Tradcast Express, it's Friday, November 8th, 2019.
Well, if you're tired of hearing about Amazon Senate this and Pachamama that, I have good news for you.
There's plenty of other stuff to talk about.
Like Pachapapa, for example.
You know, the public apostate who calls himself Pope Francis.
Yep, he's in the news once again, as Eugenio Scalfari, France's favorite former Catholic-turned-atheist journalist,
has published another bombshell in Tuesday's edition of the Italian left-wing newspaper La Repubblica.
What's the fuss this time?
According to Scalfari, Francis has told him that Jesus Christ,
did not physically rise from the dead.
Rather, his mere spirit returned from the grave and appeared to the women and the disciples.
Now, that, of course, would be just a little bit heretical and undermine the entire Catholic religion.
For, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, 17,
If Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.
Yesterday, the conservative Novosar,
a news site church militant, released a report on this with details.
Quoting Scalfari's paraphrasing of the fake pope,
Francis allegedly said,
Quote,
He, Jesus, was a man until he was put in the sepulcher by the women who restored his corpse.
That night, in the sepulcher, the man disappeared and from that cave came out in the form of a spirit
that met the women and the apostles,
still preserving the shadow of the person and then definitively,
disappeared, unquote.
Now, this was published not just in La Repubblica,
but is also part of Scalfari's new book,
which was released on Tuesday,
whose title translates into English as
The One God and Modern Society,
Meetings with Pope Francis and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.
So, what do you think?
Did Francis really say that or did Scalfari just make it up?
Well,
for someone who makes stuff up and ends up calumniating the supposed vicar of Christ,
Francis sure does give Scalfari an awful lot of interviews again and again
and never corrects or abrades him.
Francis has never personally denied anything Scalfari has attributed to him
and the Vatican has always given responses that seem to deny,
but don't actually deny, what Scalfari says about Francis.
It's always an evasive kind of reply,
along the lines of,
oh, we can't know if Francis really said that
and Scalfari is old and doesn't take notes and yada yada.
Well, you know, they could just ask the guy
and have him make a statement to the press.
It's not like the guy is too shy to speak to journalists.
Have him make a statement to the press that,
of course, he didn't deny the divinity of Christ
or the resurrection or whatever.
And that to say otherwise is outrageous
and that's not a good thing.
Scalfari needs to stop lying about him
and that he will never get another interview.
That's what would normally happen.
You know, if Francis were innocent
and this is all just some wicked atheist trying to smear a pope.
But, of course, it is evident that that's not the case
and Francis actually wants this controversy and scandal.
So, while I wasn't there and technically don't know
what Francis said to Scalfari,
it's simply absurd.
I think that the apostate journalist
is simply making it all up
and that Francis said nothing of the sort.
So, what will happen now?
Well, we've seen this a few times already,
so it's not that hard to predict.
There will be the usual media firestorm
about Francis having allegedly denied a dogma.
The Vatican will issue a statement
saying they're not privy to Francis' private conversations
and that Scalfari is not reliable
because he doesn't take notes.
And then Novos Ordo apologists like Dave Armstrong
and Jimmy Akin will dig out all the times
Francis has clearly affirmed the bodily resurrection of Christ
and say Scalfari is an abominable liar
and then triumphantly conclude
that they've successfully defended the pope once again.
Now, I could grant that perhaps Scalfari
doesn't remember all of the details
and speaking from memory
therefore got some nuance wrong about what he heard,
but not such basic things
as whether Christ rose in his body or not
or whether he always has been
and has always remained divine.
Keep in mind that Francis is a Peronist
and that means that he is happy to tell different people
different things about the exact same issue
depending on what is most helpful to his agenda
at that point in time.
But regardless what Francis told Scalfari,
we know from what he has said in public
that Francis in any case undermines the truth
of the bodily resurrection of Christ
by claiming that it is not a historical fact
but only something we can know by faith.
On April 19th, 2017,
he said the following during the general audience
speaking about our Lord Jesus Christ.
Quote,
He died, but he is risen
because faith arises from the resurrection.
Accepting that Christ is dead
and that he died crucified
is not an act of faith.
It is a historical fact.
Believing he is risen, on the other hand,
is an act of faith.
Our faith begins on Easter morning.
Unquote.
So he makes it sound like
he teaches the truth of the resurrection,
but he's actually denying it.
