TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, June 30th, 2021.
What is the greatest illness, the greatest sickness of human life?
That is the question Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis, posed this past Sunday, June 27th, during his Angelus Address.
He asked rhetorically whether it might be tuberculosis or perhaps the COVID pandemic, before saying, no, those are not the greatest illness.
What then is the greatest illness?
Ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves how a Catholic has to answer that question, because there is only one answer, and of course, that answer is sin.
Sin is the greatest illness that has befallen man, because sin robs him not only of his physical life, but also of eternal life,
for which reason mankind needed a...
Now, that's how a Catholic would answer this question.
How did Bergoglio answer it, though, the man who claims to be the Pope?
He said, quote,
The greatest illness of life is a lack of love.
It is not being able to love, unquote.
Now, at first sight, that doesn't sound too bad.
At least he didn't say the greatest illness is...
You know, proselytism or something.
In fact, one could even make the argument that because sin implies a lack of charity towards God and often also towards our neighbor,
that what Francis said is basically the same thing, right?
I mean, sin is a lack of love.
However, while one can spin it that way,
such an interpretation leaves out of account the glaringly obvious,
obvious fact that Francis could have said that sin is the greatest illness,
but chose not to.
Why is that?
Why did he choose the rather vague formulation, lack of love?
Well, one can only speculate,
but let's just observe here that by using this obscure terminology,
he is leaving what he is saying open to several different interpretations,
and different listeners can understand the term in different ways.
A naturalist would have more of a problem with the concept of sin
than with the concept of a lack of love.
Any atheist psychologist will happily acknowledge that people can be lacking in love,
an idea which, depending on how one chooses to understand it,
allows enough room for anything from a saint who,
because he is not completely perfect,
has to go to purgatory for half an hour before he can enter heaven,
to a great sinner who nevertheless refuses to promote, ahem,
Pride Month.
Of course, Bergoglio draws no distinction between natural love and supernatural love,
between love of God and love of neighbor.
In his Angelus address, he remains entirely on the horizontal plane of the mundane,
talking only about love,
between,
and human beings.
Christ is mentioned only as the doctor who heals our affections.
Not a word is breathed about sin or eternity,
except to say that our sins are not an obstacle because Jesus goes beyond them.
Towards the end, Francis confirms that his concern is entirely mundane,
that is, focused on this world, when he says,
quote,
Love alone heals life.
Unquote.
Yeah, well, guess what, bucko?
Life is going to end.
Francis concludes his naturalist reflection by pronouncing the dogma of all dogmas
in our secularist world.
Quote,
Do not judge.
Do not judge the personal, social reality of others.
God loves everyone.
Do not judge.
Let others live and try to approach them with love.
Unquote.
Yeah, unless, of course, there are rigid clingers to the certainties of the past.
On such low lives, it's open season, right?
Speaking of rigidity,
the false pope has recently been blasting inflexible, intransigent, rigid Catholics left and right.
Just yesterday, for example, for the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul,
the papal imposter claimed,
that God had set St. Paul free from formal religious observance
and the intransigent defense of tradition.
Yeah, in his sermon for the Novus Ordo worship service, he said,
quote,
Unquote.
Formal religious observance and the intransigent defense of tradition,
rather than making him open to the love of God and of his brothers and sisters,
had hardened him.
He was a fundamentalist.
God set him free from this.
Unquote.
Throughout his homily, Francis used the word free or freedom as many as 38 times.
For example, he said,
quote,
How many chains must be shattered and how many doors long shut must be opened?
We can help bring this freedom,
but only if we first let ourselves be set free by the newness of Jesus
and walk in the freedom of the Holy Spirit.
Unquote.
Yeah, newness.
Watch out when Bergoglio talks about newness or novelty.
These terms do have their legitimate meaning,
but the false pope is notorious for stretching them beyond the correct meaning
in service of his political ecclesial ideology,
thereby making it appear as though his ideas were grounded in sacred scripture
when in fact they're not.
For instance,
it's certainly true that Christ,
Christ brought newness.
