TRATCAST EXPRESS
PENECOST
The path before us leads from Easter to Pentecost, from that paschal dawn of unity that emerged here 20 years ago, we have set out towards a new Pentecost.
Yeah, well, you know, once you start with a Pentecost 2.0, there's really no reason why there couldn't be a 3.0.
A 4.0 or an 87.0.
What we need is not Catholics and Orthodox journeying towards some mystical unknown destination, but Orthodox becoming Catholics.
That's the only goal that is compatible with Catholic theology on the unity of the church.
Now, of course, France has had a lot more to say than that in this address, but we're not going to go through the whole thing.
There's just one more thing I want to mention.
At the very beginning, Francis said this, quote,
The bonds of faith that unite us go back to the apostles, the witnesses of the risen Jesus, and in particular to the bond between Peter and Andrew, who, according to tradition, brought the faith to these lands, unquote.
Wrong.
There are no bonds of faith that unite Catholics and Orthodox.
Because the Orthodox, being heretics, do not.
Do not have the faith.
In 1914, Pope Benedict XV declared in his encyclical, Ad Beatissimi, number 24, quote,
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected, unquote.
And this, of course, is in direct contrast to the false teaching of the Vatican II Church,
which holds that the faith can.
The faith can exist in elements, partially.
And, of course, that is what their entire ecumenical program is based on.
Quoting the Church Father St. Cyprian, Pope Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical, Satis Conitum, number 5, quote,
Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress.
He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ.
He who abandons the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ.
He who observes not this unity, observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation, unquote.
But what does Francis care about that?
He's got his own religion, and it's definitely not the Roman Catholic religion.
You may recall that a few weeks ago, a number of Novos Ordo academics and clergy published an open letter in which they accused Bergoglio of heresy.
Well, in a new 13,000-word interview released on Mexican television, Francis was just asked about that, and he responded, of course, by laughing at it.
A report by the so-called Catholic News Agency, dated May 29th, says, quote,
Pope Francis said he reacted with a sense of humor to the accusation of heresy made against him earlier this month.
It does not hurt me at all.
Hypocrisy and lie.
It's hurt me.
These hurt me.
But such a mistake where there are even people who have filled their heads with, no, please, you have to take care of them, too.
Pope Francis said in a Spanish interview published May 28th.
Mexican journalist Valentina Alasraqui asked the Pope how he took the accusation that he was a heretic, to which he responded,
With a sense of humor, my daughter.
I also pray for them because they are wrong and poor people.
Some are manipulated.
And who are those who signed?
Unquote.
In other words, he has nothing but disdain and contempt for these people, which is exactly what you would expect from a modernist.
When John XXIII discovered that the Holy Office had a file on him marked suspect of heresy, he also laughed.
You know, if the true Holy Office had a file on me that marks me as suspect of heresy, I would be horrified, scared to death.
And on my knees, begging God to forgive me for whatever I apparently did that merited such a suspicion.
And then I would do anything to remove that suspicion.
That would be the Catholic response.
The modernist's response, of course, is contempt.
Because the modernist has contempt for the Roman Catholic religion.
So, no surprise there.
Francis, the man who blathers on and on for a living about dialogue and building bridges.
About always humbly including people and reaching out to the marginalized.
When it comes to something that challenges him, decides to marginalize and exclude.
Arrogantly insulting those who have charged him with heresy by calling them poor and manipulated people.
Who basically deserve to be pitied.
And by doing that, he, of course, distracts from the real issue.
The many heresies he's guilty of.
To simply dismiss the accusation.
By saying it comes from people who don't deserve his attention.
Is not a refutation.
And there, once again, we can see his pertinacity.
He simply does not give a flip about the Catholic faith.
Now, what he does care about is liberation theology.
Which he's been shoving down everybody's throat since 2013.
And, of course, he cares about the climate change religion.
Now, that will get him going.
On May 27th, he addressed participants.
In a meeting on climate change.
Organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
And, of course, he didn't mind hijacking sacred scripture.
In support of his talking points.
After imploring the attendees to do what is necessary.
To stop all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
He enumerated a number of resolutions.
That will supposedly save the planet.
And he appealed for an end to the idolatry of money.
Then he said, quote.
You are your nation's financial leaders.
You keep the books for your respective governments.
Before all else, though, we must recognize the ledger of life itself.
Of human dignity and survival.
For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world.
