TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021.
This podcast episode, number 146, continues the discussion of the fallout from the Responsa
ad Dubia, response to questions, that the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship
released on December 18th, which restrict the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass
even further.
So, if you haven't yet listened to the first installment of the series, which was episode
number 145, released just the other day, it is recommended that you listen to that first
so you get the full picture.
But let's go ahead now with today's episode.
When Francis published his motu proprio letter Tradiciones Custodes,
on July 16th of this year, which essentially revokes the Decree Summorum Pontificum of
Benedict XVI and phases out the traditional Latin Mass over time, he explained his motivation for
doing so in an accompanying letter. And here is what that letter says, quote,
Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my predecessors, who had intended to do everything
possible to ensure,
that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity, would find it possible to remain in this
unity, or to rediscover it anew, has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by
St. John Paul II, and with even greater magnanimity by Benedict XVI, intended to
recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited,
to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church,
block her path, and expose her to the peril of division. And then further on he says,
I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of the Massale Romanum of 1962 is often
characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Second Vatican
Council itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the
tradition and the true Church. And further still, ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many
is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books
prior to Vatican Council II, and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of
what is called the true Church. And so, I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of
the Massale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform,
but of the Church. One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and
nurtures the divisive tendency. In defense of the unity of the body of Christ, I am constrained to
revoke the faculty granted by my predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this
faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass
with the Massale Romanum of 1962. Because, like many of you, the Massale Romanum of 1962 is
liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church,
which is the sacrament of unity, they must be carried out in communion with the Church."
That was Francis earlier this year in the accompanying letter to the
Motu Proprio Tradizionis Custodes. Now, as I explained in the last podcast episode,
from the perspective that the Vatican II Church is the true Roman Catholic Church,
that Vatican II was a valid Catholic ecumenical council, and that Francis and his five predecessors
are in fact genuine Catholic popes, from that perspective, what Francis writes here makes
perfect sense. He is revoking the generous permission for the use of the 1962 Missal
because the reason for allowing it to begin with, namely to better incorporate traditionalists
into the Vatican II Church for the sake of unity,
that goal is not being attained. In fact, a great many of the people who assist at these
traditional liturgies are not simply interested in this particular liturgical rite for the sake of
tradition, beauty, or diversity, or whatever, but because they also adhere to the religion that
rite of Mass expresses. Imagine that, right? The traditional Mass expresses traditional Catholicism,
and that is the one religion the Novus Ordo modernists cannot and will not tolerate.
Any other religion, fine. They're at least willing to talk about it. But Catholicism? Forget it.
Well, look, it has to be that way for them, because for as long as pre-Vatican II Catholicism
is still around, it will always be a witness against the Novus Ordo modernists.
It will always convict them of apostasy. It will always be a perpetual testimony
that Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium changed the pre-conciliar faith.
That's why they can't have it around. For as long as it's still there,
for as long as it's being practiced and taught, the whole world can see that that religion is
different from the religion that it was before. And that's why they can't have it around.
And that's why they can't have it around. And that's why they can't have it around.
From the religion practiced and taught in the Vatican today. And so the traditional mass is
like a token reminder of that. It is the quintessential representation of pre-Vatican II
Catholicism. And so there's actually a certain parallel between that and how our blessed Lord
was intolerable to the scribes and the Pharisees and the Sadducees because his teachings, his words
continually convicted them of their sins, of their unbelief, of their hypocrisy.
In fact, there's actually a beautiful messianic prophecy in the Old Testament book of Wisdom,
chapter 2, that describes exactly that. Let me quote from it.
Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary
to our doings, and upbraideth us.
With transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the Son of God.
He is become a censurer of our thoughts. He is grievous unto us, even to behold,
for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. Unquote.
That's the book of Wisdom, chapter 2, verses 12-13.
12-15. So that's why they wanted Christ put to death, away with him. They could not stand being
exposed before the common people, and being reminded that they were not, in fact, holy,
that it was all just outward show, that inside they were full of iniquity, white at sepulchers.
And so, likewise, today, the modernists cannot tolerate
the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional,
Catholic faith, because it exposes their religion as a fraud. It cries out that their
religion is not the Catholic faith. It calls their bluff. Because if the Vatican II religion
is Catholicism, then what is the pre-Vatican II religion? Oh, don't say they're both Catholicism,
because if they were, then there would be no cause for disagreement.
Then the modernists wouldn't care whether you attend the traditional Mass or the new Mass,
whether you use the old catechisms or the new catechism.
Now, with the Responsa ad Dubia document of December 18th,
the Vatican has really tightened the screws now against the traditionalists in their church, and
needless to say, those traditionalists, we call them semi-trads, they are furious
beyond belief. And not only that, of course, their resistance is now firing on all cylinders.
They are revving up to run at full throttle, because they know this is a battle for their
very lives. The reactions from their camp that have come in so far range from desperately trying
to find some legal technicality that will allow them to get around having to obey the directives,
all the way to outright disobedience and defiance, regardless of what the consequences
may be. In fact, the Reverend John Hunwick is on record calling for even a traditionalist
Episcopal consecration without papal mandate, if necessary. What he didn't mention is that
such an act would incur automatic excommunication per Novus Ordo canon law. But no worries,
they'll just wipe that away with a wave of the hand, because after all, they are right,
and Francis is wrong. And so they'll just declare their own excommunication utterly null and void,
because unjust. And then they'll go on their merry way. What they don't realize is that in 1873,
Pope Pius IX condemned that very line of argumentation in his encyclical Quartus Supra.
Here's what this very traditional pope wrote regarding certain schismatics in Armenia.
