man EVER does the extraordinary. And if he does something that appears extraordinary then it is going to be for his own self-interest. So the only reason priests act spiritual and holy is so they can get money from indulgences. And so that they can get Mass stipends. And so they can live in the nice rectory next to a beautiful church. That's why priests do that. They want personal glory; they want personal groupies and they want everything for themselves. When any man does anything there must always be self-interest.
Q. What is this principle called in evolution?
A. The survival of the fittest.
There is another point that is important to understand. Self-interest betters society. It is a very, very important demonic principle. Self- interest benefits society. This is the face of the modern economy; of the capitalism. The capitalist which is condemned by the Catholic Church - capitalism. Catalism teaches every man is interested only in himself. I sell you a car for $500 in the used car market. I sell you a car for $500 because if I sell it to you for $2,000 when it's only worth $500 you are not going to buy another car from me.
Therefore, I am honest to you in business not because honesty is right, not because honesty is good, but because it is better for my long-term business plan. Every good thing must be done for self-interest and that's just a dogma. So therefore, what happens? The Believer - let's go back to our believer. When man begins to evolve he wants an explanation for the things that are happening around him. He BELIEVES - he needs necessities, he needs food. He has needs and these needs are fulfilled by some spiritual thing - by God. His needs are going to be fulfilled and when believers get together they have common need. Go back to that man Jesus Christ according to the teaching of the modernists. The community of Mark. They claim it is a community in which we know that Mark's gospel is the first Gospel. Why? Because it's the shortest. It is obvious that the longer you go on you were told more lies. Mark's gospel is shorter therefore it had to be the first gospel. It's obvious! Shortest gospel must be the first gospel. And Mark lived in a community of the Jews suffering. A Jewish community of suffering people and so he wanted a hero who suffered. Mark took this man Jesus Christ - he was one of many men that were crucified under Pontius Pilate. He crucified many men who called themselves the Messiah - one of these men was Jesus Christ. They took this man and they transfigured him - they made him into something he was not. The believer took the real historical character of Jesus Christ and he transfigured him. Remember there is not just one believer, there are groups of believers. And as a group, psychologically have taken a historical character and made him into something he was not. Thinking he's a suffering Jesus. Later on, we discover that there was another community under John - this is a more positive and loving community. They would never have had the negative experiences of Mark's community so they made the Jesus character rise from the dead.
What happened was John's community and Mark's community and other communities of Jews were dispersed in the early centuries and they began to come together. They mixed the stories of Jesus which began to be melded together. So that he became a crucified man but he became a resurrected man. He became a great miracle worker but then he was also a preacher. He was a King, he was a teacher he was sold like a slave and they have all these confusing stories about this man. They were all created until one day it was defined by an election of bishops - he became GOD! This is the story from Jesus to Christ. Now many experts have different opinions about it. When did Jesus believe he was God. Did he ever think of the idea of being God himself in his own lifetime? - what is it? - tell me! With absolute certainty we can tell you that - we don't know. But of course it's certain. Here's an example: there is a document, you can see the document from Jesus Christ. Before reading Pascendi I showed a document to the seminarians made in the late nineties early two thousand - it is called From Jesus Christ. First watch that. Written about the year 2,000 then you read Pascendi. You find there is nothing new in that crappy modernist demonic production. It's all here in 1907 explained by St. Pius X (Father indicates the Pascendi document).
We know for certain that we don't know. But we can surmise that there was a document - they called it the
'Q' which has never been found. We know this document existed because it MUST have existed. It's like a missing link. We know it existed because it must have existed, so if it must have existed therefore it certainly existed. This document called the 'Q' we will surmise that this document comes from the the various common elements between the four gospels. We're talking about a kind of new science condemned by St. Pius X, by Pius IX - a new science and this new science can be applied to ANYTHING. It is called 'textual criticism' - called a historical critical method by which - I am not going to be held down by this document produced in 1907 - you're telling me it was the Pope who wrote this. I am going to look at it and on this page he says, Love your neighbour. On the next page he says, whack the bad guys. Certainly this is two different guys - obviously it is two different guys. Love your neighbour whack the bad buys how can one guy do that?You can clearly tell that there must have been two authors. The love the neighbour author and the whack the bad buys author. Be good author couldn't have been the same guy that says don't be bad. But why would someone who says be good tell you not to be bad? Doesn't make any sense. So therefore the guy who says be good ; the guy who says don't be bad - clearly they are different guys. So we look at a text and we use our own judgement because we are experts. Why am I an expert? Because I am - an expert. So, as an expert - as I got a PhD from the Institute of Technology - I got this great PhD and therefore you have to follow whatever I say because I got a PHd. You DON'T!
Transfiguration we know happened. There was a man named Jesus Christ. He was transfigured into a suffering character by the community of Mark. He was transfigured into a happy joyful loving character by the community of John, and Matthew was some part of Jewdom - more Jewish than the other ones and Luke was a doctor who put in medical stuff. And remember, by the way, Mark didn't exist, Luke didn't exist and John didn't exist but Mark did this and Luke did that and John did the other thing only it didn't exist because we know with absolutely certainty that we don't know. But it is certain that what we don't know is true. Like Donald Rumsfeld : because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
So transfiguration happens first and then what happens is called DISfiguration. Disfiguration means the real character - in this case the real Christ is disfigured. That's how we need him. What is the duty of the philosopher, the historian, the critic? These are the most important guys. They look at the disfigured Christ and pull off all the garbage. Get down to the real Jesus. I have noticed myself at the airports in the last couple of years more of the series - what is the latest finding from a few years ago. The real Jesus did all kinds of stuff. Right now, I have noticed on some hippy channel Finding Jesus is one of them. I see that in the airport. The Bible is another one. They 're redoing the Bible thing. And they are all this (points on board to 'Disfiguration'). Believers came together and they produced what they thought they needed. A Jesus character saved them. In the case of Christ how do we know this happened? Well, in the year 70AD, according to the modernists, there was a destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. And before that time - let's say the time of Solomon - the Jewish people were very much a people of the Temple. The Romans came in and destroyed the Temple. So now all of a sudden you've got wandering Jews. There are two aspects of the Jewish character. One is the Temple. The people of the Temple. These are the original regionalistic Jews. Then there are the people of the Book. Remember it was believed by the Jews that a man named Moses wrote these five books which of course he didn't write. But we know with absolute certainty about Moses that no man can know. In any case this man Moses, who of course we don't know he ever existed but we're certain that it happened. He wrote these five books. The people of the Book they became the Talmudic Judaism. The Talmud and the Kabbalah. So they didn't mean any of those Jews. Other Jews really look back to the Temple. They looked for something to have ritual, but the ritual could no longer be in the Temple. So they became ritualistic Jews who looked at this Jewish character that was crucified by the Romans some thirty years before the Temple event. whose name was Jesus. They created a Jewish break-off from Judaism which today is called Christianity. What proofs do they have of this? They do not need proofs because they are experts. Remember also, it is not as simple as that, because they will take proofs in much the same way as Galileo uses telescopes. Galileo is one of the great creators of our modern world. He was an evil man. But he recognised something that has been used by the scientists from his day until our present day. I have a telescope. You don't. I look through my telescope and it tells me that what you see every day is not right. You must trust me because I have a telescope. What if you buy a telescope? What will happen? Nothing! Why? Because you don't know how to read a telescope. So if I were to give you my telescope I will be wasting a beautiful piece of equipment because you don't understand telescopes. You don't know how to use telescopes. You don't even know what you're looking at. This is the key to the victory of modern science. It is called the Copernican revolution down for the last 500 years. The realisation you don't have to prove anything. Even Galileo said it before the communists said it. You tell a lie. You tell it boldly and you tell it again, and you tell it again and tell it again and one day they will say it's true. Don't prove it. Say it with conviction and mock anyone who disagrees. Galileo was the first one to do that. He didn't invent anything, but he knew how to mock, he knew how to sell. He knew the power of the telescope and he knew that if he lied who's going to catch him? A couple of intelligent guys maybe but who's going to listen to them because I'm going to make the lie more boldly than they say the truth. This is the power. It is the foundation of modernism. Modernism begins with the Protestant revolution it begins with Galileo's ...but nevertheless, we can't go into that.
