TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Tuesday, March 15th, 2022.
What do you know? Just as you're trying to get a podcast recorded, news breaks in Rome.
The Vatican announced today that on March 25th of this year, Francis will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
And not only Russia, but also the Ukraine.
Matteo Bruni, the head honcho there at the Vatican press office, released the following statement.
On Friday, March 25th, during the celebration of Penance, at which he will preside at 5pm in St. Peter's Basilica,
Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski,
Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father.
Unquote.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't get too excited here.
This is simply the latest act in The Francis Show, and it will make exactly zero difference to anything.
How do I know that?
Well, for one thing, because Francis isn't the Pope.
For that reason alone, he cannot fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima.
Secondly, even some of the Semitrans are skeptical here,
because there is no mention of this being done in union with the bishops of the world,
which seems to be one of the requirements of Our Lady of Fatima.
Others have suggested that it must be Russia alone that is consequential,
not Russia and some other country, though I'm not so sure that that's true.
Our Lady didn't say only Russia. She said Russia.
But folks, let's get real.
Francis isn't the Pope.
He's on record as being a blaspheming Pachamama worshiper
who teaches that the differences between religions reflect the richness of different ways of coming to God
and are positively willed by God.
And that fraternity is the anchor of salvation for humanity.
And the only conversion he cares about is the ecological kind.
Now, that's not to say that heaven won't respond to his impious lips
reciting a prayer to the Blessed Virgin.
I just fear that the response is going to be one of fire and brimstone
rather than peace and prosperity.
But now let's finally get to how I was originally convinced
to be going to start out this podcast.
The Archlaemon of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx,
offered the Novus Ordo worship service this past Sunday
for the Munich queer community to mark the group's 20th anniversary.
This was reported on Monday by LifeSite, the so-called Catholic news agency,
and, without even a hint of displeasure, by the German edition of Vatican News.
In his homily,
for the occasion,
the false shepherd Marx let it rip.
Quote,
Unquote.
Well, considering that the group he was addressing
is one that promotes the practice of sins that cry to heaven for vengeance,
I'd say there aren't too many there interested in walking the way of the cross.
Marx claimed that Christ taught the primacy
of love, which, of course, is true,
except that Marx twists that into an acceptance of perversion,
as long as it's loving perversion.
The singing was provided by members of the Rainbow Choir, by the way,
and that was very fitting since the apostate archdiocese has a so-called Rainbow Ministry,
which, quote,
sees itself as a service to the reconciliation of the Church
with the LGBT,
the B-B-T-I community.
Unquote.
That's according to diocesan official Ruth Huber,
who is head of the Department of Generations and Ages.
Well, maybe they meant D-generations.
But, anyway, according to LifeSite,
one of the activities the Munich Archdiocese offers in support of the perverted alphabet ideology
is weekends for gay, bi, and trans men
that exploit the LGBT community.
Or the special male friendship among such people.
Okay?
So, this group, this Munich queer community,
has held its own special Sunday Masses
every week since March of 2002.
And so this year, for the 20th anniversary,
the Archlaemon of Munich,
who is also a close advisor to Pope Francis, by the way,
wanted to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Archdiocese of Munich.
And so this year, for the 20th anniversary,
he wanted to celebrate the Homo-Mess himself.
Well, hey, look on the bright side.
At least he didn't do it facing east.
In other news, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is not a happy camper these days.
In an article entitled,
Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ or CEO of Vatican Inc.,
published on the website of Catholic Family News on Monday,
Kwasniewski accuses Francis of
abusing papal authority,
because he basically fired a bishop he didn't approve of.
Kwasniewski insists that the Pope cannot do that.
Except, of course, he can.
Just as he can appoint bishops at will,
so he can fire them if he deems it appropriate.
Now, never mind that Francis' reasons
for firing Daniel Fernandez Torres,
the ordinary of Arecibo, Puerto Rico,
are ridiculous and mostly unjust,
but if the Pope is the Vicar of Christ,
then he has every right to remove a bishop
he deems not to be a good fit.
That is not, as Kwasniewski thinks,
a simplistic hyper-papalist ecclesiology
that is Catholicism.
The Canon Lawyer journalists who run the new blog The Pillar
examined this question in detail
and, of course, concluded that, yes,
a Pope has the right to do so.
Kwasniewski is uncensed,
but how does he imagine the Church should work?
That the Pope orders the removal of a bishop,
but the bishop can just veto that decision
and overrule the Pope, so to speak?
Or that the Pope can be sued in ecclesiastical court
and one of his inferiors then pronounces judgment
that is binding on both?
Peter Kwasniewski seems not to have the faintest idea
how the papacy works.
