So then, we’re going to do here, I guess the next stage of dealing with the people in the Archbishop Ambrose situation is do a catechism and a consideration of, there's an opportunity to do with a catechism, canonical approach next. So, we’re gonna have to do with you guys a catechism on the situation of Archbishop Ambrose with Canon Law, with the dogmatic and moral theology have to say about the bishops. And then also it's buried on our situation and then we'll have a little discussion, whatever afterwards. But I just, lay out some of the points concerning, the situation here with the consecration of the bishop and then also some of the apparent parallels it's seem to be there, similarities in our situation now and the situations in the 80s for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X, in the old days. 

      But in any case, the first thing is with regard to…(asks a seminarian to get his backpack)… what's the rule about the consecration of a bishop. The root, the issue we’re dealing with here is we need a bishop to do the ordinations, also potentially the confirmations, but of course, primarily, of course, ordination to continue the Catholic priesthood and what are the requirements of the Church for the bishop to do ordinations and confirmations. And what's the law on rule of the Church about ordinations and confirmations. So, I kind of mentioned some of those points in the talk a few weeks ago but that was more about, was more of a call to repentance and more of a dealing with kind of the spiritual side of the gossip that's kind of floating around. Now, we’re going to see that here, we’re only going to consider not so much the gossip that’s floating around, even though it has to be dealt with, but what's the situation of the consecration of bishops and ordination of priests in the Catholic Church. And so, obviously in order to continue the Catholic Church, you need priests and you need the priesthood and the high priest is the bishop who passes on ordination and confirmation and so where this has become an issue for us is that, we actually since the seminarians started we got our first, we have a first case of an actual bishop who's willing to, to try to help us. And so that kind of brings it to the fore because before the Bishop Ambrose came on the scene, it was kind of a non-issue in the sense that it would seem clear to me for instance, that it’s very obvious that we have to do the work, the continuation of the Society Saint Pius X. We have to continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, preparing priests for the priesthood and an independent seminary and this, that is, Archbishop Lefevre started an independent seminary, that's going to be teaching the Catholic faith and then when the priests get ordained they'll still operate independently of modernist organizations. So, this exact same idea that Archbishop Lefevre had in his vision in the car, when he realized as superior general of the Society Saint Pius X, I'm assuming of the Holy Ghost Fathers, that it wasn't enough to establish a seminary, not enough to establish a seminary or good men, but in order for them to be able to function independently they had to be independent of modernist hierarchy. He was the superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers and he could easily have pulled out six or ten really solid traditional, Catholic, ante-modernist, Holy Ghost Father priests and established a seminary, he could easily have done that and then if he did that, many would have made them their own little itty bitty subgroup within the Holy Ghost Fathers and they would functioned more like the Holy Ghost Fathers function. But he realized that even though he’s Superior general, after twelve years his superiorship would cease and not only that but the crisis of the Church would not cease. He also realized that they would probably get worse in the next twelve years, not better. And then, he realized also that the Holy Ghost Fathers missionary order, which only works with those people that are of the Holy Ghost Fathers, whereas the crisis of the Church is a global crisis and there will be many people who need the Catholic faith, who are being trained by modernist or underneath modernist priests, who will not be able to function if there's not just a seminary producing solidly trained priests. Because in 1962 there were still seminaries producing solidly trained priests, there were still some of those seminaries around throughout the world. The good professors still teaching in the old way, be an anti-modernist. But the big, big problem was when they would be ordinated, they will be under the local superiors, may be incorporated in the regular dioceses and they would not be able to do any kind of stable work preserving the faith. 

      You can foresee the Saint Athanasius situation where being driven out of the Church we have to operate independently and so, in 2012, after many discussions, with Bishop Williamson especially, he was kind of my spiritual director at the time, and the many conversations we had about this crisis and society we're beginning to notice that there's a change of faith, change of spirit in the priests of the Society and that if there isn't a turning around in the General Chapter of 2012, we needed to establish this independent seminary maintaining fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre by the fall of 2012, as in immediately. And of course, the Bishop said, we discussed it many times, ‘yes, it is true, yes yes yes’, and Bishop Williamson should be the rector and ‘yes yes yes, of course’, he always, oh now think back, he always said, ‘yes yes yes’, in principle, in principle, in principle. But of course, that turned out that obviously he didn't do those things. And so that we have to, because it's necessary to continue the work of the Society which means we need to have priests who are validly ordained, who are going to be Catholic priests professing the Catholic Faith but they must be operated independently so that they can respond to the call of the faithful wherever the faithful call. Because the practical charism of the SSPX is a global missionary society which is, and there are many global missionary societies we’re not the only one, all missionary societies are global theoretically, but what was specific about us is that, we have to be able to operate independently of the local bishops and that's what makes us different from the other dioceses, the other religious orders, because we're going to be going into dioceses of where bishops and priests are not going to be happy and why are we going to go there? Because of the crisis of Faith. Now we’re in 2012, we find ourselves in a very similar situation. That now the priests who are conservative or maintain the faith, they're only localized and the people that need that faith are all over and so therefore, there’s a need to continue exactly what Archbishop Lefevre did, independent seminary and continue the work. So, we discussed that multiple times, that we have to do it. 

