It's Wednesday, April 7th, 2021.
If you needed any more evidence that the Vatican II Church is truly a Judas Church, a church
of betrayal of Jesus Christ, well, you got it this past Holy Week.
On Holy Thursday, the official newspaper of the Vatican, the Osservatore Romano, dedicated
its front page and pages 2 and 3 to a kind of rehabilitation of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed
our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane and then later that night killed himself in despair.
The Recognize and Resist website Tradition in Action published a report on that, and
that's what I'll be quoting from now.
This is just so incredible.
Quote,
The newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano, dedicated the first three pages of
its Maundy Thursday edition to praising Judas Iscariot.
In a first-page editorial titled Judas and the Scandal of Mercy, Andrea Monda explains
that the Vatican organ decided this year to honor the most tragic and unsettling figure
of the gospel.
The editor, probably obeying an order of Pope Francis, chose to post on its front page
the reproduction of a picture that presents a naked Jesus bending over and tenderly ministering
to a dead Judas.
Monda explains that the author of this painting is a French Catholic who became impressed
by Francis' words praising the traitor in his book When You Pray, Say Our Father.
The author explains that the author of this painting is a French Catholic who became impressed
by Francis' words praising the traitor in his book When You Pray, Say Our Father.
Monda also reports that after Jesus was crucified, he would have returned to life immediately,
gone to the fig tree and taken down Judas' body and ministered to it.
Monda also reports that Francis loved this painting so much that he has placed it on
the wall behind his desk along with another representing Judas.
The inside pages of the Vatican paper feature a sermon by Father Primo Mazzolari saying
that he believes,
Judas was forgiven by our Lord.
A brief comment by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini on Mazzolari's sermon saying that each of
us can have a Judas inside himself.
A text by Giovanni Papini arguing that Judas must have had an ulterior motive to betray
Christ because 30 silver coins did not have that great a worth.
And a text by Giuseppe Berto impersonating Judas who affirmed,
that Jesus owes his glorification to him.
Unquote.
This is unbelievable.
This is totally in line with Bergoglio, with Francis, right?
Deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the co-redemptrix, but honor Judas Iscariot on the
grounds that if he hadn't committed the mortal sin of betraying Christ, well, then our redemption
wouldn't have been carried out.
This is sickening blasphemy and it is in.
Your face.
Ladies and gentlemen, what more does Francis have to do to prove that he's not the Pope?
That he's not the one keeping the gates of hell from prevailing, but opening them far
and wide, ushering people in.
Now, to be clear, the betrayal of Judas, as great of a sin as it was, obviously was not
beyond being forgiven by Christ.
Our Lord.
Our Lord would have forgiven Judas if, like St. Peter, he had actually shown supernatural
contrition and begged Christ to forgive him.
The problem with Judas is that he did not do that.
Yes, he was sorry for what he'd done, that's true, but instead of throwing himself on the
mercy of God, seeking his forgiveness, he despaired of God's mercy and died impenitent.
He wasn't forgiven by God because he failed to ask for forgiveness.
There are two motives that can prevent one from asking God for forgiveness.
One is presumption, thinking you don't need to be forgiven because you don't have any
sin or because your sins aren't all that bad or don't require repentance.
That's presumption.
And then the other is despair, thinking your sin is so great that God can't forgive you.
You cannot or will not forgive it.
In either case, you do not seek forgiveness and therefore you cannot receive it.
Judas chose the second motive, despair.
He thought he couldn't or wouldn't ever be forgiven for his great crime and so hanged himself.
By doing that, instead of begging forgiveness, he added the mortal sin of suicide and the
sin of betrayal.
Now, between the extremes of presumption and despair, there is the virtuous middle, and
that is called hope.
Hope is a theological virtue.
We do not presume on God's forgiveness and we do not despair of it.
Rather, we hope to be forgiven.
We hope for a merciful judgment.
We hope to arrive at eternal life one day.
And we do so.
Not relying on our own merits, but on the grace and mercy of God.
That's why we pray in the act of hope,
O my God, relying on thine infinite goodness and promises, I hope to obtain the pardon
of my sins, the help of thy grace, and life everlasting through the merits of Jesus Christ,
my Lord and Redeemer.
What is expressed in this act of hope is neither presumption,
nor despair.
The act of hope affirms both our own frailty and God's mercy, goodness, and faithfulness
to his promises, on which we rely in order to overcome that frailty.
Now, Judas Iscariot did not have the theological virtue of hope at the end of his life.
He died in despair.
And we know that he is in hell because Christ himself,
revealed it to us.
In Mark 14.21, Christ says,
And the Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of him,
but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed.
It were better for him if that man had not been born.