Believers, theologians, philosophers
We have here the believer (points to board). What is a theologian? The theologian is the guy who explains to the believer what he believes. Like a psychiatrist. He explains to you what you already believe. The theologian has a certain value because the actual premise of the theologian is to be a bridge between the believer and the philosopher. The philosopher is a cold hearted facts guy. He's like Mr. Spock. This is the way it is - if you don't like it this is thinking bad. This hurts believers. The theologian - his job is to make believers and philosophers get along. How does he make believers and philosophers get along? He explains to believers what they believe. He gets the confidence of the believer and then he understands the teaching of the philosopher and he slowly prepares the believer to accept what the philosopher teaches. He is like the middle-man. He is a facilitator. He is a social worker. That's his job. It's a temporary job. Once the philosopher has full power the theologian gets executed. Once the philosopher has full power the believer is in prison. These guys are temporary (theologian and philosopher).
What is the historian? The historian is not a guy who tells you things that happened in history. Once we watched the movie, 'The Cardinal '. One of the modernist options up there. It is a 100 percent modernist movie. Catholics like it because it's got Latin in it, because it's got incense, it's got the old Mass before the new Mass, the guy wears a cassock - it's just wonderful. It is just straight heresy from beginning to end. In fact it was made by the Jews in Hollywood so it is a give away at the Superama. But the fact is, what is interesting is he was an American guy before he becomes a Cardinal and the movie is made in 1962. There is water that is leaking from a pipe (from the roof) and it falls on a statue in an Italian parish where he is a newly ordained priest. So - there's the weeping Madonna. People start saying the Madonna's weeping Madonna's weeping and all say their Hail Mary's and go home. He even finds out it is a leaking pipe. His Jewish friend comes in and says,
What happened? The Pipe's leaking on the Madonna. Are you going to tell the people? No, I'm not going to tell the people. So they're going to believe a lie? They're not going to believe a lie - the Madonna wept. Are you trying to tell me it was a miracle? No, the fact is that water leaked from the pipe and hit the statue and that made it look like it is weeping but it's not weeping. He said to his Jewish friend. Those are just facts . That's not what really happened - they are just facts. The fact is that God made the pipe right? If God made it able to rot, God made it leak at that point, He made it fall on the statue - the people think it's a miracle. What's the problem? So the people have benefitted, the pipe needs to be fixed. We fix the pipe. The statue needs to be cleaned an extra time what's the problem? These are just facts. What matters is the interpretation of the facts.
An historian is an interpreter of facts. He's not about facts. He's an interpreter of facts. It is not his job to tell you what happened - who did what. His job is to tell you what is in the conscience; what was in the heart.
What was in the mind of Napoleon when he decided to put his hand inside his chest? When he decided to fight his war? He is a describer of consciences, and how they interact with one another and you should not be disturbed with little things like facts. His job is to INTERPRET the facts. Now when we interpret some facts we're going to match the philosophy that he has. Notice the seven heads - the same kind coming up. What's the first thing we know about history? The first thing we know about history is that we can't know anything about history. But as we study history we're going to discover that there are stories passed down to us. Napoleon was an Emperor. Muhammad Ali - a boxer. He was the greatest of all boxers who came from the holy land of Kentucky. Now, what do we know about that? This is A transfiguration of the REAL Muhammad Ali - he turned out to be a Cassius Clay guy. It's a transfiguration of the real man into something that people needed. Remember, this was the sixties - people were in rebellion and they were afraid of real fighting. One comedian said see what you have to understand about Muhommad Ali because he told the American Government - he said I'm not gonna kill him. I am a man of peace. Well if you're not going to kill him, we're not gonna let you beat him up. So he likes to beat people up but doesn't want to kill them. They want him to kill him but they don't want him to beat him up. So he has a Thrilla of Manila and a rumble in the Jungle because he was running away from the draft.
The people needed someone who was going to be violent who was going to beat people up but not kill them. And so they took this guy from Kentucky [..] and they created this need Did the real Muhammad Ali live? We know that we can't really know (history) but we know there was a real Muhammad Ali - so guess what - you switch the channel and you get the story of the REAL Muhammad Ali. And what's that story going to be? Whatever the moron that made the story wants it to be. It doesn't matter ANYTHING what Cassius Clay really did. We're going to take that story and make it whatever we want it to be. Because we know that we don't know . We know the guy whom we believe to be Muhammad Ali is a transfigured character that's not the real Muhammad Ali. He's disfigured and the duty of the historian, of the journalist, of the philosopher, of the critic is to get rid of all these disfigurations. We also know that every man in history never ever does anything that's extraordinary, and we also know they can never do anything without self interest.
We apply these principles to every single case.
Father Alban Butler - he made Butler's Lives of the Saints. Pull out your 1860 edition of Butler's Lives of the Saints and look up St. Christopher. This is pre-Vatican II - about 100 years before Vatican II. The modernist says, we know that we don't know Christopher really existed. We know that the Christopher that is is the one we think that carried Christ across the water and is a patron of travellers and who did miracles. We know that that is not the real Christopher that is a disfigured Christopher who was transfigured by the belief of Christians down the last 1,000 years. But we're pretty sure there was a real Christopher because after all the Church has a feast of St. Christopher. Now why is it that Christopher is really a big guy? Butler tells us because there was a big statue. There were little people going into a big church - there was a big statue of St. Christopher. So they got the idea he was a big man. Now these people (and you give the short explanation) wanted someone big and strong to protect them and they wanted someone to carry them across the rivers of life. So they made this character who was probably a real saint, a real holy guy, but we don't know much about him. We know that the real Christopher is transfigured by public tradition - disfigured, and the historian is going to pull apart this disfiguration and bring us back to the real Christopher.
