TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, February 23rd, 2022.
What game is Francis playing with the priestly fraternity of St. Peter?
That is the title of our latest blog post, which you can find at NovosOrdoWatch.org.
Most of you listening now have probably heard about this already,
but according to reports from the fraternity of St. Peter,
not to be confused with the Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X,
Francis gave them a written decree in which he assures them
that they are not subject to the anti-traditional mass decree Traditiones Custodes
and will be permitted to continue to use the Roman Missal of 1962
which is the Roman Missal of 1962.
And also administer the other sacraments in the traditional rite
in their own churches, of which there actually aren't all that many.
Although the FSSP is breathing a huge sigh of relief,
this rather unexpected development has a lot of people scratching their heads.
And a number of semi-trad commentators I've seen online so far
are not exactly in ecstasy over this,
simply because they've learned,
not to trust Jorge Bergoglio.
It is noteworthy, by the way, that so far,
the Vatican has not confirmed the existence of this decree,
nor has a scan of it been made available.
The only source affirming its existence so far
is the fraternity of St. Peter.
Now, of course, they're not going to lie about that.
Not only would that be uncharitable to suppose,
it also wouldn't make a whole lot of sense,
because lying about this would be of no benefit to them.
But then, who knows what the Frankster is up to?
Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up denying the authenticity of the decree.
Or, hey, maybe he wrote it in magic ink.
Or, perhaps, he will simply revoke it again in a few weeks.
Keep in mind that what Francis giveth,
Francis can also taketh away.
I'd say, trust Bergoglio at your own risk.
In any case, you can read all about that,
see various reactions, and our own analysis and commentary
at novosordowatch.org slash wire.
The blog post dated February 22nd, entitled
What Game Is Francis Playing With the Fraternity of St. Peter?
And, spoiler alert,
although we do not profess to know just what game he's playing,
what we do know is that he's cheating.
In other news, the website 1Peter5 published an article by Jeremiah Bannister
on January 15th of this year with the title
Re-Evangelizing Our Separated Brethren, the Sedevacantists.
Now, I have to say, I'm touched.
I'm touched.
You know, that finally someone would reach out to us lost souls
and try to...
Wait a minute.
What is Bannister doing?
Evangelization?
Does he not know that his own definitely valid pope
isn't really into that sort of thing?
And besides, just a few weeks ago, on February 2nd,
Francis stated during his general audience
that no one can exclude himself from the gospel.
From the church.
And that even apostates are part of the communion of saints
on account of their baptism.
So, what's Bannister worried about, separated brethren?
Furthermore, in his 2019 so-called apostolic exhortation
Christus Vivit, paragraph number 154,
the false pope Bannister wants to convert us to, wrote,
quote,
He never leaves us, even though at times it appears that he keeps silent.
He never breaks his covenant.
He simply asks that we not abandon him.
But even if we stray from him, he remains faithful,
for he cannot deny himself.
Unquote.
Now, that final clause,
he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself,
that is a quote from 2 Timothy 2, verse 13,
it's too bad Francis didn't also quote the preceding verse,
verse 12, which says,
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him.
If we deny him, he will also deny us.
So much for our friendship with Christ being unbreakable.
Obviously, mortal sin will break it.
Yeah, I think I know why Francis didn't quote that part.
Now, the ever-so-solicitous Mr. Bannister writes in his article
that his intention is to lead Sedevacantists, quote,
back to that truly traditional posture of assent and obedience
that so fittingly becomes the faithful son and daughter of Rome
in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Unquote.
So, surely he would never himself deviate from Francis' teachings, right?
So then, what's this business of re-evangelizing Sedevacantists about?
Now, I have to say that Bannister's article is devoid of real substance.
It's basically a fluff piece that tries to impress,
but it runs pretty much on rhetoric,
patronizing and logically fallacious rhetoric at that.
The way it reads, you get the impression that the author
is leading up to some great slam-dunk refutation of Sedevacantism,
but then that refutation never comes.