Because if the resurrection didn't happen in fact,
as historical fact,
then it doesn't matter
whether it would have been bodily
or spiritual or whatever.
Because whatever didn't happen,
didn't happen.
And no, you can't salvage that
by saying that the resurrection
has to be accepted on faith.
Of course it is an article of faith as well
and must be believed
on the authority of God revealing,
but it is also known
in the natural order
as a fact of history.
And were it not so,
then the Catholic religion
would have no foundation
and faith would not be
a theological virtue,
but foolishness.
By the way, the Frankster
is not the only one
who denies the resurrection in some way.
Listen, for example,
to the words of the oh-so-celebrated
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller,
who produces the craziest
theological sophistry,
but semi-trads love him
because he speaks
against adultery and idolatry.
Here's what he wrote
on the resurrection of Christ.
Quote,
A running camera
would not have been able
to make an audio-visual recording
of either the Easter manifestations
of Jesus in front of his disciples,
nor of the resurrection event,
which at its core
is the consummation
of the personal relation
of the Father to the incarnate Son
in the Holy Ghost.
Unquote.
Got that?
And of course,
Father Joseph Ratzinger,
who, using the stage name
Benedict XVI,
still hangs around the Vatican
as a supporting actor,
also has his problems
with the physical resurrection,
claiming in his 1968 book
Introduction to Christianity
that St. Paul, quote,
teaches not the resurrection
of physical bodies,
but the resurrection of persons.
Unquote.
And that's a direct denial
of the creed
in which we preach.
Pray, I believe
in the resurrection
of the body.
And in his 1982 work
Principles of Catholic Theology,
Ratzinger writes
that the resurrection, quote,
cannot be a historical event
in the same sense
as the crucifixion is.
Unquote.
See, that's just not eschatological
enough for him.
Anyway, you can review
all of this in detail
in the blog post
we published on April 26th, 2018
entitled
Did Christ Truly Rise from the Dead?
How Pope Francis Cleverly Denies
the Historicity of the Resurrection
at NovosOrdoWatch.org.
So, what's all this telling us?
It's telling us that there is
massive, massive apostasy
in the Vatican
and it is so obvious now.
For heaven's sake,
they're worshipping
Mother Earth there now.
Pachamama.
Even the Jesuit Mitch Pacwa
just condemned that on EWTN
on November 5th.
That's how in-your-face
it is now.
Which should make us think,
when it's that obvious,
where is the deception?
Anyone who takes Catholicism seriously
can see that there's a really big problem,
even if they don't yet conclude
that Francis cannot be the Pope.
Nevertheless, everyone can see
that something is very, very wrong.
In Matthew 24, 24,
our blessed Lord warned,
for there shall arise false Christs
and false prophets
and shall show great signs and wonders
insomuch as to deceive,
if possible, even the elect.
So, where's the deception
when it's so obvious now?
I'd say that's a fair question
and one that should make us think.
Make us think because it means
that the deception that is so powerful
that it could deceive even the elect,
if God allowed it,
will be found elsewhere.
And I submit that it is
or will be found
in the false opposition
that is emerging to Francis
and his modernist Pachamama religion.
Now, I won't elaborate on this now,
but when I say false opposition,
I mean people like
Athanasius Schneider, Raymond Burke,
Gerhard Ludwig Müller,
Robert Serra, Benedetto,
Benedict XVI, and so on.
For these are all Vatican II people.
And here it's completely irrelevant
whether they're in good faith or not,
whether they mean well or are malicious.
It doesn't matter
because the result is the same.
Bergoglio is way too obvious
of an apostate
to be very deceiving at this point.
The real deception, in my opinion,
is the emerging
intra-novus order resistance
that opposes him
but implicitly validates
and confirms Vatican II
and the post-conciliar
novus ordo magisterium
before Francis.
Because it is to those people
and their theological views
rather than to Sedevacantism
that so many people
who can see the evil in Francis
are now flocking.
And yet these characters, too,
will only give you more
of the Vatican II religion,
perhaps with a beautiful liturgy,
but never with the Roman Catholic religion
as it alone was known
until the death of Pope Pius XII
in 1958.
That religion you will find
untouched only
among Sedevacantists.
Tradcast Express is a production
of Novus Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making
a tax-deductible contribution
at novusordowatch.org
slash donate.