      2012, we tried to start, Bishop Williamson did not accept. Not only did he not come to the seminary but in 2012 he didn't step out of the Society. We weren't ready, it was too quick because I was officially expelled October the 3rd, 2012 there was still some hope to not be expelled, October is time to begin the seminary. So, we determined, alright 2013, is the next year, we're going to start the seminary by 2013, no matter what. And during the year 2012-2013, our primary going around the world speaking with priests, speaking with the faithful, and the primary purpose was to establish this seminary and that it needed to be done, no matter what the adverse circuмstances, it had to be done and then finally in October 2013 we started the seminary. And then it became clear that Bishop Williamson, who was supposed to be our bishop, do the ordinations, he's told me in the very, very beginning that I asked him, ok we're gonna have the seminary, going to start in October and can you come in, next year in February 2nd? Do the, the, the blessing of the cassocks and the tonsure? And he said, ‘well no. I may not, may not come for the tonsure and I may not come for anything’. So, he told me that back in 2012, well back in 2013, before the seminary started and tried to encourage me, of course, to not start the seminary. And this is because, ‘I don't think it's a time for seminaries. You can't make seminaries now’, and I said, well the seminary has to be established, Bishop Williamson refuses and he made it clear of that. He did come and bless the seminary when we started October 2013, he visited. But even though he visited and blessed the seminary…(Asks seminarians about length of Bishop Williamson’s visit in 2013)…Three or four days or something, just a few days he was here but it wasn't a full week. It was his second visit, first visit he came in 2012, right after he was expelled from the Society and we had a conference here and then the second visit was in 2013, and he blessed the seminary. So, he refused and I didn't worry about it. And I remember we had a priest retreat and I told Bishop Williamson, I said, look you're the only pebble on the, the only bishop, you're the only one, we have only these four bishops, you're the only one standing with the truth. He says, ‘I'm not the only pebble on the beach’, I said, yes you are and you know you are, because there aren't any other bishops in the world that are valid bishops, that aren't sedesvacantism or whatever, and who are going to be able to come forward and help us, you're the only ones, you or one of these four bishops. He says, ‘no, no, no, no. I'm not the only one’. And so, we continued the seminary and I said, we’re not worried about it, God will provide in His own due time. 

      In 2015, the Arch-, Bishop Williamson then opened up his public attack against us, that's when he kind of opened up his public attack, was 2015. He had been working underneath, trying to get every seminarian to leave the seminary, trying to get everyone who wanted to be a sister or a nun to not become a sister or a nun, trying to shut things down before they can get started. Trying to, when we went around the parishes, I always traveled with Bishop Williamson because I knew that at each parish, he would tell people to leave, and he would tell them to go back to the Society, I knew exactly what he was doing. So, I traveled with him and smiled and whenever he talked to somebody and said, ‘leave’, I would tell them, ‘stay’. 

      And so, there was the one case in Saint Mary's Kansas, where he was saying some of the new mass being good and a guy in the back, he says ‘excuse me’, we had about seventy-five or eighty people there at that conference, ‘excuse me Bishop, but did you just say that the new mass was okay?’ And Bishop Williamson began to respond. I was standing on the side and I knew exactly what he was going to say, it was going to be the same crap that he said in 2015, three years, two years later, so when he started to respond, I immediately responded, for him, and said the new Mass was straight from hell and it's evil and intrinsically evil and it's not just secondarily bad. And then the Bishop, Bishop Williamson, went…(Does hand gestures)…He pointed to me and made gestures and then we went on to the next question. Because I knew that he was going to pull out, and if he pulls this stuff out, I'm gonna have to attack him right then and there, so I didn't really want to do that, and so I answered for him, I just answered right for him. Trying to avoid any kind of a public conflict. So, anyway 2015 though, he really opened up, actually, with the put away your toys and he opened up on a public attack, because they're trying to shut down the seminary. And at that same time was when Archbishop Ambrose appeared on the scene. And so, it just feels shortly before that, it was that same summer that he appeared on the scene, and he says, ‘you know, I want to meet with Bishop Williamson, I want to meet with you guys, I like what you’re seeing, what you're doing. My name is Archbishop Ambrose and I’m in Colorado.’ So, I called him up and thought it was just another one of these nut bishops or whatever, but I called him up and then he seemed very unusually knowledgeable for bishops who or priests that came from the non-seminaries or the Thuc line bishops and all that, who never went to a seminary, never studied, they don't know anything. 

      And then so, they did investigation, went and visited him and the crisis arose at the very end of October, yeah, the very end of the September. Before the seminarians came. Was end of September, just before the seminary started. Father Voight sent out his letter that I'm a thief and then this it was a Constance sent her letter out. Oh, that was later. No, it was around the same time. That's when he left and that’s when he sent it out. But he sent his letter out, but not her. He said, ‘we have to get, keep these young men from coming to the seminary’. Then the accusations against Paul the Mexican, accusations against myself, accusations about Bishop Ambrose. And it was occasioned by Father, by Greg Taylor putting out a notice that said, that Bishop Williamson has a pedophile priest with him in Father Abraham, in Broadstairs. Now, the faithful tried to asked him quietly not let him continue to come and say the masses, bequeath him off the circuit and he said, no he's not going to do that. And after speaking to him several times and trying to get him to quietly do something about it, he's not. So, he made a notice, public notice. Within six hours or ten hours of that notice, immediately all the vomit came. Because Bishop Ambrose did visit here September the 13th weekend and there was, basically he said mass, it was in the summertime, he said mass and he gave us a little talk about, ‘I’m Bishop Ambrose and came from here and there’ and so on, and there was nothing really happened. There was no fuffle, or no anything. But once the three, two and a half weeks later when Greg Taylor put out that notice there was an immediate massive explosion. 