He tries to paint Sedevacantists as Protestants
while ignoring the fact that the one openly pushing Protestant ideas
is the very Pope he's trying to convert us to.
It is Francis who had the Martin Luther statue in the Vatican.
It's Francis who said in one of his...
in one of his many airplane interviews
that he believes Luther was right on the doctrine of justification,
which was put under anathema by the Council of Trent, by the way.
It is Francis who said he likes the Lutherans
who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ.
It is Francis whose favorite exorcist is a Lutheran pseudo-bishop.
It's Francis who told Lutherans from Finland
that they are the faithful people of God.
It is Francis who said he likes the faithful people of God.
It is Francis who gave a gorgeous Eucharistic chalice
to a Lutheran pastor in Rome.
It is Francis who during Corpus Christi of 2019
said that Jesus becomes bread in the Holy Eucharist,
that it's God contained in a piece of bread.
It's Francis who said that Catholics and Lutherans
possess a common justification in Christ
and are members of one and the same mystical body of Christ.
And it is Francis who, as a young student in Scandinavia,
once filled in for a Lutheran pastor
to conduct a Lutheran worship service.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up.
But we are the Protestants who have to be evangelized?
Let me make a suggestion.
If Jeremiah Bannister wants to evangelize someone,
start with Jorge Bergoglio.
So, Bannister insists on evangelizing someone.
Bannister insists on evangelizing someone.
Bannister insists on the need for an ultimate living authority in the church.
Fair enough. Fair enough.
But he leaves out of account the inconvenient fact
that if Francis is that living authority,
then we don't need an ultimate living authority
because then that authority would only be a great hindrance,
not a help to our salvation.
See, Christ instituted an ultimate living authority
not for the church.
Not for its own sake,
but for the sake of the salvation of souls.
So, no thanks, Mr. Bannister.
We are Sedevacantists.
We reject your pseudo-popes
precisely because we don't care to be Protestants.
Next, let's turn to an article released over at The Remnant
on February 16th,
written by Dr. Robert Morrison.
It's entitled,
Francis may or may not be Pope.
What are we going to do about it?
In it, the author concedes that
Francis seems dedicated to destroying the papacy
and that he basically accepts every religion
other than Catholicism.
But for some reason, Morris then asserts
that Francis, quote,
may take the most pleasure in seeing scores
of faithful Catholics declare that he is not Pope.
Unquote.
I don't think so.
Although he certainly does enjoy creating chaos,
the one thing his whole charade runs on
is the idea that he is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
If you take that away from him,
everything collapses.
So, no, I don't think that he would take pleasure
in people concluding he's not the Pope.
Especially not his own security people
like the Vatican police and the Swiss guards
because they could just,
gently accompany him
off the Vatican premises.
Anyway, Morrison recommends
we let ourselves be guided by
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
He doesn't say why.
Apparently, each Catholic can just choose
to follow a bishop he likes,
except the Pope, of course.
And Lefebvre said that he didn't consider himself
qualified to say whether Paul VI
was the Pope or not.
On the other hand, apparently,
he did consider himself qualified enough
to reject Paul VI's magisterium
and his liturgical reforms,
especially the new Mass and so on.
Isn't that interesting?
Look, folks, this is not a question of authority.
It's a question of logic.
If the apparent Pope imposes heresy on the Church
or other dangerous errors,
and if he imposes invalid or otherwise sacrilegious
liturgical rites that in themselves
are harmful to souls
and lead the faithful astray,
and if the Church teaches
that a true Pope cannot do such a thing,
then it is not only permitted
but necessary for you to conclude
that the apparent Pope
is not a true Pope but a false one.
That's all it is.
So Morrison is entirely on the wrong track
when he says that the Pope is not a true Pope,
and he asks,
Dr. Morrison,
you're not supposed to base your decision
that Francis isn't the Pope
on someone's authority.
You're supposed to,
logically infer it
from the fact that Francis continually does things
a true Pope is divinely prevented from doing.
