The Greatest Confusion Ever

If you apparently cannot agree with something of what I am about to say is either because you do not accept the doctrine of the Church, or, you mistook one of these distinctions I declared: Objective-Subjective; Material-Formal; Act-Potency; Valid-Licit. As the benefit of the doubt for you, I will presume that you mistook one of these distinctions.

Today (we are experiencing), I think, the greatest confusion that ever happened in the history of the Church. There were times, I agree, I admit, when there were two popes (at the same time), or three popes, and nobody knew who really the pope was (of the three). I am referring to the fourteenth century. But there was never a time when you did not know anything anymore about what is going on: Who is right? Who is wrong?

So, let me pronounce judgment – needless to say, not my own; but judgment based on the judgments of Church Tradition and the previous popes – on the present situation, using a document that was published by the present Pope (John Paul II) on the Second of July 1988. The Document is called Ecclesia Dei (Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II Given Motu Proprio). This is a heretical, schismatic, and fraudulent Document. As you will see soon, this Document puts everything that is happening in the Church today in a nutshell, as they say.

The Document pronounces twice over heresy: material heresy. It pronounces schismatic statements. It is an error against moral theology. And it apparently ignores totally the new code of Canon Law published by the present Pope (John Paul II) in 1983.

I do not belong to (the group of) people who say the new code of Canon Law cannot possibly have any validity because the Pope is not the Pope anyway. I will come back to that later. I am saying that the new code of Canon Law, as far as it does not contradict Church Tradition or previous popes or Divine Law, is something to be accepted. The scandal is not what the new code says; the greatest scandal is that the Church today, what is called “The Church of the New Advent” a term that the present Pope (John Paul II) likes very much, is not sticking to its own Canon Law.

So, I will go through Ecclesia Dei, and, at the same time, discuss a few questions that will come up automatically with what (this Document) says.


Gregorius Hesse

Licit and Valid

There is another distinction we have to keep: licit and valid.

Every time I talk about whether we should be going to the Novus Ordo Mass or not, whatever I say, somebody will come up and say: “Father Hesse has just said it is valid,” or “not valid.” It depends on what I’ve said. People leave my lecture and say, “you see, again, he said it is valid; it is valid.” Or, the other way around; whatever their mood is like or their funny brains are like.

Licit and valid talk about two different things. Validity means it takes place. The sacrament is confected. It comes about. Licitness means to be allowed to do it or not.

The Russian Orthodox Church, according to the judgment of the Catholic Church, has only valid sacraments. All seven sacraments (of the Russian Orthodox Church) are recognized by the Catholic Church as far as the validity is concerned. But, needless to say, the Russian Orthodox Church is in heresy and schism; in heresy, because it refuses Papal Infallibility; it rejects Papal Infallibility, and that is heresy. And they reject Papal Primacy, which makes them schismatics; so, obviously, the Russian Orthodox do not celebrate and administer the sacraments licitly. They are not allowed to, but they do it all the same. However, their sacraments are valid.

The Anglicans (and Pope Leo XIII judged that infallibly forever) do not have valid Mass, let alone licit. Licit means: it is allowed; valid means: it works, or it does not work. When the so-called Anglican priest celebrates the weird Anglican liturgy, which is a little bit better than the Novus Ordo (Mass), but not much, nothing happens, period. Nothing happens. When he communicates at the end of the service, he eats a cookie and drinks wine. Not the Blood of Our Lord. Nothing happens. So, it is invalid.

While the Russian Orthodox (Mass) is valid, it is not licit. It is not allowed. They do not have the right to do it that because they are in schism with the Church.

All Men Have Been Saved by Christ on the Cross in Potency

We also have to talk about the difference between act and potency.

Potency is a term very rarely used in English everyday language. But it is very necessary to understand it (in the face of) this crisis. Well, if I tell you right now that I am Pope, you will say, “oh, oh, oh… Father Hesse is going off the rocker.” And yet, I have just said the truth… I am Pope. Oh, not right now. Not actually. In possibility. The probability is zilch, but I could be Pope.