      Then, so continued the investigation of Archbishop Ambrose and so on. And what brought it to an end in 2015, we made it very clear that there's no issue of being able to work with Archbishop Ambrose was when he decided to canonically direct the seminary, he was, ‘I can canonically direct a seminary’. I remember he did that on a private mass that we had, it was the day of the wedding of my nephew, so I left for the wedding, Father Hewko had to leave for the circuit and Bishop Ambrose left for Colorado. And so, my brother, Father Tim, was in Colorado, the wedding was in Colorado, with my brother, my nephew, my oldest nephew Joseph, being married. And then he said a private mass but it was the only Mass with the seminarians… (incoherent)… some of the seminarians went to it because it wasn’t a scheduled Mass and one of them was Martin, who decided to film it and then put it on the internet. And so he says, and that he wanted us to be under his jurisdiction and I said, no we can't do that, we cannot accept jurisdiction because that will be accepting a parallel hierarchy, which we don't accept. Remember that the bishop comes in, does the ordination as in, even when our bishops do ordinations, it’s just an auxiliary bishop providing a valid ordination. So, when I was ordained by Bishop Fellay, Father Schmidberger was the superior of the Society Saint Pius X and when I knelt down and put my hands in the hands of Bishop Fellay and said, ‘do you promise obedience to your superiors?’ Because he was not my superior, he was just a bishop, he did the ordination. And just like now, they'll switch back to that again now that Father Pagliarani is the superior. When he does the ordination you'll say, ‘will you promise obedience to your superiors?’, your legitimate superiors within your religious congregation. 

      When every priest is ordained, no priest is allowed to be ordained who is a ‘Vagos’, who is a vagrant priest and then, what I found interesting about that particular issue, is that the ORCM back in the 1970s, Father LeBlanc in Phoenix and many other priests tried to create a seminary for independent young men and there has been an attempt to do that and at least in many states, multiple times, and I'm sure it’s been done in other places ever since Vatican II. And all of the attempts failed the idea was that Father Ringrose, Father LeBlanc, all these priests who are in independent chapels would have one of their young men from their parish go to the seminary, they would study in the seminary after they'd be ordained, they would not be a member of any religious order or congregation, they said they'd come back to the parish where they were and then when the old priest died it would take his place and this way they would continue the priesthood like if they can arrange parish priest. And there was a great desire to do that all throughout the 70s, 80s, 90s and it completely failed, nowhere did it succeed. Only the Society Saint Pius X, their religious order who succeeded in making, okay we're gonna make seminarians who are going to be priests. When you become a priest, you can't just be a validly ordained priest, but you need to have a function, you need to belong to a religious order. So, when here we didn’t have the bishop, we still don't have the bishop to this day, but we have, whenever you get ordained it's to be of the Society Saint Pius X Marian Corps…(Asks seminarian to go get Father Pancras).

      So, in any case so they, with regard to the Code of Canon Law was required for the making of valid Catholic bishop and it's really relatively simple. Any valid bishop, any bishop who has the power of orders, whether he believes in God or there he is Catholic in good standing or whether he is suspended interdicted or excommunicated, whether he is an apostate, a schismatic or a heretic, the only other possibility is dead. So, that's every any kind of living bishop was going to fit in one of those seven categories. A Catholic bishop in good standing or, and that is where our bishops stand by the way, the bishops of the Society, they are Catholic bishops of good standing. They’re called suspended or excommunicated but that's actually not correct because they’re really not suspended or excommunicated. But so, they actually fit into the category of Catholic bishop in good standing. However, a Catholic bishop of good standing or truly suspended, that's legitimately suspended, because it if it’s illegitimate, you fit into category one. Truly interdicted, forbidden to offer any sacraments. Suspended means, suspended and interdicted are very similar to one another. Suspended is they're suspended from the use of their sacraments, interdicted, I think they're even interdicted where they can't receive a Catholic burial I think, it just goes a little bit further I believe is the case of interdicted. And then excommunication, which is practically is similar to interdict, it's more serious so that they’re an excommunicated bishop, a truly excommunicated bishop or priest. And then, there’s an apostate, one who was Catholic and left the Catholic Faith. Schismatic, one who has essentially, theoretically, has the same faith but is separated from the Church and is rarer than the truth that is only a schismatic, because most schismatics are also heretics. And then lastly, the heretic. 