Listen up, semi-trads, you're not going to hear this from Peter Kwasniewski.
They, the schismatics, argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against
them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the apostolic delegate in Constantinople, was unjust and
consequently void of strength.
They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might
desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly
unknown and unheard of by the ancient fathers of the church. For the whole church throughout the
world knows that the see of the blessed apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any
pontiffs have bound, since this see possesses the right of judging the whole church and no one
may judge its judgment. The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an
excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice.
Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication.
Our predecessor of happy memory, Clement XI, in his Constitution Unigenitus against the errors
of Quesnel, forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any
way different from some of John Wycliffe's, which had been previously condemned by the Council of
Constance, and Martin V. Through human weakness, a person could be unjustly punished with censure by
him. He could be punished with a sentence of injustice, but he could not be punished with a
prelate. But it is still necessary, as our predecessor, St. Gregory the Great, warned,
for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the
bishop rashly, in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust,
develops out of the pride of heated reproof. But if one should be afraid even of an unjust
condemnation, then he should be afraid of the judgment of the bishop rashly, in case the fault
which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust, since
the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust,
what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop
and this apostolic see, and tearing to pieces, as they are now doing by a new schism,
the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church?
That was Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, paragraph 10. That's real traditional Catholicism.
Now, as I said, there have been various reactions from the semi-trads on this so far,
though they all basically agree on one thing. The suppression of the traditional mass is wrong,
and France's decree has to be resisted. They're all on the same page about that. What they're
not quite in agreement on yet is what actually justifies their resistance. Is it a legal
technicality the document missed? Is it a legal technicality the document missed? Is it a legal
that somehow invalidates the whole thing? Is it perhaps not in the proper form? Is it addressed to
the wrong people? Does it claim to do something that this Vatican congregation has no power to do?
And so forth. So those are the kinds of questions they're currently working through.
Or should they take the Chris Ferreira approach, for example, and simply declare the whole thing
effectively invalid because, in their judgment, they're not going to be able to do it?
In their judgment, it's harmful to souls. Well, whatever most of them will ultimately settle on,
two things are certain. Number one, they will not comply. That will be out of the question.
And number two, they will still insist that you cannot say that Francis isn't the Pope.
Yep, and to that end, Christopher Ferreira is not embarrassed to crank out inanities like this one.
Quote,
And so, while Bergoglio holds the office of the papacy, he is not a Pope, but a destroyer. Unquote.
Look, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. The only reason Ferreira can
affirm something so idiotic is because he doesn't believe in the papacy. He doesn't actually believe
that which the Church teaches about the papacy. To him, the word Pope is just a label. And in that
sense, he's actually a nominalist. But then, for some strange reason, he is absolutely adamant
that Francis be given that label. Look, I don't know what guides this man's position,
but it's definitely not traditional Catholic doctrine. You want traditional Catholic
doctrine? You want traditional Catholic doctrine? You want traditional Catholic doctrine? You want
traditional Catholic doctrine? Here's traditional Catholic doctrine. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical
Mystici Corporis, paragraph 40. Quote,
Peter, in virtue of his primacy, is only Christ's vicar, so that there is only one chief head of
this body, namely Christ, who never ceases himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same
time he rules it visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious
ascension into heaven, this Church rested not on him alone.
But on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his vicar constitute one only head
is the solemn teaching of our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the apostolic
letter Unam Sanctam. And his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Unquote.
Did you get that? Christ and his vicar, the Pope, constitute
one only head. Christ rules the Church in and through the Pope.
Do you see now what a disaster will result if a diabolical public apostate like Jorge Bergoglio
is recognized as the vicar of Christ? Do you see how serious of an error that is?
You can't wipe that away by saying that,
oh, you're just going to be a vicar of Christ. You're just going to be a vicar of Christ.
You're just going to resist him when he teaches heresy or legislates harmful things.
That totally torpedoes the Catholic doctrine on the papacy on multiple fronts. It legitimizes
what is essentially schism, the breaking of the bond of unity, on the one hand, and it's also
saying that Christ, the good shepherd, can mislead his Church to the point where faithfully clinging
to his vicar, you will be led to hell. You will be led to hell. You will be led to hell.
Hell. This is serious stuff.
The bottom line is, you can't say Francis is Pope and then essentially do your own thing.
Right? Like the Society of St. Pius X, most of all.
Now, I know a lot of people in the Recognize and Resist camp think that by nevertheless
recognizing Francis as Pope, they're on the safe side, right? They're just covering all their
faces, so to speak. But that is a grave mistake. Because if you're not submitting to him and
nevertheless recognizing him as Pope, what you're doing is heaping condemnation on yourself
because you're essentially admitting that you're consciously in defiance of the vicar of Christ.
See, the truth is that Sedevacantism is a lot safer than the Recognize and Resist position.
Because even if, for the sake of argument, it turned out that Francis was a real Pope,
well, guess what? Then we were simply mistaken. We did the best we could in this mess to act in
accordance with the Catholic faith, and we mistakenly reached the wrong conclusion about
Francis. But everything we did was consistent with our belief that this man couldn't possibly
be the Pope. So, we're going to have to do something. We're going to have to do something.
We didn't defy anyone we believe to be Pope, right? So, there's nothing safe, as the Semitrads
would have you believe, about accepting Francis as Pope and then not following him. All it does
is put you in the subjective state of defying the Pope, and thereby the rule of Christ.
As the doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, wrote in his work On the Roman Pontiff,
Book 2, Chapter 30, quote,
Now, which of these do you think Francis is? A wolf or a shepherd? It's really not that difficult.
We'll continue in the next podcast.
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.