TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Friday, May 13th, 2022.
Francis has discovered a new sin.
Yes, another one.
This time, though, it's not proselytism,
which he said was a great sin against ecumenism,
nor is it not taking care of the climate,
which he recently said is a sin against God's gift of creation.
No, this time, it is the sin of going backwards.
Yep, Francis said that today in a lengthy address
to participants of a conference on moral theology
at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University.
And boy, did he let it.
Listen to these profound words
from the current successor of John XXIII.
Quote,
Going backwards is not Christian.
In fact, I think it is the author of the letter to the Hebrews
who says,
We are not people who go backward.
The Christian cannot go back.
To go back to the roots, yes, to take inspiration, to go on.
But to go backwards is to go back to have a defense,
a security that prevents us from the risk of going forward,
the Christian risk of carrying the faith,
the Christian risk of making the journey with Jesus Christ.
And that is a risk.
Today, this going backwards is seen in so many ecclesiastical figures,
non-ecclesiastical, ecclesiastical,
that spring up like mushrooms,
here, there, there,
and present themselves as proposals for Christian living.
In moral theology, there is also a turning back
with casuistic propositions.
And casuistry, which I thought was buried seven meters deep,
resurrects as a proposition somewhat disguised of
up to here you can, but not up to there.
This way, yes.
That way, no.
And to reduce moral theology to casuistry is the sin of going backwards.
Casuistry has been outmoded.
Casuistry has been the food for me and my generation
in the study of moral theology.
But it is proper to decadent Thomism.
The real Thomism is that of Amoris Laetitia,
the one that takes place there,
explained well in the Synod and accepted by all.
It is the doctrine of St. Thomas Alive
which makes us go forward, risking, but in obedience.
And this is not easy.
Please be careful of this going backwards
that is a current temptation,
even for you theologians in moral theology.
Unquote.
Wow.
The contempt this man has
for traditional Catholicism is unmistakable.
Unmistakable.
In these words.
Let's go through this slowly.
And by the way, I'm using a computer translation here
as the Vatican, as usual,
is delayed in putting up an official English translation.
So please keep that in mind.
So Francis says,
going backwards is not Christian.
Okay, well, most of the time
he doesn't have a problem with things that aren't Christian.
Especially not if they relate to some indigenous culture
that works in the Christian world.
Worships the environment.
Then it's an enrichment
that we need to value and respect
and incorporate into some dynamic dialogue
that consists of a reciprocal exchange of gifts
or whatever stuff they come up with.
Second, what is going backwards?
Obviously, he's not speaking literally.
He's using a figure of speech.
So can he define it?
Well, of course not, right?
Well, I'm sure he can, but he chooses not to.
But we all know what he means, ultimately.
He's talking about abandoning the new mass
and the novelties of Vatican II
and the post-conciliar magisterium.
That's what he means by going backwards.
But it's interesting that he will not define it.
Then he says,
I think it is the author of the letter to the Hebrews
who says,
we are not people who go backward.
Okay.
Well, first, the author of the letter to the Hebrews
is St. Paul the Apostle.
You're welcome.
And second, the verse he's talking about
is probably Hebrews 10.39,
which says in the Douay-Rheims translation,
but we are not the children of withdrawing unto perdition,
but of faith to the saving of the soul.
Which is explained in the HADOC commentary
to mean that, quote,
we are not such as withdraw ourselves in this manner
from the true faith to perdition,
but remain constant in the faith and law of Christ.
Unquote.
Yep, that is indeed a verse
Francis may wish to meditate on some time.
By the way, going forward is not always a good thing.
Especially not if you're standing on the edge of a cliff.
We can all be going forward,
but if we're on the wrong path,
moving further and further away from our true goal
doesn't do us any good.
Nor is it terribly desirable
to go forward towards hell, for example.
So moving forward by itself
doesn't mean anything.
And of course, it's just typical Francis
speak for moving ever farther away
from the true faith,
from Catholic tradition,
from what everyone knew to be the true Catholic doctrine
until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
Don't believe it?
Well, here are two concrete examples
that I can think of off the top of my head
where Francis says move forward
and clearly means to imply a departure
from the true faith.
From traditional Catholic orthodoxy.
On November 15th, 2015,
Francis went to visit a Lutheran church in Rome
and during that visit,
a Lutheran woman married to a Novus Ordo
asked Francis if she could receive
Novus Ordo communion.