Thomistic Philosophy speaks about act and potency. In act, I am a man, a priest, a Catholic. In potency, I am a father of children, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope, a heretic… all kinds of things. That is in potency. The possibility is there. I could still become one, but I am not right now.

It is, of course, intrinsically dishonest to say something that it is only true in possibility – which means in Latin, in potentia – in potency, and not say so. It is a dishonest language. It is a crazy language, as you realized the moment that I said to you, “I am Pope.” In the conventional English language, I cannot say, “I am Pope.” I can say so only as far as a philosophical language is concerned, and this is what you have to understand.

When the present Pope (John Paul II) says that all men have been saved by Christ on the cross, full stop, period, that is heresy. He should have said, “(all men have been saved by Christ on the cross) in potency, in possibility. Christ gave every human being the possibility to be saved. But we know that Our Lady showed the children of Fatima that Hell is actually crowded. So, many (souls) did not make Heaven. Many are not saved, actually, in act.

They had the possibility but, for some reason, they did not use it. So, if somebody says that Christ on the cross saved everybody, he better adds: “as far as a possibility is concerned; not actually.” We do not know that the Church refuses judgment on who is in Hell. We do not know that. But (we know that) the Church has not even said that Judas Iscariot is in Hell. We (do) know that there are many people in Hell. We have had enough privileged saints and apparitions of Our Lady and other things that prove to us that there are many people in Hell. We do not know who, but there are.

Therefore, the statement that “everybody has been saved by Christ on the cross” is not only heretical but also patently absurd.


Gregorius Hesse

Material and Formal Heresy

You have to be able to distinguish the terms: material and formal.

Material is just what it means, the matter of something is there. But it might not be intentional or declared as such.

If I was to say after five of those pitches (which for me is a little bit too much) that the Blessed Trinity is six persons this is quite obviously material heresy. I mean, the heresy is pronounced; it is there. But I guess you will still trust me and say, “he did not want to say this.” So, formally, (the heresy) is not there. It is not formal heresy.

But if one of you say, “excuse me father,” (now that I am sober, and alright, and listening, and paying attention), and ask, “if it is true that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived?” If I say, “I don’t care what Vatican I says; definitively she was not (immaculately conceived),” this is, of course, formal, declared, intentional, sinful heresy.

But if you ask me, “is it true that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived?” and I don’t hear the term “not immaculately conceived” or “immaculately conceived”; I don’t hear it well; I think I heard it well; (but) then I say, “no” or “yes,” and it is the wrong answer: it is (just) material heresy. I’ve just pronounced something that in itself is heresy but, obviously, I don’t want to do so.

And you ask me, “what?” And I will get the idea. I will realize that you said something, obviously, in a way that I could not really hear well. And I must have given the wrong answer. And I say, “excuse me, say it again; repeat the question.” And then the thing will be cleared up.

You have to understand that sometimes heresy can be there. It can even be repeated heresy. It could be there fifty times over, and yet, because the guy is an imbecile – an ignoramus – or a philosophical pervert, he might not realize this is heresy. He might not want to speak heresy. But, at the same time, do it all the time.

Objectively He is a Murderer

Now before I start to talk about the somewhat disastrous document that our present dear Holy Father (John Paul II) issued in 1988 I want to clear up some distinctions with you.

One of the major causes of confusion today is the lack of distinctions. People talk, and discuss, and dispute, and fight and they seem to fight over two different things when usually it is the one and the same thing talked about in two different terms that both are not properly understood. So, I want you to be able, as if you were looking it up in the dictionary, to distinguish between the terms subjective and objective. Those who know my tapes hopefully know these distinctions already but not everybody does so so I will have to repeat them.