There is another life - of St. Francis Xavier - Fr. Chazal read it. It's a big long life. A Jesuit wrote it. In the documentation of the canonization of St. Francis Xavier I think there are 40 confirmed miracles. Raising people from the dead, driving devils away and the church is really strict in its confirmation of miracles. In the Jesuits Life of St. Francis Xavier he admits only one miracle. That is, that there was a storm - he threw a crucifix in the water the storm stopped and the crab brought him the crucifix in India. The other miracles - raising from the dead, speaking in tongues - we're not sure they ever happened. And the reason why St. Francis is a saint is because he was a downright spiritual guy. He did fasting, he prayed. He was downright holy. But miracles? We know he performed miracles but did he perform all the miracles they say? I don't think so. It's popular imagination. There was a saint from the nineteenth century that, in the breviary it mentions sometimes in the sermons he is a liar like the second nocturne. It's the same - a Catholic priest in the nineteenth/twentieth century, he's a liar like the second nocturne. You know that when we say Matins - first nocturne we have three readings where you read Sacred Scripture. Second Nocturne we have three readings, and we read the life of the Saint of the day. One example of such readings is the life of St. Clement of Rome. It tells us that Clement the Pope was murdered in the Black Sea. They tied him to an anchor they brought him on the black about ten miles and they dumped him in the water and they drowned him. The people wanted to get St. Clement's body. The Black Sea receded ten miles and the people walked into the sea and there was a small church in the bottom of the sea. St. Clement's body lay in it holding the anchor. They took him and the anchor out of the sea and that is what it says in the Breviary that we read. Many other miracles. This is an example of one and what do they say, this is something which is extraordinary. Therefore we know for certain it didn't happen. But we still accept that there was a real St. Clement. The one that WE think of as St. Clement is a disfigured Clement who was transfigured by the popular love of the simple of the past who are not as smart as people today.
Why were people of the past not as smart as people today? Because of evolution. The later you are in development the smarter you are. The older you are the dumber you are. The further back you are you were stupid and believed simple things. Now people don't believe simple things. Historian, agnosticism vital eminence of the community produces a transfigured Clement. This kind of figure is disfigured from the real Clement. The historian - get rid of the illusions.
Now we come to America because sometimes Americans do it the right way. All Americans know that we have a St. George who was the founder of our country. 'St'. George - he was under that cherry tree. He found the Lord, he got saved, the guy was a walking saint. He was baptized on his death bed. Went straight to heaven with the Angels. He's a saint! It's obvious! OK he was a Mason. Nobody's perfect! (laughter). He was head of the Alexandria March '22 which were guys trying to destroy Christ and the Catholic Church.What do you do nowadays? George Washington needed to be a saint a hundred years ago - Why? Because he had to destroy Christianity inside of the American people. Therefore you make a Mason hero. Now he becomes like a saint! Now we don't need saints any more. We don't want patriotism any more. So the same guys that made George Washington into a saint guess what they're making him into now. He's a demon. Go to the History Memorial Chapel
He had 317 slaves. The guy was a slave-owner - OK (sarcasm). Why did George Washington fight in the revolution? Because he married Martha. I forget what her last name was but Martha had 17 million dollars in cash in 1730, or whatever it was. In today's money, we're talking billions of dollars. That was a happy marriage let me tell you. Now, George married this very rich girl named Martha, he had 317 slaves. About evolution? George only cared about what? His own personal self-interest. He didn't do anything extraordinary. He's just another pig that got to be on the dollar bill. That's it! He wasn't even on the five - Lincoln was. So Lincoln was a hero, now Lincoln is a pig. Did this different guy make him a good pig emanating from a hero? No! The same modernist made him into a pig that made him into a hero. This is the point of St. Pius X. He says the modernist is not just against the Catholic religion. He's not just the enemy of the Catholic religion. He is the enemy of all religion. Which is why you will find that pagans who have a brain; Protestants have a brain; true liberals have a brain - they all hate modernists because they understand the modernists are going to destroy liberals. Liberals believe everyone can do what they want. Modernists don't! They are going to make everyone into a slave. And it comes to the problem where liberals say, hey wait a minute what's going on here - it's too late. What do they go back to? They say that the critic tells me that you're wrong. Guess what - the critic is the same guy as the historian. The historian doesn't agree with the philosopher - the problem is he's the same guy.
(Refer to diagram in first session where the seven-headed monster is the same guy popping up in seven different openings)
We have the same exact process, the same exact system applied to everything. Once you understand this you can become an expert on any subject no matter what it is. If you're an expert you know how it happened that the resistance came into being. Well we can say with certainty, after all I've studied that the first thing I can tell you is that it's absolutely certain that we don't know. But then again, we know there's something TO this resistance thing. We really do! When I say we don't know, what do they do that can successfully happen to anybody that knows anything. We want those guys out of the room! Now getting back to my story. It could be whatever I want it to be. Those guys in the resistance - remember nobody does anything extraordinary. With regard to the resistance we now have these priests who were seriously disgruntled with their superiors. and their fellow-priests. What were they disgruntled about? Absolutely certain? No, we don't know. But we're absolutely certain that they were really disgruntled and there's no doubt about it. It COULD have been that they were disgruntled because they were stationed with these guys who were too strict or too lax - didn't meet what they felt that they needed based on their situation. Like one of these priests in the resistance we learned that he was transferred to somewhere in Asia. Clearly that is not a happy place. And he wanted to get back. So there must have been some kind of a tension and this must be the problem. Then we discovered that the real reason why he said he went out - that's the transfigured reason. We know for certain that whatever he said is clearly wrong. Why? Because he's biased. If you want to find out what somebody did in their lives never ask that person because their biased. Ask somebody who is an unbiased observer. Somebody says, what did you do last night when you were alone in your room? I can't answer you - you're biased. So I am going to ask somebody who is an unbiased observer. How about Ralph who lives in China? What did he do in his room in Colorado? I think he was watching on the internet You Tube videos of Chin Wong Fine Choui. OK that must be what he did. This guy said he was sleeping but that's impossible.
So - you are going to create an expert First you don't know. Then you are going to produce a reality Then you are going to do whatever you are told - you know its transfigured - you're going to disfigure it and get down to the real truth. That's journalism. A good journalist is a guy who shows to you that whoever he is reporting on is a liar. A good journalist is one who shows to you - the lie. If he doesn't do that he is a bad journalist. So philosopher, believer, theologian, historian, critic - all the same thing. That's how the modernist system works. Remember, because it's always undergoing flux and each person is going to be ripping apart the other person. Eventually people become crazy. This is OUR point. OUR state right now. Everyone's an expert. Everyone is going through this process of modernist thinking. Whatever anybody tells me it can't be true. Everybody is a liar. I have got to find whatever he said to what the real truth is and whatever anybody does is for self-interest. I can't trust anybody and after a while there is a breakdown. Once a complete breakdown takes place - what do we want? Somebody to come in and fix our lives. This is the protocols of the elders of Sion. We will create an international crisis. Then we're going to come in and fix it. Because we created the crisis we could easily fix it.