      Whenever a bishop of one of those six categories or a bishop who's in good standing but does not get permission from Rome to consecrate then he would be also in trouble. So, in any case so the Code, the Code of Canon Law here that, so first. So, one who was excommunicated prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the sacraments, sacramentals except for the exceptions that follow. And then that's Canon 2261. So, one was excommunicated or is not supposed to offer the sacraments, except paragraph number two. The faithful will do regard for the prescriptions in paragraph three, can for any just cause seek the sacraments and sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking and then the one who is excommunicate and approached, can administer the sacraments and, and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons for the one requesting. And so, that when there is an excommunication, a really excommunicated bishop, or really excommunicated priest, if the faithful ask him for the sacraments he can give it, assuming he's truly excommunicated, if he’s not excommunicated well then, it’s a nonissue right. That’s why we say with our priests and bishops within in the Society of Saint Pius X priests are not our priests, we are not suspended, even though we're said to be suspended, the bishops are not excommunicated, even though they are claimed to be excommunicated. But even if they were, the faithful could ask them for the sacraments, but from a bad excommunicate, that's the excommunicatis vitantus, other excommunicates after a condemnatory or a declaratory sentence has come, then only the faithful can ask in the danger of death. So, if there is someone who's nominate, named excommunicated, then that person who is, we call of a vitantus excommunicated, then the faithful can only ask the sacraments from him in the danger of death. An excommunicated who is excommunicated but he’s not vitantus, the faithful could ask the sacraments from him and they don't even have to have a reason, they just ask and the excommunicated priest or bishop can administer the sacraments, that would apply for confirmation and also for Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders as well. 

      Now, then with regard to the Law of the Church on the excommunication, the Canon 2370, it was changed to an excommunication. A bishop consecrated another bishop and the assistant bishop, or in a place of bishops, priests, and those who receive consecrations without an apostolic mandate against the prescriptions of Canon 953, are by law suspended in the Apostolic See, unless the Apostolic See dispenses them and that's Canon 3370. That's the old law that says that if you consecrate a bishop, you're suspended. Pius XII changed that to an excommunication, so that's the famous changing to an excommunication in 1951 and then 1955 and this is the Canon that's in question here. So, that the bishop who is consecrated or the priest who is ordained, no, no, the priest is suspended, the bishop also excommunicated, if the consecration or, applies to Bishop Ambrose, if he was consecrated by any one of those six unapproved bishops then he would be considered excommunicated according to the new legislation. Because of a violation of the Title 6 and so putting together the titles of the, this is important for us and the Society of Saint Pius X, that we recognized that in 1988, 1988, our four bishops were consecrated without permission of Rome and they were immediately accused of being in schism. And what's interesting about this particular situation with Archbishop Ambrose, is that we’re also accused of being in schism and this accusation we should be familiar with that, they're accused of being in schism for consecrating a bishop without the permission of Rome. So, when you’re talking about the consecration of a bishop, John Paul II vaguely says in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the Schimatic Act, and of course, he claims it's a schismatic act, when according to the Law of the Church, the consecration of a bishop without permission of Rome, and remember as far as the Church is concerned you've got those six possibilities. So, it doesn't matter which one, actually, there’s a seventh possibility, that is an approved Bishop doing it without approval or suspended, interdicted, excommunicated bishop or an apostate, schismatic or heretical Bishop all of those, any one of those when they do it, there is a punishment of excommunication created by Pius XII and before that and in the history of the last two thousand years, suspension. Then you have Canon 2372, just afterwards by the way, which says that they incur upon the fact a suspension from a divinis, this is a communal from saying mass and so on, reserve the Apostolic See, who presumed to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after declaratory or condemnatory sentence or from a notorious apostate heretic or schismatic. But whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one and as these lacks the exercise of the orders received until he is dispensed. So, you got Canon 2372, there's two codes later that says that if a priest received ordination from an act, from one of these excommunicated or suspended, all those seven categories, if he receives, he has himself a punishment, is suspended out of a divinis, the Apostolic See. But if he does it in good faith then he does not receive that penalty he's not suspended, a divinis, he just simply should not exercise his order until he has been dispensed and according to wormwood in the Code of Canon Law, a commentary, that's whenever a bishop gives him an assignment, so he doesn't have to do a suspension but just give him an assignment. 

      An example in history is Saint Athanasius, Saint John Chrysostom, and that when they left their diocese because they were thrown out and other saints thrown out their diocese, they were thrown out multiple times, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Athanasius when they were thrown out of the diocese, heretical bishops took their place. Aryan bishops or historian bishops took their place and then those bishops ordained priests in their absence. When the bishops came back, Saint Athanasius restored to his see or Saint John Chrysostom was restored to his see, they did not re-ordain or absolve or reassign those priests, they simply continued as Catholic priests in the diocese. And Saint Augustine, he has the good quote about that. The good Saint Augustine says they left, Saint Augustine talks about the fact that the condemning of the Donatists, that they left worthy of punishment the union makes them corrected and that so there was no issue. Remember multiple times in the Church from the very beginning, the early precursors of the Orthodox, which now the Orthodox, we call them by one name, historians, monophysites, they functioned as bishops without the, you don't need the permission of Rome, of course, in those days but the permission of the Metropolitan of the other Catholic Bishops, consecrated bishops without permission, consecrated bishops who were heretical, consecrated bishops that were schismatic and when the Church came back to its senses, they just simply functioned as bishops, functioned as priests and that's been the practice of Church for basically two thousand years. And it explains why the penalty of consecrating a bishop or ordaining a priest without permission is in Title 6, which means it’s the least, not very important in amongst the Titles. 