So there, so much for honoring Judas on the grounds that the redemption wouldn't have happened without him.
Now, the statement that it would be better for Judas if he had never been born
allows for no other interpretation than that he went to hell.
Because if he did not go to hell, then even if he spends the remainder of time in purgatory,
he will eventually get out and be admitted to an eternity of heaven.
And then it would not be true to say that it would have been better for him had he not been born.
For an eternity of heaven is obviously better than having never been born
or never existed even after suffering millennia of torments.
So the only way we can truthfully say that it would have been better for someone not to have existed at all
is if that person has to spend all eternity in hell, in eternal damnation.
But there's more.
In John 17.12,
Christ prays to his father for his disciples, and he says explicitly,
So yes, Judas is lost.
Christ said so.
And that's why our Lord calls him the son of perdition.
And finally, in Acts 1.25,
So no, there is no hope for Judas Iscariot.
He is eternally lost, and we know that because God revealed it to us.
And God cannot lie or be mistaken.
The fact that the Vatican II Church under Bergoglio is trying so hard to rehabilitate the son of perdition
is another clear indication that it is not the Catholic Church, but a counterfeit,
a false church, the anti-church,
probably the entity that is described as the operation of error in 2 Thessalonians 2.10.
Meanwhile, on April 3rd, which was the day of the crucifixion,
Michael Madd, editor of The Remnant, posted an article entitled
The Scandal of the Cross, Why I Will Never Leave the Catholic Church.
Now, by Catholic Church, he means the modernist institution of which Francis is the head,
the one he continually sifts and resists, lest he end up believing what it teaches.
Now, remember what another writer, Jason Morgan, said,
in an October 2nd, 2020 blog post at The Remnant's website.
Morgan referred to this church as New Church, and I'm quoting now,
New Church, the faux-Catholic church headed by Pope Francis, unquote.
And he added that this New Church, quote,
is not a religious organization at all, unquote.
You can find that at Remnant Newspaper.
The post is entitled Pope Refuses to Meet with Trump's Pro-Life Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.
We talked about that strange ecclesiastical split personality disorder that's going on at The Remnant
in Tratcast number 29, if you remember.
You can find that episode at Tratcast.org.
Just scroll down to where all the full-length episodes are listed, and you'll find it in there.
It was released on December 11th, 2020.
All right, so Michael Madd will never leave the fake New Church
that is not a religious organization at all.
Got it.
The problem is, he doesn't want you to leave it either.
And so he uses the enticing but flawed and actually blasphemous argumentation
that this defected and non-religious New Church is the true Church of Christ
just in its crucified state,
so that if you were to abandon,
that fake apostate Church,
then you'd be abandoning Christ on the cross.
Hello, the mystical body of Christ cannot become apostate.
What Madd is proposing has nothing to do with a passion of the Church or a crucified Church.
It's more like saying that Christ sinned.
That would be the proper parallel to draw,
the proper analogy to what Madd,
is saying,
not a suffering and crucified Christ,
but a sinful,
defected Christ that leads people into sin and apostasy.
Now, that's obviously blasphemy and heresy,
but it is ultimately what Madd is saying,
even if he doesn't mean to,
by saying that this new Church with its new religion
is the mystical body of Christ,
crucified or not.
In this article,
Madd writes,
quote,
If Peter's faith can fail him,
and Christ prayed it would not,
meaning it is possible,
then surely mine can fail me,
and yours can fail you.
Unquote.
Well, here he's leaving out of account that,
of course,
Christ's prayer was efficacious.
It accomplished what Christ intended.
God the Father obviously heard the prayer of God the Son.
In Hebrews 5, 7,
St. Paul points out,
that in his supplications our Lord,
quote,
was heard for his reverence.
Unquote.
Now, in Luke 22, verses 31 and 32,
our Lord said to St. Peter,
quote,
Simon, Simon, behold,
Satan hath desired to have you,
that he may sift you as wheat,
but I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith fail not.
And thou, being once converted,
confirm,
thy brethren.
Unquote.
The Catholic Church understands this passage
to be the reason why the papacy cannot fail
as the perpetual rock of orthodoxy.
Once he was pope,
and that didn't happen until after the resurrection,
by the way,
as we'll prove in a moment,
once he was pope,
St. Peter would have an unfailing faith,
as would his successors.
That is a divine,
divine guarantee.
And so,
the First Vatican Council says that,
quote,
this gift of truth and a never-failing faith
was divinely conferred upon Peter
and his successors in this chair,
that they might administer their high duty
for the salvation of all,
that the entire flock of Christ,
turned away by them from the poisonous food of error,
might be nourished on the sustenance
of heavenly doctrine,
that with the occasion of schism removed,
the whole church might be saved as one,
and relying on her foundation might stay firm
against the gates of hell.