Now, we can talk about exactly what those facts are,
but that is the fundamental reality
that you have to deal with
and that you've apparently completely misunderstood.
In any case,
we might as well throw the question back at Morrison.
If recognize and resist
is the right answer,
how do you know how much resistance
and with regard to what is right?
Should you follow the remnant
or church militant
or the wanderer
or EWTN or what?
It's not like all those resistance outlets
are on the same page, not by far.
Issues among Sedevacanists
are easily explained.
We have no Pope to settle disputes,
but if we did,
we would submit.
That's Catholicism.
But you guys, Dr. Morrison,
resist the settling of disputes
by your highest authority
so you have no remedy,
even in principle.
Yours is the dead end,
not Sedevacantism.
Now, Morrison asks
if there is any net benefit
to rejecting Francis' claim to the papacy.
Well, yeah.
For one thing,
you no longer have to believe
in a defected church.
What Morrison himself calls
new church in a prior article.
A humanistic, man-made institution
with a modernist identity.
Okay, actually,
it takes more than just rejecting Francis
to escape a defected church.
You also have to reject
the other noble sort of popes
after Pius XII.
But, same idea.
Now, Morrison's question
is a little odd here
because it assumes
that we should only worry
about being Sedevacanists
if we can derive
some kind of practical benefit from it,
not because it's true.
He says,
quote,
the Sedevacanist position
simply exchanges
one set of problems
for another,
unquote.
Well, it's certainly true
that we are still left
with plenty of vexations
once we understand
that the papal claimants
after Pius XII
are antipopes.
But, you know,
some problems are genuine
and others are impossible.
The idea is not
to escape all problems
or as many as possible,
but to assess the situation
in accordance with reality.
We're not Sedevacanists
because we enjoy
being Sedevacanists.
Heavens, no.
We're Sedevacanists
because we're convinced
that this is the only position
a Catholic can take
given Catholic teaching
and given what has transpired
since the death
of Pope Pius XII.
Our position isn't based on,
what kind of problems
we'd rather be dealing with.
It's based on truth.
Next, Morrison brings up
private revelation
in an attempt to discredit
Sedevacantism.
And, you know,
I'm not even going to bother
discussing that
because Sedevacantism
is about Catholic theology
and private revelation
is not a locus theologicus,
a data source
for sacred theology.
So, any argument
from private,
private revelation
for or against Sedevacantism
is dead on arrival.
Then the author opines
that, quote,
regardless of whether Francis is Pope,
we need fully Catholic bishops
to guide us, unquote.
But that's just begging the question
because a bishop
can only be fully Catholic
if he is subject to the Pope
and in communion with him.
See, you can't escape that problem.
There is no Catholicism
apart from the papacy.
Now, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying
that there must always be a Pope
or that you cannot be a Catholic
when there is no Pope reigning.
I'm saying that you cannot
have Catholicism
and leave the Pope question aside
as if it didn't really matter,
as if it were some optional add-on,
as if you could just cut the papacy
out of Catholicism
and go on your merry way without it.
It's not possible.
Next, Morrison trots out
that old resistance quote
from St. Robert Bellarmine again,
which, by the way,
has nothing to do with resisting
a Pope's magisterium
or anything like that.
But the Semitrats keep using it anyway,
you know, as if they were actually
interested in following
St. Robert Bellarmine on the papacy.
And then Morrison concludes
by noting that
until God shows us the way
out of this mess,
we have to follow,
and defend the immutable Catholic faith.
You know, that is a great idea.
Defend the immutable Catholic faith.
Maybe he can start
by defending the Catholic dogmas
and doctrines on the papacy.
And last but not least,
Chris Jackson has published
another theologically irresponsible piece,
also at The Remnant.
It is dated February 22nd
and entitled
The Perfect Bishop's Response
to Tradizioni's Custodes.