      So, the penalties and delicts condemned by the Church. Title 1 is on delicts against the Faith in the unity of the Church and then Title 2 on delicts or penalties, I mean crimes, against religion. Title 3 on delicts against ecclesiastical authorities, persons and things and I think this is, and then this is where you attack the reputation of a bishop or you attack a bishop or attack the priests and so on, delicts against ecclesiastical authorities, persons and things, desecrating a church. On delicts against life liberty, property, good reputation and good morals and so that's Title 4. So, these are all and they're more serious crimes than ordained a bishop, ordained a priest without permission and then Title 5 on the crime of falsehood. And I think that's in regard to accusing priests of, that's a crime specifically where a woman accuses a priest of impurity in the confessional and she's lying and of course, the priest can't defend himself because of the seal of the confessional and then they also refer to the falsehood in court but I think it's primarily the crime of falsehood in regard to violations of the confessional on the part of the faithful and that. So, and then, Title 6 on delicts in the administration and the reception of orders and the other sacraments and this is the one we're dealing with here, the less Title 6. So, the other five titles one of which is destroying the reputation of another, destroying churches, sending, you’ll notice that all these are most serious delicts against these other crimes, these other sins, these other penalties, or other crimes in the Church, they don't make one cease to be Catholic, they receive a punishment and it depends on the degree of the crime. And so, we arrive at Title 6 and I think what's interesting about the history of Title 6 is that it brings up a really big question of why did Pope Pius XII make an excommunication for a crime that said like, the listed number of say sixty or sixty-five, so you got the most serious crimes and crime number of sixty gets an excommunication. But the thirty or forty crimes above it have almost no excommunications but fifty of the crimes got no excommunications. 

      Why do they have an excommunication there? I think it's true, we can say that the reason for the addition of the excommunication for the consecration of a bishop is specifically because of Vatican II. It had to be the reason, it’s not because of the Communists in China, it’s with the communists in Rome. So, to the level of excommunication, why do that? Because of the fear that when Vatican II comes into play that there will be bishops who will stand up against Vatican II and will consecrate priests who are not heretics, priests that are not in favor of the good liberal garbage going on in the council and they'll only be suspended and so they'll only get a slap on the wrist and these bishops will end up being a massive headache. So therefore, there’s an addition of an excommunication. Reading one of the Latin Canon lawyers Capello, I think it was Capello, or another guy with a C, he said the excommunication of Pius XII does not apply to the consecration of a bishop who's an auxiliary bishop. So, in other words according to them the excommunication wouldn't even apply to the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. The excommunication could only apply to a bishop who's being consecrated in order to take on jurisdiction and the diocese. And this is what makes the penalty excommunicable. Because it's absurd to excommunicate somebody just for consecrating a bishop or for ordaining a priest, ordaining a priest is a suspension, consecrating a bishop is an excommunication. It's absurd to do that because there's no bad, there's no proportion between the punishment and the crime and he said the reason that therefore that punishment only applies when a bishop is consecrating another bishop who is going to take on jurisdiction, auxiliary bishops. If a bishop was a consecrated bishop and a priest a bishop without jurisdiction the excommunication of Pius XII will not apply. I think that's Capello, or Colo, or something, I think it’s Capello but it might not be Capello, but somebody with a C, a Canon lawyer, Colley or something, commenting on that Code of 1955, it was 51’, then repeated in 55’.

      So, what happens if an excommunicated apostate Bishop ordains a Catholic priest or any priest to the Episcopacy? What happens is, if he doesn't do it, if he does it in good faith there's no excommunication, no penalty. If does it in bad faith, there is excommunication but the excommunication does not affect anyone else. Remember it was one of the points we made, when we look at the consecration of Archbishop Lefevre, he consecrated four bishops without the permission of Rome. What should have happened from the Roman perspective, if they were honest, on July 2nd or 1988 was, we declare that Bishop, Archbishop Lefevre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Tissier, Bishop de Galarreta and the, Bishop Fellay, are excommunicated for consecration without permission. That's it, one paragraph. That's it, that's all that could legally be done and morally be done. But what was done? What was done is that they're excommunicated for violating the code, Canon 2370 and violating Code 2370, the old Code, whatever the number is in the new code, it just says the same thing, and this schism means we’re going to establish Ecclesia Dei commission and this schism. But wait there is no schism. When a priest is consecrated by a bishop without permission even if it's an apostate, schismatic or heretical bishop, and maybe he can get them all together at once cover everything, so it could be an apostate, schismatic and heretic so that he can get all the best of all worlds. And so he's an apostate, schismatic, heretic. If he does the consecration, so in this case Bishop Hryhorij consecrating Bishop Ambrose, that would at the worst-case penalty make him receive an excommunication which would have be a personal punishment and because that the punishment is for the minister not for those that receive sacraments from the minister. I think it's from the Saint, Saint Thomas I think it is.The punishment is for the minister, not for those who received from the minister because remember it’s an individual punishment. So, we used to point out in 1988 they said, if you go to Bishop Williamson’s Mass or if you go to Bishop Fellay's mass or if you accept Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay, you're excommunicated and you’re part of a schism.

