TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Tuesday, October 12th, 2021.
Michael Voris of the conservative Novos Ordo media operation Church Militant
released an episode of his daily commentary program The Vortex today
in which he blasts Jorge Bergoglio, whom he calls Pope Francis,
for warmly receiving in private audience the influential American politician Nancy Pelosi.
She is the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and has long been an indefatigable champion of so-called abortion rights,
including the taxpayer funding thereof and late-term abortion,
meaning the surgical dismembering,
of children in the womb just up until birth.
As the video of the meeting shows,
Francis and Pelosi are of a kindred spirit
and the two very much enjoyed each other's company.
So today, October 12th,
Voris released an episode of his Vortex program on that.
Entitled Grave Papal Sin,
he lists numerous scandals committed by his oh-so-valid Pope
and then proceeds to make clear that you
have no right to be a pope.
You have no right to be a pope.
You have no right to question the validity of Francis' claim to being pope.
Now, that segment of his program is so full of bad and misleading argumentation
that we're going to take it apart now
and demonstrate that Voris, for all his blustering,
either doesn't know what he's talking about
or is deliberately misleading his hapless viewers.
So let's begin here at the 6 minute and 51 second mark.
None of this...
This means he isn't the pope, by the way,
and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right.
Okay, well, it's certainly true that grave sins in a pope's life
do not mean that he isn't the pope.
Popes can be horrific sinners,
and unfortunately, some of them have been in the past.
Pope John XII in the 10th century, for example,
was perhaps the worst of them.
However, sins against morals are one thing
and sins against the faith another.
What a pope could not do and still be pope
is cease to be a Catholic
by public heresy or apostasy, for example.
Now, if anyone says that Francis isn't the pope
because he's a terrible sinner,
then that is a bad argument indeed
that should be rejected.
However, usually people conclude that Francis is not the pope
because he is manifestly not a Catholic
and therefore he cannot be the head of the church.
He cannot be the head of the Catholic Church
because he's not even a member of the church.
Or they conclude he isn't the pope
because he does things in the exercise of his putative office
that a true pope is divinely prevented,
divinely protected from doing.
For example, teaching that unrepentant adulterers
are permitted to receive Holy Communion
or teaching that Martin Luther was right about justification.
Okay?
Let's go back to Michael Voris.
Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave
has come out and said the election was rigged
and that Bergoglio isn't the pope,
that he is in fact an anti-pope.
Never heard that.
If he is, a future pope can declare that
when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope.
But if the very men gathering conclave
haven't made that public accusation,
anyone who is suggesting that,
better take into account that they too
will have to give an account to the church.
An account of themselves to Almighty God when they die.
Okay, so here Voris is operating on the assumption,
completely unjustified,
that the only reason why Bergoglio
could not be a valid pope
is that his election in conclave was rigged.
Well, of course, that's utter nonsense.
In fact, a strong case can be made
that a man who is chosen through a rigged election
and then peacefully accepted and adhered to,
by the entire church as pope,
is a valid pope,
even though his election was fraudulent.
Because otherwise,
the church would never have any certainty
that the man they accept as pope actually is.
After all, conclaves are secret
and the church would have no way of knowing
how an election came about.
So you would be in perpetual doubt
as to whether or not the pope is the pope.
In any case, notice that Voris doesn't prove
his unspoken premise
that Bergoglio's possible invalidity
would have to depend on a rigged election.
He simply hopes you will accept it.
But where there is no proof,
there is nothing for us to disprove.
So we can just skip to his next argument,
which is that a future pope would have to declare
that Francis wasn't a valid pope
and only then could we say that he was a valid pope.
and only then could we say that he wasn't a valid pope.
But though that sounds really good on the surface,
the idea collapses once you really think about it.
Because, first of all,
why does it have to be a future pope?
Why not the current one?
Voris believes Francis is pope,
so what does he need a future pope for?
Francis himself is right now telling everyone
that he is the pope.
Now that declaration, that judgment,
is either right or it's wrong.
But it does no good to say that a future pope can overturn it.
For what happens if an even later pope
then overturns the judgment of that future pope?
Maybe the future pope is the invalid one, right?
So where does this lead?
It solves nothing.