In that article,
Jackson brings up the case
of Christophe de Beaumont,
who was Archbishop of Paris
in the 18th century.
And he props him up
as a model for Catholics
to follow in resisting
a papal decree.
Just as Archbishop Beaumont
resisted Pope Clement XIV's decree
abolishing the Jesuit order
in 1773,
so Catholics today
are called to resist
France's decree
Tradizioni's Custodes,
Jackson argues.
There's just one problem.
Jackson simply assumes
that Archbishop Beaumont's resistance
was praiseworthy and justified.
He doesn't prove it.
But that's crucial
because just because a bishop
resisted the Pope
doesn't mean it was
the right thing to do.
How many bishops can you find
in church history
who refuse to comply
with a papal decree
at some time or another?
Just because some bishops
were disobedient
doesn't mean that they were
allowed to be.
Come on.
Would Jackson also praise
a bishop who defied
Pope St. Pius X?
No?
Why not?
Why can Pope Clement XIV
be defied
but not Pius X?
So yes, it is clear
that Archbishop Beaumont
definitely did resist
Clement XIV's
brief Dominus Acredemptor
because he sent the Pope
a letter basically saying,
heck no, I'm not complying.
So he was in your face
about his resistance.
But this is serious stuff
because Pope Clement
had made clear in that decree
that anyone who resists it
would incur immediate
excommunication.
And Jackson even quotes that.
So what Jackson
is actually doing here is,
he's encouraging Catholics
to follow the precedent
of a disobedient
18th century archbishop
who incurred automatic
excommunication
for defying the Pope's
suppression of the Jesuits.
So this is what I mean
when I say that Chris Jackson
is being irresponsible
with what he's publishing.
Now it is true
that Pope Clement's decision
to abolish the Jesuits
was very controversial
and it brought much harm
to the church.
However,
and this is what
the controversy is about,
the Pope was caught
between a rock and a hard place
because of pressures
from the secular powers.
And he feared
that not suppressing the Jesuits
would cause even greater harm
to the church.
See, people have to keep in mind
that we now,
we get to look at everything
with hindsight.
But Pope Clement
didn't have that privilege.
And regardless of whether
it was prudent or not,
the papal decree
was valid
and it had to be followed.
When the Pope says
that the Jesuit order
is no more,
then it is no more.
That's how the papacy works.
And just because
one bishop in France
didn't comply
doesn't mean squat.
Interestingly enough,
there is another bishop
Jackson could have quoted on this
but chose not to.
And that bishop
is Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
Saint Alphonsus,
who was bishop of
Saint-Denis,
Agata di Gotti,
a diocese near Naples,
Italy,
was not happy
about the suppression
of the Jesuits,
but he knew
that what the vicar of Christ
binds on earth
is bound in heaven.
And he also knew
how serious it is
to incur excommunication.
Now here's what
Saint Alphonsus said
about Pope Clement's
abolition of the Jesuits.
Quote,
Poor Pope,
what could he do
in the circumstances
in which he was placed?
With all the sovereigns
conspiring to demand
the suppression.
As for ourselves,
we much keep silence,
respect the secret judgment
of God,
and hold ourselves
in peace.
Unquote.
That quote is found
in the Catholic Encyclopedia
of 1912
in the article
on the suppression
of the Jesuits.
So, let's recap.
Saint Alphonsus was grieved
by the papal decision
at the time of his death.
At the same time,
he defended the Pope.
That is, he sought
to excuse him,
recognizing the extremely
difficult circumstances
in which he found himself.
And,
Saint Alphonsus
did not resist
or speak against
this decision
because,
prudent or imprudent,
he understood
that the papal judgment
was God's judgment,
since what the Pope
binds on earth
is bound in heaven.
So, listen up,
Chris Jackson.
Unlike Archbishop
Beaumont of Paris,
Saint Alphonsus
is a canonized saint
and doctor of the church,
and as such,
is truly
a model to follow.
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
novusordo.org.
NovusordoWatch.org
slash donate.