After all, it is the new covenant he gave us.
But this newness of the true gospel is handed on in the deposit of faith,
which is a tradition set in stone.
And to depart from that tradition under the pretext of the newness of the gospel
is to preach another Christ,
a counterfeit gospel.
In other words,
with respect to the old covenant,
the gospel,
has a newness to it.
The good news of Christ is the fulfillment of the Mosaic law
and the Old Testament.
But when Francis now tries to introduce newness,
it is not the newness of the gospel with respect to the old covenant.
It is the newness of heresy with respect to the gospel
we have received from the apostles.
That is why the real popes have always condemned innovation and novelty.
For example,
we can find such condemnation in the bull
auctorum fide of Pope Pius VI,
in the encyclical
Mirari Vos of Pope Gregory XVI,
and in the encyclical
Paschendi of Pope St. Pius X,
to mention just a few.
In fact,
in Paschendi,
Pope Pius X writes,
quote,
far, far from the clergy
be the love of novelty,
unquote.
That's paragraph number 49,
and in number 55,
the same pope urges his clergy
to combat novel terminology,
citing his predecessor,
Pope Leo XIII,
who said the following,
quote,
it is impossible to approve in Catholic publications
a style inspired by unsound novelty,
which seems to deride the piety of the faithful
and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life
on the earth,
on new directions of the church,
on new aspirations of the modern soul,
on the new social vocation of the clergy,
on the new Christian civilization,
and many other things of the same kind,
unquote.
Now, what Pope Leo XIII said there
was originally published on January 27, 1902.
What do you think, ladies and gentlemen?
Have the,
have the Vatican II modernists
introduced a new order of Christian life,
a new direction for the church,
a new type of Christian civilization
based on religious liberty
rather than Christ the King since then?
To ask the question, of course,
is to answer it.
And as 1834 encyclical Singulari knows,
Pope Gregory XVI condemned the teachings
of Father Felicitas,
who was the forerunner of what was later called
liberal Catholicism.
Take a listen to how Pope Gregory lambasted
that false teacher, Lamennais,
and you will notice that one could apply these words
just as well to Jorge Bergoglio today.
Quote,
Acting as if he were sent and inspired by God,
he speaks in the name of the Trinity
and then uses scripture as a pretext,
for releasing the people from the law of obedience.
He twists the words of Holy Scripture
in a bold and cunning manner
in order to firmly establish his depraved ravings.
He does this in order that,
as Saint Bernard used to say,
he might spread clouds for light
or give poison for honey,
or rather, in the honey,
creating a new gospel for the people
and laying a different foundation
for the people.
from the one which is already laid.
Unquote.
Bam!
That's Pope Gregory XVI,
Encyclical Singularinos, number 5.
Like Lamennais, Francis is very talented
at reading his own ideas into sacred scripture
so as to make it appear as if his doctrine
was actually contained in the sacred text.
By the way, for his sermon yesterday
for Saints Peter and Paul,
it only took him four sentences
to mention the word encounter
right in the opening paragraph.
And later on, where he references
the gospel passage in which Christ gives
to Saint Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven,
Francis speaks of Peter receiving
quote,
the keys to open the doors
leading to an encounter with the Lord.
Unquote.
Well, I'm sorry,
but the kingdom of heaven is a bit more,
than just an encounter with the Lord.
And in any case,
there are different kinds of encounter.
In 2 Thessalonians 2.8, for example,
Saint Paul speaks about the Antichrist
when he notes that,
quote,
that wicked one shall be revealed
whom the Lord Jesus shall kill
with the spirit of his mouth
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
Unquote.
And that encounter is not the kingdom of heaven.
I guarantee it.
All right, let's move on to some more
that Bergoglio had to say
in the last few days.
How about this one?
This is a headline from Crux
on June 28th.
Christians must see the world
through the eyes of the poor,
Pope says.
Yeah, of course.
Never mind seeing the world
through the eyes of Christ
or through the lens of the gospel.
No, it has to be man
because the Vatican's
Vatican II Church is anthropocentric,
which means man-centered.