      Number one, excommunication cannot go from person to person. Penalties cannot travel from person to person. And that if one person is a penalty it cannot be passed on to someone else and so penalties don't travel from person to person. Penalties have to be accepted strictly so the penalty is applied if you strictly violate the law then you receive a penalty, if you don't strictly violate the law, you don't receive the penalty. So, and then of course, excommunication does not equal schism or heresy or sinning against unity of the Church. If it did, the composers of the Canon law under Saint Pius X and, Gregory, and Benedict XV, they knew what the crimes were, they would have put it under Title 1, as we mentioned multiple times in the defense of Archbishop Lefebvre. There is no schism, it's impossible to even consider schism. Even if you really believe that these four bishops or these six bishops are excommunicated, that punishment only applies to them, you can even have your kids confirmed by them, you can even do that, according to Canon Law. So that you, if you did, even if you firmly believe that these six bishops are excommunicated, even though you're wrong they're not excommunicated, but supposing they really were, according to the Code of Canon Law any of the faithful can ask the sacraments of the excommunicated and that means they can receive them. So, what is the worst-case scenario of an apostate, a schismatic or a heretical bishop consecrating another priest to the Episcopacy? Personal punishment for that person and nothing more. Punishment does not pass to others. 

      Secondly, when the consecration takes place most of, an apostate atheist consecrates a priest, he doesn't make the guy an atheist, if he's a Catholic and consecrates the priest, he doesn’t make the guy Catholic. Because now we have Catholic Bishops who have tried to ordained women and we have Catholic Bishops who have ordained non-Catholics. It's happened since Vatican II, they've done it secretly but they've done it. There have been Catholic Bishops that have ordained non-Catholics to the priesthood and may have ordained them to the Episcopacy. Now that ordination, obviously, is illegitimate and they would be excommunicated for doing that, legitimately excommunicated for doing that because they obviously didn’t have a good reason to do it and it's wrong. But their ordination would neither make the ordainand a Catholic or make them a non-Catholic. Ordination is a sacrament puts an indelible mark on the soul and it's a sacrament instituted by Christ and Saint Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa, Christ is the number one, He's the principal minister of the sacrament and the priest is only a secondary minister, he's just a secondary minister, so all he has to do is intend to carry the message. It's just like a messenger who has a sealed message, he doesn't have to agree with the message. Like I remember in the case of the, Hamlet he was carrying a message and the message says execute Hamlet. He didn't know that, oh of course he opened the message and kind of made an adjustment to the message, didn't execute the guys who were executing the other guys. But you’re made to carry a message you don't know what the message says, you don't believe in the message, you don't like the message, you're just carrying the message. When you deliver the message, it's delivered, and when you find out the messages are going to kill you, that stinks, but you are simply intending to carry the message, you carry the message, you deliver the message, it's delivered. And so, you don't have to believe in the message, you don’t have to like the message, you don't have to, you just simply carry it. 

       And that's what's required for a bishop or a layman or to administer a sacrament because laymen can administer the sacrament of Baptism. And so that when they administer the sacrament of Baptism like in 1887, there's some bishops here in America who said that Methodist baptisms are invalid because Methodists do not believe in removing original sin, they don't believe in the doctrine of baptism, they think baptism is just a nice little fluffy ceremony, and it's in the doctrine of the Methodists, Methodists don't believe in baptism they do not have the Catholic belief of baptism. So how can an Methodist minister who publicly and knowingly does not believe in baptism, how can he be a minister of baptism? So, it's invalid. So, the case was sent to Rome 1887. Rome responded saying, no Methodist baptisms are valid, period. You cannot conditionally re-baptize, you only take a Methodist convert and make him make a profession of faith because the minister of the sacrament is Christ, not the Methodist minister. And when the Methodists or the atheist or the Jєω or the pagan or the Catholic, the father of the child, when they pour water over the head of the baby, they're saying the words of the Church, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and their pouring the water over the head and the baby is baptized by Christ through the secondary administration of that minister. The ministers do not need to have faith, they do not need to believe in the sacrament. And this came up again in the Archbishop Lefebvre case because many people have claimed that the Archbishop Lefebvre and all the priest that come from him, like myself, Father Hewko and Father Chazal, we're all invalid priests. I'm learning it in the last night, let's see, there's a family of several ten or fifteen people there in Canada who have been twenty or fifteen, twenty years ago they left because of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest and I got twenty, twenty people over in Malaysia, they left because Archbishop Lefevre was not a priest and we appear to be running across people who decide that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest because Cardinal Lionheart ordained him without the intention to do what the Church does. 