So we have a case here where people living in this kind of world say that everything is divided. And by the way remember what's happening as time progresses the believer and the theologian are getting shrunk, and shrunk and shrunk. They're almost down to zero now. The historian, the philosopher, the psychiatrist, the psychologist , critic - these guys are taking over. People then are living in an impossible situation. They want a way out and the only way out is authority. Authority. So they are going to accept the police state without any problem. We're already there. If we accept the police state we accept authority. We're going to accept whatever the authorities give to us.
Remember that it's a system and I just want to say, it is sufficient for now. If anybody has any questions we can continue tomorrow with some of the solutions because obviously there are many things in the encyclical - we want to understand how the system works and the answer to the system is the simple faith of a child and the recognition that there is only one and beautiful truth given to us by Christ - given to us by God. We have to accept it clearly and boldly and the entire Catholic vision. You will notice at this stage - the tearing apart stage - the avili is only a phase of modernism. At the end we're going to pull everything back together again only this time it will be pulled together under Satan, pulled together under the cold philosopher, pulled together under the cold historian, under the cold psychiatrist and notice that the historian describes psychologies, and not what happens, we can always change history. They go back in history for instance now and make everybody into homosexuals. We have a homosexual culture. They go back in history and make every single girl into a feminist. They're going to turn everybody into whatever we are. Keep changing the history. We can easily do that because all that matters is we know the truth changes and we know that we're evolving and the only way we can know the truth is to go to the expert and that is the great practical conclusion of it all. We're going to have to follow that expert. So we're going to be a people who follow.
This is the problem because we do need human leaders that's true. God loves us to have human leaders. He made us that way. But we don't follow the human leader because he is the human leader. We follow the leader so far as he's bringing souls to Christ and the conclusion, like Archbishop Lefebvre said - As long as I am teaching the divine truth as long as I am teaching Christ's gospel as long as I am leading you to Christ the Truth follow me. If I am not abandon me! Father Hewko and I say the same thing so should every priest - as long as we follow the divine truth follow us. If we step away from the divine truth abandon us! The truth is bigger than us. According to the modernists the person is bigger than the truth. Now this is kind of a simple explanation of the phases. Remember there are many nuances to this heresy. It is very dark and very wicked. It has many angles. Remember when you meet a modernist who will ask you do you believe Jesus is God? Yes, I do!
I remember I met one in Phoenix Arizona at a funeral - he was a Nigerian priest - very intelligent and I spoke with him for three hours. This man is the most Catholic priest I have ever met. After three hours of discussion he said, wait a minute. I said what? You're talking about the Jesus of history. The real Jesus. He was talking about the transfigured Jesus. You mean you believe the real Jesus rose from the dead? I said, yes he did. You're nuts! And he went ape on me. He had a PhD by the way. He went nuts!
The minute he knew we were excommunicated he was very good because he knew the SSPX was excommunicated. I don't care about excommunication - I don't believe in excommunication. He didn't care about that. You believe this crap is real! That's what I have a problem with. And for the next three hours -battling - six hours! The first three hours was the most Catholic guy I had met in my whole life. He agreed on everything - Latin, tradition, Latin Mass, but he was agreeing about the transfigured Jesus. that he believed under his spiritual sign, but he knows that the real Jesus is nothing like that. St. Pius X points out the modernist has different tongues. When he preaches from the pulpit he preaches like a wonderful spiritual Catholic priest. When he meets with his own in private he speaks evil. When he speaks to a middle group he speaks in the middle. How is he able to do this? Because he understands his audience and he understands his purpose. He knows what he is about. He knows how to fight in the smoke. We fight in the open. He knows how to dance and weave. He has no problem with contradiction. That's how he operates.
(A lady asked a question that could not be heard. Father replied)
We're kind of already in it right now. For instance, I go to India sometimes and you don't even notice until you go to a place like India or the Philippines - they have something there we don't have. It's called freedom. I can walk across the street without getting executed - so can a cow. You can do things, that now when you do anything you're in a state of fear. A policeman is going to pull you over. What do you think when you're driving your car without a seat belt? You're terrified right? We used to ride in the back of a pick-up truck (Cracks a joke) So you see - seat-belts, car seats - if you don't have your car seat you're in terror. Homosexuality is a grave offence against God. It's terrifying isn't it? In a police state they say you can't say that. We're already in the legal state of a police state now. The people are just not fully ready to be one hundred percent enslaved yet. Remember going back to the beginning about crowd. - what St. Basil says about the crowd? Once the people are fully ready which they are pretty close to being ready, the antichrist comes. The only problem is this - Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary - they make the schedule. The people are ready for the antichrist now. The world is prepared for him now. He's not going to come now. We know that because of the prophecies of Our Lady. Because of a supernatural revelation. But the world is ready. Christ is going to stop it. Why? to prove that he's in charge. Christ comes at the exact moment he chooses. No-one stops his schedule. The devil makes HIS schedule and our lord (looks at his watch) and says, Nah, today's not it. And that means the devil is not going to do it on his schedule.
Transcription Class 6 (continues from above thread)
Remember we were saying yesterday regarding Pascendi - it's THE document of the heresy error of our times which in one word is 'evolution'. It is the exact opposite of the catholic world view - every detail. The modernists now - . 200 years into the error and heresy of modernism - infiltrated every level of society. Most people think in a modernist way today and as I mentioned at the end of the talk yesterday. The leaders, the ones who are the makers of modernism - these men, as I mentioned last night, they are not modernists. They're realists. They know that the world is real, created by God, the Catholic church is the true church, outside of the catholic Church there is no salvation. They know what the make-up of society is - the make up of things and knowing this they use it to be able to use knowledge and truth in order to manipulate souls through wicked lies. As St Pius X said Modernism is the collection, the synthesis of all heresies. A synthesis of all heresies is going to come towards the end of the world. The devil is pulling souls together from all the camps - all the various enemies of God. All the various pagan religions; all the various levels of liberalism; all the various levels of subjectivism; all the various heresies - the devil has pulled them together into one in this great heresy of modernism. So, a quick summary - briefly from yesterday - remember that the modernist is one man but he shows seven heads. In fact he has many more heads. St. Pius X lists seven of them. So you will see there are seven different guys sticking their heads out of a foxhole. We're trying to kill these seven guys - kill these seven enemies. You shoot the guy in hole no. 7 and you find a guy in No. 5 - you shoot him - then there's a guy in No. 1 and you shoot him. Another guy appears in No. 7 - you shoot him. You think there are many guys, in fact there is one man who's in a hole drops down, walks over and pops into another one. Drops down, walks over and pops into another one. St. Pius in the encyclical Pascendi notes in the very beginning, Modernists act confused, seem confused, seem disjointed and disorganised and in disarray - they are NOT! They seem contradictory- they do NOT contradict. They DO not contradict. What we see in the seeming contradictions of Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson more recently; Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, Pope Paul VI -if you look carefully at what they all say you will discover that they never contradict themselves. This is the point of St. Pius X. There are many that are liars, and many heresies which are filled with contradictions because ultimately there's going to be some contradictions in every heresy including modernism, BUT one of modernism's hallmarks that makes it different from other heresies is that it does not self-contradict.That way you're always able to tell the same story - jump back and forth - change sides and never actually shoot themselves in the foot. The focus of our class which with the seminarians is about 5 to six weeks or more to go through Pascendi, but in our class, our primary focus is Modernism is a system. It is not just a bunch of bad doctrines.