The first C is judged by no one.
That is not just Canon Law.
That is infallible dogma.
As Kwasniewski himself concedes in the article,
Vatican I teaches dogmatically
that the Pope has supreme, full, immediate,
and universal ordinary jurisdiction.
And that is so not only over every bishop and priest,
but also over every saint,
but also over every priest,
but also over every single Catholic.
But, says Kwasniewski,
that doesn't mean that the Pope can just fire a bishop at will.
The problem is,
Kwasniewski provides no concrete evidence
for his claim in his article.
He just makes arguments for why he considers that absurd.
But he provides no real positive evidence,
except, and this is hilarious,
at the very end,
he cites Karl Rahner in his defense.
Karl Rahner.
Perhaps the most influential modernist
of the post-conciliar epoch.
Rahner did not believe in the perpetual virginity
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by the way.
And I'm pretty sure he also denied transubstantiation.
Anyway, why does Kwasniewski cite Rahner?
Very simple.
Because on that particular point,
Rahner agrees with him.
See, the way this article is written,
the way this works in Semi-Trad Apologetics
is that you don't look at what the pertinent authorities say
and then you go by that,
or at least let them influence you,
your position.
Rather, you first see who agrees with you
and then tout them as authorities.
It doesn't occur to Kwasniewski, apparently,
that perhaps Rahner's modernism
also tainted his view of the papacy.
Right?
Or, if it does occur to him,
he simply ignores it,
because in this particular,
case, Rahner comes in handy for him.
Now, of course, it's quite conceivable
that a pope might be sinning
in a specific case
if he fires a bishop from his diocese,
but that doesn't mean the bishop isn't fired.
The pope is judged by no one on earth.
He is only judged by God after death.
That is Catholicism,
and there is no problem with that.
The reason Kwasniewski has a problem with it,
is that he stubbornly recognizes
a public apostate
as the pope of the Catholic Church,
and now he's got to face
the unpleasant consequences
of his error.
Now, while we're on the topic
of Peter Kwasniewski
and him cobbling together
his own theology,
he just published a short new book
called True Obedience
in the Church.
And wouldn't you know it,
it just so happens that he's discovered
that the Church teaches
that papal documents
like Francis' Traditiones Custodes,
which basically phases out
the traditional Mass,
need not and should not be obeyed.
How lucky Kwasniewski is
that at least that much
Church teaching needs to be obeyed.
Kwasniewski arrives
at his convenient conclusion
on the grounds that
forbidding the traditional Catholic Mass
is contrary to the common good,
and if a law is
contrary to the common good,
then, as the Church teaches,
it is not a valid law.
Well, he is certainly right
that substituting the new Mass
of Paul VI
for the traditional Roman Mass
is contrary to the common good.
That's clear.
But the real question
that must be asked
is what in the world
makes Peter Kwasniewski think
that it is even possible
for the Supreme Pontiff
to release
a decree
that establishes
a liturgical law
for the universal Church
that is contrary
to the common good
and therefore
a danger to souls.
That idea
is utterly impossible
and absurd.
Now, in his book,
Kwasniewski brings up
various quotes
from all kinds of
real and imagined
Church authorities,
but he interprets them
in a way favorable
to his,
when it is not at all clear
that such interpretation
is necessary
or even warranted.
So, for example,
he brings up the following
from the Council of Constance.
Quote,
Since the Roman Pontiff
exercises such great power
among mortals,
it is right
that he be bound
all the more
by the incontrovertible bonds
of the faith
and by the rights
that are to be observed
regarding the Church.
The Church's sacraments.
Unquote.
That statement
is far from having
obvious meaning.
We, Sedevacantists,
agree, of course,
that the Pope
is bound by the faith,
but that does not mean
that he is capable
of teaching heresy
to the whole Church.
What it means is
that what the Pope teaches
to the whole Church
will necessarily
be in conformity
with the true faith,
and if it should be possible,
for the Pope to deviate
from the faith
as a private individual,
not in the exercise
of his office,
but only in his capacity
as a private man,
then he would no longer
be Pope automatically.
It is Kwasniewski
who gratuitously assumes
that this statement
from the Council of Constance
means that the Pope
can overstep
the bounds of orthodoxy
in what he teaches
to the Church.
He just isn't allowed to.
And so when he does,
then the bishops
and the faithful
basically have to
rise up in protest
until the Pope
gets his act together
and withdraws
the false teaching.
What an utterly
ludicrous idea.
Of course,
that is not
what we see
in the rich magisterial
teaching on the papacy
of the 19th
and 20th centuries,
which Kwasniewski decries
as ultramontanism,
as if that were
a bad thing,
or as hyper-papalism
and whatnot.