God does play a role in it, of course,
but it's more like the role of a lackey
who should feel lucky that he gets a mention.
In the Vatican II Church,
God's job is to hear your prayers,
forgive your sins,
and make you feel good.
And he gets invoked
whenever Francis needs to give you a reason
to go along with his gospel of man
because God demands it, supposedly.
That's where that spinning
of sacred scripture comes into play
that we talked about earlier.
What does it mean
to see something through the eyes
of the poor anyway?
It's not like the poor
are all alike.
Some are religious, some are not.
Some are conservative, some are liberal.
Some are greedy, some are generous.
Some are holy, some are evil.
Some are of goodwill, some are not.
Some are Christian, some are Christian.
Some are pagans, some are capitalists,
some are communists.
I'll even go so far as to say
that some are rigid and some are not.
So what does Francis mean then
when he says that the perspective of the poor
is the perspective of Jesus?
Can one understand that in an orthodox way?
I'm sure one can, but one doesn't have to.
And that's the point.
See,
Bergoglio gives you the option
on how you want to understand it.
Now, if you read the text of the address
that Francis delivered to the Italian Caritas
on June 26th,
which is where he said these things,
you will notice that, of course,
he does mention the gospel
as one of three ways
on which to continue the journey
as the preferred Novos Ordo lingo goes.
But when you look closely,
at what he says,
it is once again all about man,
about the horizontal, the mundane.
It's all about this world.
It's not about the salvation of souls.
It's not about getting souls to heaven.
It's about alleviating temporal suffering.
And of course, yes, that is part of the gospel.
But it is only part.
And frankly,
it is the part that is of lesser importance
when compared with the primary,
which is the salvation of souls.
And so Francis says,
quote,
the way of the gospel shows us
that Jesus is present in every poor person.
Unquote.
And then, interestingly enough,
he does mention the last judgment,
but only in connection
with the corporal works of mercy,
whether we clothed the naked,
fed the hungry,
welcomed the stranger, etc.
So here we see illustrated
exactly what I said a few minutes ago,
that the supernatural is always used,
is always appealed to
whenever Francis needs to give you a reason
to go along with his gospel of man.
Francis is never concerned
about the last judgment.
He's even said years ago
that it's nothing to get too anxious over.
He's never concerned about the last judgment
except when he can use it,
to advertise his false gospel
of dogmaless humanitarianism.
Then, all of a sudden,
God's judgment becomes a topic.
You know what else Francis says in his address?
He says, quote,
man is the way for the church.
Unquote.
Let me repeat that.
Man is the way for the church.
And here's the funny part.
He didn't come up with that himself.
He's quoting,
someone else.
Now, those of you who've been
in this battle for a while
will probably know whom he's quoting,
but many will not.
Ladies and gentlemen,
that idea that man is the way for the church
comes from John Paul II.
He proclaimed it
in his first encyclical letter in 1979,
Redemptor Hominis.
See, this problem,
this man-centered gospel
goes back,
much further than just Bergoglio.
This is all Vatican II.
All right, we'll end with one more nugget.
Francis has penned the conclusion
of a new book published by the Vatican
called Peace on Earth,
Fraternity is Possible.
Vatican News writes, quote,
war, the Pope believes,
can be abolished,
as was the case with slavery.
And then they quote him saying,
we must not give up the dream
of a world without wars, unquote.
Well, you know,
there are two ways
we can get rid of war.
One way is to imprison
the entire globe.
That will end all wars.
The other way is that
of the Prince of Peace
through the preaching of the gospel
and converting all nations
to the kingdom of Christ
so that all men will voluntarily
subject themselves
to the sweet yoke of the gospel
as Pope Pius XI laid out
in his beautiful encyclical
Quas Primus in 1925
and which has, of course,
been rejected by the Vatican II Church.
So, to get rid of all wars,
there are these two alternatives.
Imprisonment of all people
or the social kingship of Christ.
And you can guess
which of these two
is out of the question.
For Jorge Bergoglio.
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.