Besides, couldn't people simply resist
what that future pope determines?
Just like Voris resists,
Francis falls in dangerous teachings and judgments today?
Besides, in 1885,
Pope Leo XIII forbade Catholics
from appealing to a future pope.
Here's what he said, quote,
It is to give proof of a submission
which is far from sincere,
to set up some kind of opposition
between one pontiff and another.
Those who, faced with two differing directives,
reject the present one,
to hold to the past,
are not giving proof of obedience
to the authority which has the right
and duty to guide them.
And in some ways, they resemble those
who, on receiving a condemnation,
would wish to appeal to a future council
or to a pope who is better informed.
Unquote.
And that is from Pope Leo's letter
Epistolatua to the Archbishop of Paris
on June 17th, 1885.
Let's go back to Michael Voris.
Such talk adds to the scandal of the little ones,
the simple, even potential converts,
who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media
saying he's not really the pope,
they draw back from approaching the church.
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
If people are told that the blaspheming communist
and Pachamama-worshipping apostate Bergoglio,
Mr. Who-Am-I-The-Judge,
and adultery is sometimes willed by God,
isn't actually the pope with the unfailing faith
guaranteed by Christ himself to his vicar,
that's going to keep people from embracing Catholicism.
Got it.
Do any of us desire to stand in front of our blessed Lord
as the supreme judge
and explain why, in our desire for more cliques,
we drove people away from the church
by planting serious doubts in their minds?
So now he comes up with a totally gratuitous accusation
that people who say Francis
isn't the pope
are doing it for cliques.
Well, Mr. Voris, let me tell you,
if there's one thing that doesn't generate a lot of cliques,
it's preaching that the chair of St. Peter is empty.
Okay?
It's not popular.
If you don't believe it,
I challenge you to try it sometime and find out.
And by the way,
Novos Ordo Watch does not receive any kind of money
from getting cliques.
Okay?
Not even on our videos.
On the contrary,
the more people visit Novos Ordo Watch,
the more we have to pay to our web host.
Just saying.
Up until Pope Francis,
Catholics worldwide had only experienced a few decades
of seeing and hearing the pope in any regular fashion,
owing to the dramatic papacy of Pope St. John Paul II.
Before his election in 1978,
most Catholics just didn't pay all that much attention
to whoever the pope was.
Heck, it was only a little more than 100 years ago
that anyone ever even saw the pope,
owing to the advent of mass communication.
And your point, sir?
But John Paul changed all that.
Appearing on the world stage,
colliding with mass media,
now the papacy is an integral part of the world tapestry.
And zillions of Catholics
have a very bad understanding of the situation.
They tend to believe if the pope says something,
anything,
it's from God,
or even more naive,
that whoever the pope is
was handpicked by God the Holy Spirit.
You know,
there are a lot of things wrong with our world today,
but I don't think millions upon millions of people
falsely believing that when a pope says something,
it's from God,
is one of those problems.
In our times, of course,
we're not even talking about a real pope,
but an anti-pope most people mistakenly believe to be a true pope.
But yeah, I think most Novus Ordo people
don't give a hoot
what anyone in their church believes.
Church says.
Michael Voris is in Fantasyland,
Church Disneyland.
Pope Francis seems to be solidifying the idea
every passing day
that he was not the pope heaven desired,
but he is still the pope.
And while he is on the throne of St. Peter,
no one on earth has the authority to unseat him,
and certainly not YouTube Catholics.
Yeah, like himself, right?
Look, it is certainly true
that no one can unseat or depose
a valid pope.
But that's the whole point at issue.
Is Francis a valid pope?
Voris simply assumes it.
But an assumption is not an argument.
Again, the cardinals in conclave who elected him
have not made that claim,
so how dare anyone else?
Well, you know, the cardinals of the conclave
can't depose a valid pope either.
A pope gets his designation,
but not the papacy,
from the cardinal electors.
The pope gets his designation,
from the cardinal electors.
The papacy comes from God.
And Jorge Bergoglio, Francis,
proves time and again
that he didn't receive the papacy at all.
Because if he had,
he would be unable to exercise his magisterium
the way he does,
filled with heresies
and other soul-destroying errors.