      So, with regard to, the minimum requirements of the Church to make a valid sacrament. Minister applies sacrament and tends to say the prayers. That's it, and he's not making a mockery of those prayers. The only way to invalidate my intention is to play, to play the Mass or to play the Baptism, that is to make an external mockery of it. Saint Thomas Aquinas points out must be an external, thing he's playing, he’s playing, he's not doing the sacrament, he's playing the sacrament. Like when I was a kid and played mass, if I was secretly ordained when I was a baby, I wouldn't have known that but if I was ordained secretly when I was a baby I would be truly a valid priest but when I was six years old and playing Mass, it wouldn't make Christ present because I was playing Mass, I wasn't intending to say Mass, I was just playing Mass. So, the sacrament is necessarily valid if the matter and form are applied by the minister intentionally. In other words, he intends to do it, not doing it in his sleep, and he's not mocking the sacrament, it's a free willed human act, he doesn't have to believe in the sacrament, doesn’t have to have faith etc. So, the Church said that about the Methodists in 1887, and then of course, many times about, the Orthodox and the others. 

      It's interesting, it’s in My Catholic Faith Catechism, there on page 335 of the My Catholic Faith Catechism, on the duties and obligations of a priest that the Catholics know that all of the heretical bishops of the heretical churches, except the Anglicans because England's are clearly invalid because the… (incoherent word) …says they're invalid, by Pope Leo XII. But the Orthodox, but I think it's got the Polish National Church, and the old Catholics, the Jansenist, they have valid priests, valid bishops and continued apostolic succession and in the danger of death any Catholic can call on an Orthodox priest to anoint him, could hear his confession and bring him also viaticuм and so the sacraments can be received by them. And in many cases in the history of the Church, one recent case is that Costa in 1945, he started his own religion. He basically was a communist in Brazil and he blew the whistle on the Pope Pius XII letting nαzιs escape into South America. And so, Costa consecrated at least three bishops, he may have consecrated more, he started his own church and it's called the Apostolic Church of Brazil and he consecrated three bishops while he did that and the one of the, two of the bishops, came back to the Catholic Church, I don't know if they joined his religion or just got themselves consecrated by him, and there were two bishops received at Vatican II, they were two of the bishops at Vatican II. And so, they were consecrated by Costa and then came back to the Catholic Church. They just wanted to be bishops, so they got themselves consecrated a bishop, they came back and they were accepted and they were bishops at the council. And then another bishop who, just got consecrated by Costa and he remained a, he went to England and he's like the bishop that and he's the bishop who consecrated a lot of like, Taylor, a lot of the non-sedesvacantist bishops floating out there and so that the Church would not question their ordination, their consecration and then they were received back in the Church and never do they re-ordain the ones that are received back into the Church. 

      So, with regard to the faithful, if a faithful receives a sacrament from an excommunicated bishop or a priest, if there's legitimate reason, then there's no problem. If they have good faith that there is legitimate reason, there's no problem, if there's common error, like in Canon 202 of the Old Code, there's no problem and if they do it wrongly, there's a problem and they shouldn't do that but there's no actual canonical penalty for that. 

      And so, now we apply the codes there to the situation of Archbishop Ambrose. What do we know certain about Archbishop Ambrose? And that's not a matter of the dispute and that is number one, of course that he's either baptized in the Church of the Nativity in New York City in 1949, shortly after his birth as a Catholic in the Roman Rite. So, he's baptized Catholic in the Roman Rite. And then of course, he went to Catholic seminaries, it's part of New Jersey and he went to the Catholic Minor Seminary in New York and he also did his three years of teaching, like the Jesuits do, do three, several years of teaching before they get ordained, he did that teaching in Incarnation School as a seminarian, as a brother, in Long Island, New York, he did it for three years the appropriate time, 70’ to 73’ and then shortly afterwards was ordained a priest. And when he was ordained a priest by Bishop Ilnytskyy, in 1974, and Bishop Ilnytskyy was a bishop of the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America, of the USA, and when he ordained a Father William Moran in the Catholic chapel there in Long Island, he ordained him as a Catholic priest and he functioned as a Catholic priest under Bishop Boretsky and we have of the letters in file of the eparchy of Toronto that he, with certainty, that he was a priest of the diocese, incarnated in the Diocese of Toronto for two years. This is one thing Tony La Rosa can't understand. He says a temporary incardination is not an incardination, but of course it is. In the Code of Canon Law, when a priest transfers from one diocese to another he has to be incardinated from the moment he’s ordained and then he could be reincarnated in other diocese, they can receive him for a trial period. When they receive him, they receive him as incardinated into the diocese but with the right to remove him later on, that's only done by a revocation, if there's no revocation, he's incardinated. 