We look at a Protestant for instance as an example, or say orthodox who do not accept the Papal infallibility and some orthodox don't accept the way Catholics explain the Immaculate Conception, and there may be a few other things. If we get them to accept papal infallibility, if we get them to accept the authority of the Pope, if we get them to accept the Church's teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary as we teach it - then Boom! they're Catholic. Fix accepting the Pope, fix the Immaculate Conception - they're Catholic. Protestants also - fix that the Pope is head of the church, fix the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and they easily become Catholic. Modernism is not like that. In modernism you can fix every one of those things: I accept Mary as Mother of God, I accept the Blessed Trinity, I accept that the Pope is head of the Church, I accept every article in the Creed and they are still one hundred percent modernist! And you have not made even the slightest conversion. This is the most wicked, the most insidious and underneath of all heresies. We believe that the Holy Ghost inspired St. Pius X when he wrote Pascendi06:23 and and also the short document
Praestantia Scripturae to show there's where the problem is - underneath (Father underlines the tunnel connecting underneath the seven trenches).
Here's where the roots are - underneath, and it is only one root, only one problem - we must kill that problem. They try to disguise it as sticking up false heads, (seven ) we attack all the false heads we don't get to the root. St. Pius X gets to the root in Pascendi. He even takes practical steps to hold back - he knows he cannot eliminate this heresy but he held it back and some great modernist, I forget his name, said he has held us back 50 years. He has delayed us 50 years - 17,27,37,47,57 Vatican II 1962. He delayed us 50 years but we will come back. So in 55 years he died in 1914 so you go from then 24,34,44,54,64 - 50 years. He held them for 50 years. They hated him and they knew that this man attacked their roots. We now have to attack the roots of modern heresy. Going to yesterday again - the steps of modernism is a system of heresy producing factory or we could just say, a lie producing factory.
Remember, we call the devil - the father of lies. There is a process by which he tells lies.
First step : Agnosticism which is the certainty that no man can know. We know with absolute certainty that nobody can know God. We know with absolute certainty that nothing in the universe - (Father diverted to draw a small diagram of the four elements of the modernist universe.)
Tradition tells us that there is the subconscious, then in the middle we have the real world which is conscious (the inside of man) and visible phenomena (only insofar as it is visible). The real world consists only of the things inside the darker rings. The beyond the real world. The real world is in these areas: conscious and the phenomena. Beyond the real cannot be known by anyone. So, in the beginning of evolution man's conscious is very small and the visible world is very small. He doesn't see very many things, he doesn't know very many things. The visible world continues to increase which means the phenomenal world decreases and the subconscious world will decrease. The conclusion of it all is that in the end there will be only two elements which is the element of the conscious and the visible. Religion exists in beyond the phenomena and the subconscious. The priest rules beyond the phenomena and the subconscious - the spiritual is in beyond the phenomena and the subconscious. These two universes never cross - according to the modernists - they never cross. So if you believe like I told you about a Nigerian Priest in Arizona - really intelligent - why I remembered him. For the first three hours he told me he firmly believed in all the teachings of the Catholic church - the traditional teachings. After three hours he stopped! And I thought he was the most traditional priest in the world. Then he said wait a minute You actually believe this stuff? Do you really believe that Jesus in history rose from the dead? I said yes Jesus in history rose from the dead. You've got to be kidding me! He went ape! He firmly believed in his beyond the phenomena world. He did his PhD in theology. He firmly believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That the Catholic Church is the true church in THAT world (Fr. points to beyond the phenomena and the sub conscious circles). But in the REAL world we don't know anything about Jesus only that he was some obscure man that was crucified in the year 30AD. We know that the Jesus of religion doesn't exist. He was angry with me he wanted to kill me. Because I don't believe - I KNOW that the Jesus of History rose from the dead. And then we had another three-hour training session after that. So for the first three hours we were in total agreement. Next three hours we were in total war on exactly the same subject. That is the difference of modernism. It is a heresy that gets underneath so you can accept all the truths on the top but somehow it keeps from getting to the heart; it keeps them from getting into the soul which is the most evil of all heresies.
In the realm of sin there are many sins but not all sins are equal. Some are infinitely worse than others. This is the worst of all heresies. Look at all these seven heads. What does a modernist do? First it begins with agnosticism - in the end we came up with the subconscious and the conscious and the first thing you know is we do not know God - no-one can know God -there is no certainty. Later there is the process of vital eminence. Remember modernism is just evolution. And in the great wisdom of St. Pius X he described and understood the mechanism of evolution. Most evolutionists don't understand it, they just think it happens. But St. Pius X DESCRIBES how evolution works. There are two foundations of modernism: evolution and vital eminence - that vital eminence is just part of evolution. But nonetheless vital eminence - that I inside of me feels this need and the most important man is the philosopher then comes believer, theologian, historian, critic, reformer
These are the stages - these are the seven heads. At first we believe at the beginning there are seven different men but in fact it is the same man working with a purpose, and the Reformer prepares the world for the antichrist. That is what he's doing. But you are not supposed to know that. So we're going through a stage where the first is the phllosopher. Every man is a philosopher. The one science that makes our life, the science of all things. So this philosopher (Fr. points to first trench) he recognises how things work. He understands the one science that makes everything work. First of all agnosticism . Everybody knows we cannot know. What is important about this? Oftentimes if you were to walk into a math class for instance on day one you might meet a guy with a table like this (points to table) - he will be called the teacher. And you might walk into a class where a guy is called a teacher and he's going to tell you, say we're going to learn that 1 + 1 = 2 and next year we're going to go into calculus.
You say: I know calculus. Now how do you get rid of the authority of the teacher? First thing you say is I know you don't know what calculus is. Why? Because I never heard of calculus. If calculus existed I would have heard about it. I never heard about it. You see this paper - it is MATH class. It doesn't say CALCULUS class. MATH class you moron! If I don't know about calculus NOBODY knows about calculus. Calculus doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist maybe it does. But I don't know about it. And you don't know about it either. Because it can't be known.
What do you do with the agnosticism phase? Any authority, anyone that already knows is thrown aside. Now you are the only authority. That is important. Now with regard to vital eminence. The modernist says: We PRODUCE God. What he says is that man sees the world outside him, and he feels this inner need to understand why. He doesn't know why. Why the grass grows; why the sun sets; why dogs eat ducks and not cats - (that's what they do here.) So WHY does this happen? He doesn't know why so what does he do? He invents the universal answer to the problem of why? And that is 'GOD'. 'God' is the answer to why when you don't know what the answer is.