And neither would he be able to canonize
as saints' public apostates,
like John Paul II and Mother Teresa,
to mention.
I'll mention just a few examples.
See, Voris' argumentation here
is based entirely on the juridical aspect
of the papacy.
An undisputed and therefore valid election
of Bergoglio,
and no one can unseat a pope,
so therefore.
That's basically his argument.
What he leaves out of consideration completely
is the theology of the papacy.
But it is precisely that theology
that proves that Francis,
isn't the pope.
For instance,
read the First Vatican Council's document
Pastor Aeternus,
and see if you can take
what it says about the pope
and apply it to Francis.
You won't be able to.
It's impossible.
It will result in absurdity.
And there are many other examples like that.
If you want to see what the church teaches
in her magisterial documents
about the papacy,
go to
www.novosordowatch.org
and in the menu,
click on Catholicism
and then click on the papacy.
It will give you a page filled with quotes
and links to the source documents.
So please go ahead and give it a try
if you haven't seen it already.
For example,
on March 20th, 1900,
Pope Leo XIII taught this
in an address to cardinals.
Quote,
The church has received from on high
a promise which guarantees her
against every human weakness.
What does it matter
that the helm of the symbolic bark
has been entrusted to feeble hands
when the divine pilot stands on the bridge
where, though invisible,
he is watching and ruling?
Unquote.
If a bad pope could lead the church into heresy,
it would have happened long time ago already.
And the church would not be the ark of salvation,
but a danger to souls.
The whole point of having a pope
is so that can't happen.
But Voris will have none of that.
Instead, he argues,
What we have is yet another bad pope.
This one in a more despicable way, perhaps,
than history's other bad popes.
Ah, yes, the bad pope.
The pope's argument
shot down so many times,
it just keeps coming back up.
On February 20th, 1949,
Pope Pius XII taught in an address,
Quote,
The pope has the divine promises.
Even in his human weaknesses,
he is invincible and unshakable.
He is the messenger of truth and justice,
the principle of the unity of the church.
His voice denounces,
announces errors,
idolatries,
superstitions.
He condemns iniquities.
He makes charity and virtue loved.
Unquote.
Does Francis do that?
Yeah, didn't think so.
What Pius XII and earlier Leo XIII teach
is not just so many pious words.
The history of the church
backs up the truth of that teaching.
In his 1946,
book A History of the Catholic Church,
Volume 3,
Father Fernand Mouret writes
regarding the despicably scandalous
and evil Pope John XII,
Quote,
Divine Providence watching over the church
miraculously preserved the deposit of faith
of which this young voluptuary was the guardian.
This pope's life was a monstrous scandal,
but his ballerium,
basically his magisterium,
is faultless.
We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy.
There is not a heretic or a schismatic
who has not endeavored to legitimate
his own conduct dogmatically.
Fauchus tried to justify his pride,
Luther his sensual passions,
Calvin his cold cruelty.
Neither Sergius III,
nor John XII,
nor Benedict IX,
nor Alexander VI,
supreme pontiffs,
definers of the faith,
certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole church,
uttered from the height of their apostolic pulpit
a single word that could be an approval
of their disorders.
Unquote.
So, in summary,
we dare say that Francis is not the pope
because otherwise we would have to say
that the papacy is false
and that would be heresy.
By the way,
Michael Voris has come a long way
since painting Francis,
against better knowledge,
as a staunch conservative.
Remember this?
Bam!
There goes yet another pope
being all Catholic and all that.
Pope Francis talks like a pope,
like the successor to Saint Peter.
All the way through the summer of 2018,
Voris blasted anyone who dared
to make the kind of public criticism
against Francis he now does
with the Pope.
With gusto.
Criticism of Francis was an absolute no-no for Voris.
He called it spiritual pornography.
And it got blatantly absurd
because Voris would continually ignore
all the scandals Francis was engaging in
as if they didn't exist
and yet would blast any other bishop or cardinal
for doing the same thing Francis did.
And that circus went on for five years.
Oh well, that was then.
This is now.
The one thing this loudmouth has been consistent in, though,
is his opposition to Sedevacantism.
Because, heaven forbid,
you should conclude that a man who cannot be pope
is not 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.
Donate.
Novosordowatch.org