But lose his soul.
It is a matter of adding things up.
The reckoning needed to save our world from indifference.
And from the idolatry of money.
That is what Jesus meant when he told us.
That the poor in spirit.
Are blessed.
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Unquote.
No, it's not.
What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world.
But lose his soul.
That rhetorical question posed by our blessed Lord.
Had nothing to do with saving the planet.
With survival.
Or even with human dignity.
At least not the way Francis means it.
It had to do with, you know, saving your soul.
Which is kind of obvious.
And as far as, blessed are the poor in spirit goes.
That concerns one's detachment from the things of this world.
You know, like the planet, for example.
Any created thing, ultimately.
But especially money and the pleasures of this world.
It has nothing to do with saving the world from indifference.
Or any other naturalist concept.
It's quite ironic, actually.
Because it is Francis who is squandering his soul.
And the soul's life.
And the souls of many, many others.
In order to gain the world.
Alright, last topic.
There has been a kerfuffle lately about
semi-tread darling Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.
Earlier this month, an English translation of Antonio Sochi's new book
was published by Angelico Press.
Entitled, The Secret of Benedict XVI.
Is he still the Pope?
On May 28th, Kwasniewski posted a review of this book.
On Amazon.com.
In which he stated, quote,
Sochi persuaded me with his careful analysis
of Benedict XVI's various utterances on the subject.
And there are a surprising number of them.
Archbishop Genswein's speeches.
And above all, the interpretations of canon lawyers.
None of them traditionalists, by the way.
Who have proved in detail
that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.
The argument is,
is not based on the St. Gallen Mafia,
but on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI and others.
All publicly available.
In other words, this is no conspiracy theory,
but a soberly argued case.
Unquote.
Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it?
Kwasniewski has publicly stated
that he has been persuaded of the idea
that Benedict XVI did not resign the papacy validly
because of detailed proof laid out in this book.
Well, that can only mean one thing.
Kwasniewski now believes Benedict XVI is still the pope
and therefore obviously Francis is not.
That is a huge development
because Kwasniewski is a major voice
and recognize and resist traditionalism of the indult stripe.
And him rejecting Francis
is basically an earthquake among the semi-trads.
Well, it didn't take long for the tremors to be felt
because since public opinion,
publishing those words,
he edited his review at Amazon several times
and now says this.
Quote,
Sochi gave me much to think about
with his careful analysis of Benedict XVI's utterances on the subject
and there are a surprising number of them.
Archbishop Genswein's speeches
and above all the interpretations of canon lawyers,
none of them traditionalists, by the way,
who argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity.
The argument,
is not based so much on the machinations of the St. Gallen Mafia
as on the inherent actions and statements of Benedict XVI
and others, all publicly available.
In other words, this is no conspiracy theory
but a soberly argued case.
Unquote.
So we went from persuaded me
to gave me much to think about.
We went from who have proved in detail
that the resignation was invalid
to who argue that it was invalid.
Quasniewski also expanded his review a bit
and now says things like,
quote,
There are certainly steps in the argument
that I wonder about or find less than convincing.
And the book raises quite as many questions
as it purports to resolve,
yet the complete picture is nothing less than apocalyptic.
Unquote.
Yeah, yeah.
Whenever the semi-trads are at their wits' end
with their false position,
they throw in the word apocalyptic.
Chris Ferreira,
does it too.
Anyway, on May 30th,
Quasniewski added an addendum
to his edited review that states,
quote,
Some are claiming that in my revisions to this review
I am backtracking and sanitizing my original position.
This is not so.
Rather, I have sought perfect clarity
in expressing my conflicting thoughts
about this book and its principal thesis.
I think too many people in this debate
are expecting, and in some cases,
believe they have attained
clear answers where there are none
and may never be until we quit this life
or until the inexorable progress of events shows
beyond gainsaying where the truth lies.
This, to me, is not a discouragement
of further thought and debate,
but a warning against celebrating
premature certainties.
Unquote.
Well, I personally think that that sounded
quite a bit different two days prior,
but, hey, ladies and gentlemen,
don't let yourself be disappointed.
Don't let yourself be disappointed.
Don't let yourself be distracted
by this ongoing Benedict versus Francis charade.
Who cares which of these Vatican II modernists
is the real false pope?
Tradcast Express is a production of Novos Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org,
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making a tax-deductible contribution
at novosordowatch.org slash donate.