God! Well believers gathered together and invented MANY gods. What happened over time is that certain believers were more in tune with this God thing. And certain believers understand that they understood better what the other believers believed and they could express well what believers believed and they became theologians. And the theologians job is to explain to the believer what he already believes. When you were in Catechism class our duty is to tell you that there are three persons in one God. When St. Patrick went to Ireland they didn't know that. Now the modernist St. Patrick would go to Ireland and he would say the same thing: Do you know that there are three persons in one God? I didn't know that. Well actually you do know that - it's in your heart. You FEEL the three Persons. It's been there the whole time. Your mummy, daddy family right? You see it's there. There is a half truth in that, like in every lie. What is he going to do He is either going to say there are three persons in one God but it is because you needed there to be three persons in one God because you hate being alone. You might have this one God, but he seemed to be a little lonely so you made him three because you know two is company and three is a crowd. But then again, you know, three is better than two because they always fight when they're married so three is a better idea. So we get this idea of their being three persons which means that God is alone which means he is in charge; but he's also in a happy family - he is in a family so it is just one idea really. So you can make any lie with this system.
Agnosticism - get rid of anybody that knows anything; get rid of all truth
Next stage transfiguration then disfiguration.
What is going to happen? Believers are going to have a need. They are going to produce this idea of God which fulfils their need and he is going to be a transfigured reality. Such as the example we had yesterday - that most modernists give. You can use any example about Our Lord, Jesus Christ. So this man Jesus was an obscure man; he lived in Palestine; he was crucified by Pilate but the Jewish community was in great disarray because the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 AD and there are two branches of Jews that broke away. There were Jews of the Temple - that liked ritual and there were Jews of the Book who liked that Moses - whoever he was, and the five books he wrote, the Torah etc. The Jews of the Book they formed the Talmud and they became Talmudiac modern Judaism. The other Jews of the Temple they felt the need for ritual. They became what is now called 'Christianity'. And what they did was they felt this need for the ritual because the temple was destroyed and they also felt the need for healing. There was the community of John and in the community of Mark they felt suffering so they made Jesus die on the Cross. The community of John they had more hope, They were further away from persecution. So they wanted this Jesus character to rise. So they made him rise from the dead. And all these different characters of Jesus they all came together and they formed this one Messiah figure who is the transfigured figure of the real Jesus and he is called Christ. He was even called God in the year 325 in the Council of Nicea by a Pope and some Bishops that had gathered there that year. They gathered together and they created this transfigured figure who is called Jesus Christ.
Now the historian
What is he going to do? He is going to come and see this figure of Jesus Christ - Creator of heaven and earth; the Word made flesh; performed many miracles; rose from the dead . What is the first thing we know about Jesus? What is it? Absolute certainty without any doubt - the first thing we know about him - we don't know. So the first thing we know about Christ is that we don't know. What about other people? They don't know either. So - agnosticism. First thing we know. We know that the man that is called Jesus is transfigured - he's changed. He is a disfiguration of the real Jesus. What are we supposed to do as historians? Get rid of the fake, false transfigured Jesus. He was a disfiguration of the real Jesus. And we are going to get back to it. What are our principles? Principle No. 1, principle No. 2.
Principle No. 1 - we know that no man ever does anything extraordinary. That's just a fact. No man does anything extraordinary. St. Pius X points out the no man does anything extraordinary he points out that this is just a principle of the modernists. It is just a principle that cannot be denied and they don't prove anything. It is a fact.
Secondly, every man works for self interest. So what do I do with the man Jesus Christ? One day he rose Lazarus from the dead - that equals extraordinary. Obviously it didn't happen. Rule out - throw it out from the book. He died on the cross to do what? Save men's souls. That's ridiculous. Why? Because it's not for his own self-interest. So clearly that didn't happen. Obviously things went wrong at the end of his attempt to be a Messiah figure like many others. And of course the people who followed him needed him to succeed so they turned his failure into success. Notice that in order to be a good modernist is the same principle required to be a good Hindu priest. Except they told me in India all you need to be a good Hindu priest is he's a good story-teller. If you can make up stories you're priest material. Because that is all they do. They make up stories. That's what a modernist does. But what a modernist does is he puts big words behind it - Vital Eminence; Transfiguration; Disfiguration. And he has a system of producing lies. So he can be far more effective since he knows this system. Transfiguration - disfiguration. There was another great saint in history - St. George - St. George Washington. So we need St. George to be a saint. What do they do? They said there was a cherry tree, and the guy became a Catholic - he had visions of angels and he was baptised before he died and he was a great saint. He was the greatest man in American history - he only cared about the poor, justice, truth, love, happiness. But now in order to prepare for the antichrist we need to get rid of nationalism. Guess what historians have done to Georgie. What does it say about George? He was a pig - right? He had 317 slaves; he married a girl named Martha because she was worth l7 million dollars back in 1700, and that's worth billions and billions of dollars today. That's a pretty rich girl. That's a happy marriage. So Georgie married into a happy family; Georgie only cared about Georgie. They made him head of the army because he married a girl who had 17 million dollars and that makes a great General. The guy was a rich, selfish pig that had slaves and only cared about his own personal self-interest. He did nothing extraordinary and they called him a hero of the country. I mean - come on! What if they made him a hero again? You will discover that Georgie who was a pig - he is a transfigured Georgie. The real Georgie was a hero. Then what do you do years later? The Georgie that was a hero - the guy was a pig. You can go back and forth and back and forth forever. Why would you do this? Because you know the system. Agnosticism, transfiguration, disfiguration, - take whatever you want. This is how evolution works. You appeal to man's pride and you develop things THAT way. Remember it is a system you can find anywhere: Mahumad Ali, modern governments. You will see this kind of communication being done over and over again. What's the real story of this movie actor? What is the REAL life of this politician? What REALLY happened in Moscow? What REALLY happened in the French revolution? What REALLY happened?
First, we don't know - history books full of crap. What proofs do we have? Nothing. What is the system of the proof? Go textual criticism. Textual criticism can be applied not only to books. It can be applied to movies - it can apply to anything. So textual criticism which was condemned by Popes in the nineteenth century - by St. Pope Pius X in Pascendi. You can look at any text and you judge it based on your own personal private, powerful judgement because you're an expert. (Example) you notice the first paragraph - the man's happy, the second paragraph the man's mad. Well a guy can't be happy and mad at the same time so clearly it is a different author. So it is a different author. How do you determine that? Because of your own personal judgement. You give various proofs to prove how good you are. Then the next person comes in he makes HIS proof and you create a whole body of experts. This was done throughout the nineteenth century. Where did the modernists practically enter the Catholic Church and where did they begin their destruction? The place is in Sacred Scripture. We have encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and St. Pius X . Praestantia Scripturae which are about scripture and many of the errors of the Syllabus are all related to the errors taught concerning Sacred Scripture.