Francis gave a long-winded response
that can be simply summarized with one word
and that word is
whatever.
He ended his response
with the following words.
Quote,
It's a problem that each must answer for himself.
There are explanations, interpretations,
but life is bigger than explanations
and interpretations.
Always refer back to your baptism.
One faith, one baptism, one Lord.
This, Paul tells us.
The consequences come later.
I would never dare to give permission to do this
because it's not my competence.
One baptism, one Lord, one faith.
Talk to the Lord and go forward.
And I wouldn't dare,
I don't dare say anything more.
Unquote.
Well, he definitely said enough.
On that question,
there is nothing to move forward on
except to move forward and become a Catholic.
Unquote.
Non-Catholic past.
Non-Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion.
It's as simple as that.
So, while Bergoglio gave a long answer
without saying much,
there's only one permissible answer,
and that answer is no.
Anyway, if you want to read the full answer Francis gave,
go to
www.novosordowatch.org
slash
wire
and
put
life
is bigger
than
explanations
into the search box
and it'll come right up.
The other example that comes to mind is
what Francis said on June 6th, 2013
to representatives of the Latin American Conference of Religious.
He told them
that if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ever were to investigate or reprimand them,
not to worry too much
and simply
keep going.
As reported by the so-called
National Catholic Reporter
on June 12th, 2013,
Francis' exact words were,
quote,
perhaps even a letter of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith
will arrive for you
telling you that you said
such or such a thing.
But do not worry.
Explain whatever you have to explain,
but move forward.
Unquote.
So there we have it.
It's all about moving forward.
Now, as quoted earlier,
Francis also said,
the Christian cannot go back.
To go back to the roots?
Yes.
To take inspiration.
To go on.
Ah, so the only time you are allowed to go back
is in order to go forward.
Hmm.
So, like, for example,
when in the 1960s
they reduced the altar to a mere table,
and said,
well, that's how it was in the early church.
See, that kind of going backwards
is totally fine
because it helps the modernist revolution.
And that means moving forward.
Got it?
But to go backwards
is to go back to have a defense,
a security that prevents us
from the risk of going forward,
the Christian risk of carrying the faith,
the Christian risk of making the journey
with Jesus Christ.
And that is a risk,
Francis says.
And, of course,
that is just rhetoric.
As is typical for him
and others who think like him,
the departure from sacred tradition,
from the true doctrine,
is cast as being the courageous thing,
the risky thing,
the magnanimous thing,
which, of course,
implies that if you're opposed to that,
why then, obviously,
you're a coward,
you're closed-minded,
you're timid,
you're not mature enough.
The truth, of course,
is that there is nothing mature,
magnanimous,
or courageous
about rushing to embrace
novelties or errors,
much less heresy.
Today, this going backwards
is seen in so many ecclesiastical figures
that spring up like mushrooms
here, there,
or there,
and present themselves
as proposals for Christian living.
Francis complains,
Oh, really?
There are so many figures
in the Vatican II Church
that are going backwards.
Really, now?
I hadn't noticed.
There are a few, I'm sure,
but it's not many.
Then Francis unloads his ire
on moral theology.
In moral theology,
there is always,
also, a turning back
with casuistic propositions.
And casuistry,
which I thought was
buried seven meters below,
resurrects as a proposition
somewhat disguised of
up to here you can,
but not up to there.
This way, yes.
That way, no.
And to reduce moral theology
to casuistry
is the sin of going backwards.
And there it is,
ladies and gentlemen,
the sin of going backwards.
So the man who wrote
in paragraph 303
of his exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
that in your particular situation
God may actually want you
to commit adultery,
that man is getting
all bent out of shape
over the sin of going backwards.
Right.
Yeah, but wait a minute now.
On April 24th this year,
he told the world
that the Lord isn't looking
for perfect Christians.
So what's he stressed out about?
Anyway, you know who was guilty
of that sin,
the sin of going backwards
and not moving forward?
St. Paul.
Yep, St. Paul the Apostle.
In a second letter
to the Thessalonians,
chapter 2, verse 14,
he wrote,
Therefore, brethren,
stand fast and hold the traditions
which you have learned,
whether by word
or by our epistle.
Another bad one was
Pope Pius IX.
In his famous syllabus of errors,
he condemned the following proposition.
Quote,
The Roman pontiff can
and ought to reconcile himself
and come to terms with
progress, liberalism,
and modern civilization.