Unquote.
That's Vatican I,
Dogmatic Constitution,
Pastor Aeternus,
Chapter 4,
and you can find that in Denzinger, 1837.
Yeah, so,
Francis doesn't quite fit that description, does he?
That's not because the dogma of the papacy is false,
it's because Francis isn't a pope.
You know, it really isn't that hard to figure out.
It just creates loads of undesirable consequences.
It raises a lot of questions.
It leads into a lot of mystery.
And, of course, it requires a strong faith.
But God has a right
to our faith.
He has a right
to be believed.
He has a right to demand of us
that we believe
that though heaven and earth pass away,
his word will not pass away,
as he said in Mark 13, 31.
So, if you're wondering,
okay, now what?
So, Francis isn't the pope
and the Vatican II church isn't the Catholic church,
but now what?
If you're wondering that,
you can go to
for some helpful advice
and a lot of resources,
a lot of links.
That, again, is
You can put that in there as one word,
now what,
or you can hyphenate it,
now hyphen what.
Either one will get you to the same page.
Now,
back to Michael Matt.
Further on in his article,
he recycles one of the oldest straw men
he could find.
He says,
quote,
Yes, Francis is denying him,
meaning our Lord,
but so too did Peter 2,000 years ago.
Yes, the bishops are betraying him,
but so too did Bishop Judas.
Yes, the bishops and priests are in hiding,
but so too were the first bishops and priests then,
when,
all but one of them took off for the tall grass.
We cannot abandon the Catholic Church
because of one bad pope
or 1,000 bad bishops,
unquote.
You know,
I don't know how many more times
this lousy argument has to be refuted,
but here we go.
When St. Peter denied our Lord,
he was not yet the pope.
He didn't become pope
until our Lord told him to,
feed his sheep,
which was after the resurrection
and before the ascension.
You can look it up in Denzinger 1822
from Vatican I,
Pastor Eternus, chapter 1,
where it says,
quote,
And upon Simon Peter alone,
Jesus, after his resurrection,
conferred the jurisdiction
of the highest pastor and director
over his entire fold,
saying,
feed my lambs,
feed my sheep,
unquote.
Secondly,
the problem with Francis
isn't that he's a morally bad pope,
a sinner,
we're all sinners,
but that he does not profess
the Roman Catholic religion
and imposes upon the universal church
a magisterium of false doctrine.
That is the problem.
The entire
Novus Ordo church
is filled with false doctrine
from the so-called pope on down
to the lowliest of catechists
and to the average parishioner.
And I'm not just talking about
doctrinal nuances.
At this point,
we're talking about absolute whoppers,
like teaching and believing
that Protestants
are part of the body of Christ
and that they have a mission
from God to preach the gospel
and that they do,
in fact,
preach the gospel.
Or that today's Jews
have a valid covenant with God
or that they need not be evangelized.
Or the latest big heresy
is that God wills
a diversity of religions.
Now, that one hasn't trickled down yet
to the entire church,
but Francis started the process
two years ago
and you can bet your bottom dollar
that he's going to keep watering that seed
so it'll eventually
burst into full bloom.
Now, the so-called traditionalists
in the new church
have created little enclaves
for themselves
where they shield themselves
from all this junk,
but where they have necessarily
abandoned the traditional Catholic teaching
of submission
to the magisterium of the Holy See.
Why?
Because, since they recognize
an apostate as pope,
they have to protect themselves
from his religion,
which they know to be false,
and they have to protect themselves
and a great danger
to the salvation of souls.
So, right there, you can see
that in the world of these
semi-traditionalists,
as we call them,
it's not the pope
who's keeping the gates of hell
from prevailing,
it's them
by refusing to accept
the papal teaching.
What a madhouse.
Ladies and gentlemen,
to abandon the Novus Ordo church
or new church,
as the remnant has called it,
is not,
is not to abandon Christ.
It is to be faithful to him
because he promised
that such a scenario
would not be possible
and therefore
it cannot be his church.
What scenario am I talking about?
Well, you know,
false doctrines,
false saints,
impious sacramental rites,
unending heaps
of fake marriage annulments,
invalid sacraments
to a large extent,
harmful disciplinary laws
and whatever else
the recognize and resist crowd
thinks that the Holy See
can actually present
to the faithful.
If that can come
from the real Catholic church,
then we don't need
a Catholic church
because then
it's not the Ark of Salvation
and not the Bride of Christ.
But no,
that is not
the Catholic church.
It is the anti-church,
the counterfeit church.
In fact,
as we've seen most recently,
it is not the church of St. Peter.
It is the church of Judas.
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 novosortowatch.org
slash donate.