When you talk about something in an objective way you are referring to and concentrating on the object. The Romans would say res. You are talking about the thing itself. When you pronounce subjective judgment, you are talking about something from a subjective or personal viewpoint.

For example, there can be no discussion that the wine I am drinking right now is objectively a good wine. I had gallons of it. I had probably truckloads of it so far, but I never had a headache. It never gave me a headache, so it must be a good wine, objectively (speaking). However, you might not like it. That is a subjective judgment. It is objectively a good thing, like – objectively – onions, garlic, red peppers, and all kinds of things are good to you, but you might not like them. Subjectively you reject something which is your right to do. You reject something that objectively is good for you.

Objectively actually means talking about the object and not about your personal viewpoint on the object. Subjectively means you are referring to your personal viewpoint. And the same thing is true for objective and subjective judgment.

If you call somebody a murderer, you might be pronouncing an objective judgment. You say this guy murdered his neighbor. Now he is in jail. But subjectively he might not be a murderer at all. You do not know. Subjectively he might be a maniac who did not know what he was doing. Subjectively it might have been an accident, but the poor guy cannot prove it. Objectively he is a murderer. So, if you cannot distinguish (between) the two (types of judgment) then you are not fit for theological discussion because when we talk, and we will talk about the dear present Holy Father (John Paul II) I will have to pronounce objective judgment.

But if anyone afterward says that father (Hesse) has condemned the person of the present Pope then he is a liar because I told you explicitly that this is what I will not do. I refuse any personal judgment whatsoever on anybody. I am not even saying that Clinton will go to hell: what more do you want? I don’t know. The probability speaks for it, but I don’t know. I cannot pronounce subjective judgment on either Clinton or her husband. And I will not. Objectivity she’s a criminal, a traitor to the country, so is her husband. You have to distinguish (between) the two (types of judgment).

On Novus Ordo Mass

As an introduction I was ordained a priest in 1981, 21st of November, at the altar of the Chair of St. Peter, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, which is why I am wearing the dress of a Monsignor. That is a privilege that has been given to the Basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome by Pope Urban VIII. I think it was in 1626, but I am not sure.

I have been ordained, unfortunately, in the new rite of ordination, but, thank God, in Latin. Everything strictly according to the book. As Bishop Lefebvre said, that would be valid; as Bishop Fellay says it is valid, and the father who is my present superior in Austria said it is valid. Bishop Williamson said no need for a conditional re-ordination.

In 1986 I started to work for Cardinal Stickler as his private secretary. In 1988 Cardinal Stickler was retired and so was I.

In 1991 I went back to Vienna after having finished my doctorate in Theology, after a previous doctorate in Canon Law.


Gregorius Hesse

Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Wine

I want to quote to you one of Gilbert Keith Chesterton most beautiful poem on the subject:


“Feast on wine or fast on water

And your honour shall stand sure,

God Almighty’s son and daughter

He the valiant, she the pure;

If an angel out of heaven

Brings you other things to drink,

Thank him for his kind attentions,

Go and pour them down the sink.”


When I gave one of my talks last year in Los Angeles, there was a very Victorian lady there, who questioned me about my drinking wine. I said: “Madame, remember, what was the first miracle that Christ worked? He made sure they had enough wine for a feast. And, what was the first thing Our Lady did? She asked Him to produce some more wine. Never forget that! We do not want to be more godly than God.


Gregorius Hesse


Sin is our hard reality. Sin is real and certain. We are immersed in an atmosphere of sin. An environment of sin surrounds us. From the onset, humanity was plunged into sin. God then was about to drown them all. The Universal Deluge. Exemplary chastisements and punishments, like Sodoma and Gomorrah.

Our Lady of Fatima said that wars are chastisements for sin. There will always be wars in the world for as long as there are collective sins in great scale. Abortion is an example. Usury, another one. There will be nuclear wars in the world.

Rampant paganism, materialism, sins of the flesh, led to the complete destruction of Christian civilizations in the past.

Segundo Llorente