Unquote.
That's error number 80
in the syllabus of 1880.
1864.
So yeah, Pius IX was not
into moving forward much.
And then, of course,
we've got Pope St. Pius X,
who exclaimed in his encyclical,
Paschendi,
quote,
Far, far from the clergy
be the love of novelty.
Unquote.
That's paragraph number 49.
So Francis is clearly
still traumatized
from his traditional Catholic
upbringing and education
because he says,
Casuistry has been outmoded.
Casuistry has been the food
for me and my generation
in the study of moral theology,
but it is proper
to decadent Thomism.
Decadent Thomism.
At other times,
he's referred to that
as decadent scholasticism.
And it illustrates
just how much hatred
the man bears
towards that philosophical system,
which Pope St. Pius X
prescribed as normative
for Catholic theological
and philosophical education.
In his encyclical, Paschendi,
which we just mentioned,
St. Pius X
basically described Francis
to a T
when he wrote this,
quote,
Against scholastic philosophy
and theology,
they use the weapons
of ridicule and contempt,
whether it is ignorance
or fear or both
that inspires this conduct in them.
Certain it is
that the passion for novelty
is always united in them
with hatred of scholasticism.
And there is no surer sign
that a man is tending to modernism
than when he begins to show
his dislike for the scholastic method.
Unquote.
Paragraph 42.
Also, in 1864,
Pope Pius IX
had condemned the following idea,
quote,
the method and principles
by which the old scholastic
doctors cultivated theology
are no longer suitable
to the demands of our times
and to the progress
of the sciences.
Unquote.
That's error number 13
in the book,
In the Syllabus of Errors.
So, what's the deal
with casuistry?
What is that evil discipline
Bergoglio is fulminating against?
Well, casuistry is basically
the science of applied
moral theology.
It's of the utmost importance
because it takes the principles
of Catholic moral theology
and applies them
to concrete situations
so that Catholics can't
know how to act
in a way that is morally right.
It shows Catholics
how to avoid sin
in even the most complex
and difficult situations.
One of the greatest
casuists in church history,
perhaps the greatest,
was St. Alphonsus Liguori,
the church's doctor of moral
theology.
Now, of course, Bergoglio hates
casuistry because it is
rigorous, it is precise,
it is inflexible,
because it adheres faithfully
to true moral principles.
In other words,
you can't really use it
to muddle your way through
with things like encounter,
discernment, accompaniment.
That doesn't fly.
And casuistry does not allow
for amoris laetitia,
France's document that basically
allows communion for people
who are living in adultery.
And that's probably why
he brings it up
in the very next sentence.
Saying,
the real Thomism is that
of amoris laetitia,
the one that takes place there,
explained well in the synod
and accepted by all.
It is the doctrine of St. Thomas
alive, which makes us go forward
risking, but in obedience.
And that is not easy.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, sure.
Francis the Thomist.
Oh.
The idea that amoris laetitia
is Thomistic
means that it's not.
Meaning that it follows
the system of St. Thomas Aquinas
was blown out of the water
even by a Novus Ordo theologian,
the Dominican Reverend Basil Cole.
It was published by the
so-called National Catholic Register
on December 16th, 2016
under the title
Is Amoris Laetitia Really Thomistic?
So Francis ends his diatribe
telling his listeners,
please be careful
of this going backwards
that is a current temptation
even for you theologians
in moral theology.
Yeah, no doubt
that is a big temptation
for Novus Ordo theologians
in our day.
Aren't we just so lucky
to have Francis
watching out for the church,
keeping it from descending
into the abyss
of casuistry
and other concepts
that only tempt us.
To go backwards.
In an address given
on September 17th, 1946,
Pope Pius XII said the following
to Jesuits, no less.
Quote,
Much has been said,
but not enough
after due consideration,
about the nouvelle theologie,
the new theology,
which because of its characteristics,
of moving along
with everything
in a state of perpetual motion,
will always be on the road
to somewhere,
but will never arrive anywhere.
If one thought that one had to agree
with an idea like that,
what would become
of Catholic dogmas,
which must never change?
What would happen
to the unity
and stability of faith?
Unquote.
That's from the allocution
Quamvis Inquieti,
of Pope Pius XII,
and how right he was.
After roughly six decades
of the new theology,
what is left
of the Catholic faith
in the Vatican?
Nothing.
It was left behind
by the new modernist management,
which was only concerned
about moving forward.
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.