The Biblical commission was created to protect and defend the Sacredness of Sacred scripture. Scripture was the entering point. What was the practical reason for that? There are several practical reasons. One is actually contained in St. St. Peter - they arrest St. Paul you know. St. Paul was hard to understand said St. Peter. He is often twisted by (enemies). They twisted Scripture to their own destruction. St. Peter said that there are many difficult passages in Sacred Scripture - hard to understand. And who interprets Scripture? The Church. What is a very practical wise way to enter a lie into the Church? Go>experts>Sacred Scripture. Modernists did this more than 200 years ago. They entered the realm of Sacred Scripture. They created Scripture scholars. They created a new science which was created early in the nineteenth century called, 'historical critical method' - or textual criticism. They said it was a new science. Why did they create a new science? Because Catholics follow authority. Who are the principle authorities for all Catholics? Scripture and Tradition. Sacred Scripture is infallible, it is the inspired Word of God in which there is no error of any kind. And Sacred Tradition which is the teaching of the Fathers of the Church handed down to us from the teaching of the Apostles. Then they have the great theologians of the last 2,000 years who explained via the church Magisterium which taught about Scripture and Tradition. How are you going to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church? It is going to take some time. First you need to get your modernists into the places of authority where they are going to influence the mind - get them into the seminaries; get them into positions of power so that they can make sure that their professors fill the seminaries. Get them into the literature; writing the books and write the truth that is all right on the top. Give the right conclusion of the philosopher believer theologian historian apologist and reformer. Give the right conclusion so you don't get condemned. They have the wrong reasons so that people get used to your way of thinking. After you have done this for a time introduce wrong conclusions - slowly. People will accept them because they have accepted your wrong way of thinking. Then eventually you will slowly corrupt the entire Catholic Church.29:56 One of the ways of doing this is the admission of the alta vendita
- obedience. Make obedience the highest of all the virtues.These are the early modernists who are doing this. Lift it up
because we're going to use obedience as our main weapon. Also, why is obedience the highest of all virtues? It is the highest of virtues for modernists. Why is that? Because, remember, the world is evolving. Since the world is evolving truth is continually changing - whatever I learn today will be false tomorrow. How can I know the truth - only by listening to the latest expert. Expert? No - Augustine was an expert. He's useless. He lived back in the year 400. Aquinas was an expert. We know he didn't eat right because he had a weight problem - that makes him iffy right there. And the guy lived hundreds years ago! He couldn't be as smart as the average kid in kindergarten today 'cos he lived hundreds of years ago. So you don't listen to him. Experts - latest! Those two things. The latest expert. In practical terms what does that mean? The guy who's got the gun NOW. The guy who had the gun yesterday - you don't have to listen to, but the guy that's got the gun today is very wise to listen to. That's what it really means. So you are going to listen to the authority TODAY. The authority today is my only way to know the truth. So we tell Catholics you must believe that Jesus Christ is true God; you must believe everything he taught because the Pope said that yesterday. Well, you must believe all those things. Is it because the Pope said it yesterday? No. Because 2,000 years ago we had this very wise man inspired by the Holy Ghost - Saul of Tarsus who became St. Paul. St. Paul said, if we ourselves - that is, St. Paul - or an angel of heaven - which can mean literally angels or also bishops who are considered angels in the Church. If we ourselves or an angel from heaven teach you something other, something different, than what we have already taught you let him be anathema. What does that mean?That means I can know what I was taught when I was seven years old about how many Sacraments there are - I know there are seven of them. I can know what I was taught when I was younger than that that there were three persons in one God and if somebody tells me there is four I don't care who he is he's wrong. If an angel tells me there are four persons in the Blessed Trinity. I'm telling him, go to hell. If a Pope tells me that, I'm telling him, go to hell and see a doctor. But I am absolutely not going to believe it. We had to change that. Through the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century there was a great emphasis amongst Catholic theologians of let's believe the real truth because, ONLY because the present authority says so. That's modernism. So my only way to know the truth connection. How are we going to get there? So, we're in the nineteenth century - we enter into Sacred Scripture - one thing they do. In 1820 Gregory XVI becomes Pope - they remove from the Index all the books about Galileo. Change the Jesuits and all the individuals in Sacred Scripture who were fighting particularly against the errors of modern science and the heresies of modern science. Remove all of them. Put new guys inside of the congregation for Sacred Scripture. This is very important because in 1859 there was going to be a book by Charles Darwin which would clearly be against the faith. This book would not be condemned by the Church. They would make sure that in the movement of evolution they would not condemn it by the church - why? Because the old crazy Catholics of the 1600's - they said that there was only one truth for the entire world and we cannot divide Sacred Scripture and science and history from faith. Throughout the nineteenth century Catholic theologians began to rip apart in the
Abilene Paradox - tear apart Sacred Scripture and all the sciences. They ripped apart the scientists. Philosopher is one kind of guy, theologian is another kind of guy, historian's another kind of guy, critic is another kind of guy, apologist and reformer are other kinds of guys and all the way down the line. Stay only speaking in your field. So if you're a doctor and you know about medicine don't tell me that your house is burning down. You are not a fireman. You see a house burning down, call an expert fireman, have him come over, see if your house is on fire - if it is, he will make a report and take care of it. You're a doctor. You don't know anything about houses burning down. So whatever your science is you will stay only in that science you will profess complete ignorance about other sciences - you will not cross between the sciences. This was done throughout the nineteenth century. When the evolutionists came into power in the late nineteenth century the Catholic was not already equipped to fight them. And they said, we don't make decisions about rocks and if rocks say the world is 165 millions years old - now it's much older than that, it's its about l4 billion years old - times change. But if it says this we just have to accept it.
So when they entered Sacred Scripture they began to slowly changing the teaching of Sacred Scripture because it is a place that not everyone can understand the words of Sacred Scripture . The Church interprets the Scriptures and then they began to give different interpretations and define teachings of Sacred Scripture. Rampolla was in that world. Bea was in that world. Bea translated the psalter - Cardinal Bea. The psalter that he translated was used in the church of 1945 - 1962 . There are no heresies in it as far as I know. There is no bad translation in it - it is just different to St. Jerome. To give an example: we have been singing psalms for the last 2,000 years - we've been singing the psalms in Latin and we've been singing in Latin. According to St. Jerome for the last 1,600 years the Gregorian chant was written for it. So what Cardinal Bea did when he was Father Bea. He retraced Pope Pius XII who was also trained by some of these bad guys and so on when he was a young man. He was a grandson of Rampolla - Pius XII - trained at the same school. And Pius XII hired Bea to fix the Psalter. There was nothing wrong with the psalter, but he told him to fix it. So Bea fixed it. When he did it, it was still before Vatican II so he couldn't say a direct heresy. All he did was change the words. To give an example: Suppose in the old psalter it said Moses walked up the hill Bea would translate it Moses ambulated forwardly up the fell. So imagine you have a psalm, a poem and Moses walked up the hill now you are going to say Moses moved forwardly up the fell. It's not going to work. It kills Gregorian chant. Kills the music of the Church. Priests have been saying the Breviary every day of their lives. Now they don't know the words any more. He even changed part of the Psalter which is called the Benedictus - if you look in the Bible it's not in the Psalter. AND the Magnificat which is also in the Bible it's also not in the Psalter. These are in the New Testament - he even changed the Magnificat and the Benedictus because it's part of the Breviary. What was his purpose? Destroy the prayer of the Church. Modernists are in every single facet of our religion. This is an example in that not a single heresy is expressed; not a single error is directly communicated but it changed everything so that it would kill our prayer. And it worked. It killed the prayer of the Church Praestantia Scripturae.