      It's also interesting as our case in the Society of Saint Pius X because the SSPX was approved in 1970, provisionally, this is our enemies make that note all the time, that it was a provisional temporary approval for only five years as a Pius Association, the Society of Saint Pius X and we're just a Pius Association, we’re just a Pius Association. Father Roberts likes bringing that one up, Pius association, we're not pious, and so that part doesn't apply. But this is not a Pius Association and yet in 1972, a priest here in Kentucky, the Father Urban Snyder, he was incardinated by Rome into the Society of Saint Pius X, he had to get a special approval from Rome, the reason why he had to get a special approval from Rome is because Father Urban Snyder from Kentucky, he’s one of the priests who lived here at the property, one of the priests who raised me, he's one of only two priests who were incarnate into SSPX in the entire world. One of them happens to be from here, in this place, and the other priest is a French priest, I don't know him, but I know Father Urban Snyder and that he was incardinated in 1972 in the SSPX with the approval of Rome. And why did it had to be done? Because Father Urban Schyder is a Trappist monk. The SSPX is a religious congregation and according to the Law of the Church, you can't go down. So, you can go from congregation to monk but you can't go from monk to congregation. Therefore, in order for Father Urban Snyder to be incorporated, to be incardinated in the SSPX, under Archbishop Lefevre, he had to receive a special permission, indult, from Rome, which he received in 1972 and then he was incarnated into the Society Saint Pius X, which means according to Rome in 1972, that temporary, so-called temporary, approval of the SSPX was an approval of the SSPX. It's like a standard way to approve of things, it's like when you read in the Bible. We were doing Book of Daniel with Bishop Williamson. He says Daniel comes and says, ‘Oh King live forever’. What does that mean? Means ‘hi’. It’s how you say ‘hi’ to a king. Does it mean the King’s going to live forever? No, it’s just that’s the way you greet a King, makes him feel good and so, all it means is ‘hi’, it's just a procedure. ‘Oh King live forever’, ‘Oh King live forever’, ‘Oh King live forever’. 

      And so likewise, when you receive someone into an organization, you receive the first temporarily. How many organizations do that? Every single organization in the Catholic Church. One of them is called the Society of Saint Pius X. When you take your promises on December the 8th, you're going to be received temporarily into the Society Saint Pius X and according to Canon Law, if you never renew them, like you're supposed to, but you stick around, guess what? Your still in the Society Saint Pius X and you have the responsibility, the Society Saint Pius X has a responsibility to take care of you and that's clear in Canon Law because of the fact that bishops love dumping priests, it's one of the things that they like to do. Bishops have always liked to dump priests and so as a protection for the priests the Church says, you gave a temporary approval to a priest fine, unless you publicly or clearly revoke that permission and expel him, that temporary permission equals permanent, and that's basic Canon Law. Basic Canon Law and the reason is because of the problem, so in the case of Archbishop Ambrose when he was Father William Moran incorporated into the, incarnated to the Diocese of the Eparchy of the Catholic, Eparchy of Toronto, he's a Catholic priest and you only need to be incarnated for one minute to be clearly a Catholic priest. You’ll also function certainly as a Catholic of the Diocese of Toronto, we've got the letters of Archbishop Ambrose, ‘can you can help out in the various parishes wherever needed, you could stay in New York City in America and help wherever needed, fine’. So that's what he did, he functioned only in Catholic places, Ruthenian and other places, the Eastern Rite Catholic churches and then you get to the 1976, 1976 consecrated bishop. 

      We got two consecrations in 1976, one is the consecration, that's a secret consecration in Rome and that secret consecration in Rome was the one with Cardinal Slipyj. And this consecration is the one that can't fully, fully, fully seal the verification of, nonetheless, is a very solid and good evidence that he really was consecrated there in Rome and one of the, I mean he was truly, we know for certain that he was truly connected with Cardinal Slipyj and there is because of the recent discovery of, actually, of Tony La Rosa, who wrote to the Santa Sophia in Rome and the church where Cardinal Slipyj was. And in the response, to this response 2018, 2015 he wrote in and the priests there said, we've got no record of any William Moran here in the records, there's no such thing as the consecration in Santa Sophia. Writing back in 2015, “Let me give you a brief response to your request concerning the presence and the historical archives of the UGCC in Rome of the docuмents testifying to possible bishop ordination of William (Vasyliy, Amvrosiy) Moran by Patriarch Josyph. Checking the main archival funds and cases reveal the complete absence of such docuмents.” So, no docuмent of the consecration found in their archival funds as bishop. “Moreover, the comparison of signatures of the beatitude Bishop Josyph and his Excellency Isydor Boretskyy from that period with the signatures in the ‘docuмent’”. Quote-unquote. “sent by you, certifies that your docuмent is a falsification and the signatures are false.” And so, he denies the consecration and the signatures in the consecration certificate. “We have found instead a letter from Bishop Boretskyy to Patriarch Josyph containing a petition for acceptance under the jurisdiction of the Bishop, under the jurisdiction of Bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America Mykolay Ilnytskyy with two priests, Ivan Ropke and William Moran, from November 29, 1974. In a draft of the response letter Patriarch Josyph asks Boretskyy to send the original docuмents and to find out more about the canonical status of the petitioners.” So, there we have a clear connection of Father William Moran and Bishop Ilnytskyy, specifically mentioned to receive Ilnytskyy of the Orthodox Autocephalous Church of America under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Slipyj, so, and the, Cardinal Slipyj says yes. In 1975, I got the newspaper clipping, actually the physical clipping, of a newspaper article in 1975, that says here is Father Ropke and with him Father William Moran, who are going to Rome for the holy year to meet their bishop, to meet their bishop. And so there, and they established, Father Ropke established a new Catholic parish, a new Ukrainian parish in a school nearby, ‘and we're looking for help for ladies to join the choir’. And the newspaper article, clipping, it says in 1975, a few months after this, that Father Ropke and Father William Moran are on their way to Rome to be with their bishop and the bishop is mentioned here, who's that Bishop? Bishop is the Cardinal Slipyj, so that they're under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Slipyj, and that they accept the jurisdiction under Cardinal Slipyj.