It is outrageous.
Then another example
from his new book.
Kwasniewski quotes
the 17th century theologian
Fr. Francisco Suarez,
who says the following,
quote,
If the Pope lays down
an order contrary
to right customs,
one does not have
to obey him.
If he tries to do something
manifestly opposed
to justice
and to the common good,
it would be licit
to resist him.
If he attacks by force,
he could be repelled
by force,
with the moderation
characteristic
of a good defense,
unquote.
Now, for a short podcast
like this,
I'm not going to
investigate this in depth,
you know,
like examine the context,
see what others
have written about this
and so on.
But let me just
note a few things here
that show
what a weak argument
Kwasniewski is using here.
Number one,
Fr. Francisco Suarez
Suarez, yes,
was a great theologian,
but he's neither a saint
nor a doctor of the church.
Why not use
St. Robert Bellarmine instead?
Number two,
from what was quoted,
there is no indication
that Suarez agrees
that it is possible
for a pope to impose
either heresy
or a harmful liturgical right
on the universal church.
An order contrary
to right customs
is one thing,
a false right of mass
is something
else entirely.
Number three,
again,
just going by
what was actually quoted,
Suarez may actually
have been speaking
hypothetically,
in theory,
without meaning to imply
that all of this
was actually possible.
That is how
St. Robert Bellarmine,
for example,
discussed what would happen
if a pope
became a public heretic.
He laid it out,
but he didn't think
it was possible
in practice.
And number four,
even if Suarez
backed up
Kwasniewski's ideas
100%,
guess what?
There's been a lot
of official papal teaching
since the 17th century
when Father Suarez
was writing,
and that papal teaching
overrules Suarez
wherever it contradicts
what he said.
So for Peter Kwasniewski
to bring up Francisco Suarez
and ignore him,
ignore the teachings
of the popes
on this matter
is indefensible.
But it certainly does
say a lot.
I challenge
Dr. Kwasniewski
to find one clear example
from the papal magisterium
since Pope St. Pius V's
Quo Primum
in the 16th century
that says that
when the pope issues
liturgical laws
for the entire church,
then the bishops
and the faithful
have the obligation
to accept them
only if they judge them
to be in conformity
with faith,
reason,
and the common good.
Because that is simply absurd.
Kwasniewski lives
in theological la-la land
because his theology
is the result
of trying to reconcile
traditional Catholicism
with the false magisterium
of the Vatican II Church.
He's desperately trying
to make it fit,
and since that's
an impossibility,
he ends up with all kinds
of theological contortions,
which, however,
he persuades himself
are the gospel truth
because otherwise
he'd end up with
Sedevacantism,
and obviously
that can't be true, right?
So that's my challenge
to Peter Kwasniewski
because what I've found
is that papal teaching
is very consistent
and very clear.
The bishops and the faithful
must receive
the liturgical,
the liturgical directives
of the Holy See
and follow them,
period.
For example,
in his 1947 encyclical
Mediator Dei,
Pope Pius XII
told his bishops that,
quote,
you must strive
that with due reverence
and faith
all obey
the decrees
of the Council of Trent,
of the Roman pontiffs,
and the sacred congregation
of rites,
and what the liturgical books
ordain
concerning external
public worship,
unquote.
Again, Mediator Dei,
and that's paragraph number 187.
Now, how is that possible?
How could Pius XII say that?
Didn't he know about
how obedience has its limits?
Had he never read
Peter Kwasniewski,
I mean,
St. Thomas Aquinas?
Or could it be
that it is impossible
for a true pope
to approve
harmful liturgies?
Remember what the
Council of Trent defined
in Session 22,
Canon 7,
quote,
if anyone says
that the ceremonies,
vestments,
and outward signs
which the Catholic Church
uses in the celebration
of masses
are incentives
to impiety
rather than
the services of piety,
let him be
anathema,
unquote.
You can look that up
in Denzinger,
number 954.
And now you know
why Pope Pius IX,
writing to the president
of the Italian Catholic Youth Council
in a letter dated
January 21st, 1878,
said, quote,
we congratulate you, therefore,
on the fact that
although you suffer doubtless
at the defection of your brothers
separated from you
by the breath of perfidious teaching,
you are not troubled for all that
and are even being stimulated
by their aimless,
error to receive
with greater willingness
and to follow with more zeal
not only the orders
but even all the directives
of the apostolic see.
And by so doing,
you are certain
that you cannot be deceived
or betrayed,
unquote.
The reason you cannot apply
these words
to the apostolic see
under Francis
is not because
there's something wrong
with Catholic tradition,
but because Francis
isn't the Pope.
Good luck
with that consecration of Russia.
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.