Once Pascendi was promulgated immediately modernists said you don't follow it. It is not infallible teaching. One of the points St. Pius X makes in Pascendi - to summarise it - he says, modernists take the condemnations of moderism and use them for the opposite effect. For instance, Vat. Council I - again fighting against the modernists says, well we don't know if the Pope is infallible, how can we say the Pope is infallible. The Church has known that the Pope is infallible since St Peter. So they defined papal infallibility; defined extraordinary magisterium so the modernists therefore said - well, in order to be infallible, and I hear people say this all the time - we know that to be infallible there have to be four conditions. What's the first definition of infallibility - first you've got to be a Pope so if there's no a pope you can't be infallible. Secondly, the Pope has to speak from the Chair with the fullness of his authority binding all Catholics to believe in something as a matter of faith and morals and if those conditions are not there it's not infallible. 'Not infallible' means believe in whatever we want. That's modernism. St. Pope Pius X explains in the Syllabus of Pius IX- for a Catholic to believe he only has to believe whatever is extraordinarily defined by the church is condemned. If that was the case you wouldn't have to believe that Jesus was God before 325 [...]Do you think that Peter believed that Christ was God? I argued with a priest of SSPX (I won't say the same, there were two of them - two different priests at two different times) Both of them said the same thing St. Peter did not believe in transubstantiation like we do. St. Peter did not believe in transubstantiation - he didn't know that word!
Every single day St. Peter celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He brought down the Body, the Blood and the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ on to the altar. He held him between his thumb and his forefinger just like I did this morning and he knew, even much better than St. Pius X - he knows better than the Pope - better than all of us - what's in between his thumb and forefinger. He knew that this was the One whom he denied three times - the one that created him - the creator of the universe and all of Him was there. And he knew that all the bread was gone. He knew that only the accidents appeared to be there. He knows transubstantiation better than any of us but he did not use the word.
This is modernism. He does not know what transubstantiation means - we have a better understanding than our ancestors. Absolutely not! The apostles, much closer to Christ than all the saints that came afterwards and at the end of the world those twelve apostles shall be judging all of us alongside of Christ. So they have got to be pretty high up there. And they had to be relatively knowledgeable and they were given personal infallibility and personal impeccability which St. Pius X and St. Pius V and St. Leo I and St. Gregory VII and all the other sainted Popes did NOT receive. Impeccability, personal infallibility - so to say that he did not know that word - correct. He knew the reality. Before modernism we focus on reality - after modernism we focus on words. Because of this evil, evil tool - contextual criticism. These are the key tools. The modernists infiltrate the church and so already they said 'well only if you believe' As an example again - the pope said these are the four conditions of infallibility of the pope and his extraordinary infallibility. The modernists said shrink-wrap what St. Pius X says and say that's the only infallibility. And if the Pope says you're excommunicated - you're not Catholic if you say that Jesus Christ is not true God and true man. But then someone says, I didn't say that. I said Jesus Christ is not TRULY God and TRULY man. That's heresy? - no! Because the heresy says true God, true Man...I said truly. What do you mean by truly? Doesn't truly and true not mean the same thing? True can sometimes mean this is the way it really is - truly can mean that verifies the fact. So why say he is not truly God, not truly Man that's not heresy. I am not denying what the Pope said. Then modernists then take the condemnation of their heresy and they say, if I didn't say those exact words the way the Pope wrote it I am not a heretic. So St. Pius X has to deal with that. Experts escaping like legalists - the Jews are great on law - legalistic ways to escape everything. They are very hard to nail down. So in this
Praestantia Scripturae St. Pius X says:
In his encyclical letter “Providentissimus Deus,” given on November 18, 1893, our predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory, after describing the dignity of Sacred Scripture and commending the study of it, set forth the laws which govern the proper study of the Holy Bible; and having proclaimed the divinity of these books against the errors and calumnies of the rationalists, he at the same time defended them against the false teachings of what is known as the higher criticism (which is another name for contextual criticism>higher criticism>textual criticism>historical critical method) which, as the Pontiff most wisely wrote, are clearly nothing but the commentaries of rationalism derived from a misuse of philology and kindred studies. Our predecessor, too, seeing that the danger was constantly on the increase and wishing to prevent the propagation of rash and erroneous views, by his apostolic letters “Vigilantes studiique memores,” given on October 30, 1902, established a Pontifical Council or Commission on Biblical matters, [...]After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
So he mentions again they're obliged in conscience to accept to accept the decree. He mentioned Pascendi.
Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators.
One thing he says is 'violated in any way' This is not a normal communication. Normally you are excommunicated for precise offence. Here with St. Pius X you get the impression he's in a bad mood this time. St. Pius X says if you in any way defend - he has to say this because modernists would say, why I didn't defend that he was...I didn't say he was not truly God - true God and true man. I said truly. If you think of the meaning - 'truly' has a lot of depth to it and to say I was denying the divinity of Christ is absurd. So they find a way around every single condemnation. Hence to solve the problem St. Pius X says
if in any way the said documents as propagators and defenders of heresies - again - notice that St. Pius X like the fathers of the church don't make too many fine distinctions. Several priests of the SSPX told me, for instance,'modernism is not a heresy it's a SYNTHESIS of all heresies. So it is not a heresy it's a SYNTHESIS. If it's s synthesis of all heresies it's one thing that pulls together all the lies in one lie. Guess what - it's a lie! Does it become true when you tell ten lies they don't become one truth. So they say it's only a synthesis of heresies. And we don't know this is an infallible document. St. Pius X says - they are defenders and propagators of heresies and
as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.
He repeats it, he says the same central statement in Pascendi. SO if you don't believe what the Church teaches about textual criticism - if you don't believe what the church teaches about sacred scripture you are in mortal sin you are going to hell. You are violating what is necessary for the salvation of your soul. Now what somehow happened in modern times is that doctrine became a point of interest. And not necessarily for salvation. Murder - that's damnation; stealing that's damnation; believe that Jesus Christ is God - well not recommended. But the fact IS if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, and if you don't believe in all the teachings of our Holy Church - damnation. Not only that these heresies continue when you die. These evils continue when you die. A murderer stops murdering when he cannot murder any more and it ceases. But lies and heresy continue even after our death. Hence it is most grave for the church to condemn them and to lay out clearly that these things cannot be followed at all.
Regarding a race between an angel and a saint. If it was a saint in heaven would not that saint have a glorified body and thus not be subject to the effects of a corrupted material nature and thus slow it down? Perhaps the saint could beat the angel in a race as men shall judge the angels some day?
I am jumping ahead here since i have only finished conference one. Is there a conference that contains the diagram of the true faith as there is one in conference #1 of the imposter faith and modernist teachings?
To comment on the race example, just look at it simply as that, an example, not literal. It was used to explain how different God made men to travel compared to how angels travel.
As for judging, the angels have all had their test and either they are in heaven or they are in hell.
I took is as literal. Saints are in heaven. I can see what he meant to say. Angels can be on earth too.