TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Thursday, October 20th, 2022.
The synod on synodality is gradually turning into a kind of Vatican III, but piecemeal.
His phoniness, Pope Francis, has now extended the synodal process by another year to end in October of 2024.
That is, there are going to be two synods on synodality now, one in October of next year and the other a year later,
kind of like what happened at the synods on the family in 2014 and 15.
In an address given today at the Vatican,
the fake pope reiterated that the goal of the synod is, quote,
to arrive at an ever greater openness to the newness of the spirit and his promptings, unquote.
Translation, fasten your seatbelts, folks.
It's going to be a wild ride.
Meanwhile, Eric Sammons, the editor-in-chief of Crisis magazine,
tweeted the following.
yesterday afternoon, quote,
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is the expert analysis you get from one of those synodal
self-proclaimed guardians of orthodoxy and correctors of the supposed pope.
The problem with Francis is that he's just not very good at what he does.
He just doesn't quite know how best to teach the faith or run the church.
Yeah, that's it.
I mean, that wasn't a quote now, but that's essentially what he's saying.
Sammons must think his readers are idiots.
If I were one of his supporters or subscribers, I'd be insulted.
He also recently, by the way, published an article at Crisis entitled,
The Multiple Religions Coexisting Within the Catholic Church.
But we'll look at that some other time.
See, there's a reason why the church didn't allow just anyone to publish stuff on religious matters.
You had to get it approved first by the diocese.
Now, speaking of things that shouldn't be published,
the semi-traditionalist Reverend John Hunwick shared some more of his brilliant insights
with his hapless readers today in a blog post simply entitled Manifesto?
The former Anglican-turned-Novels-Ordo-Presbyter recalls the so-called Manifesto of Faith
issued by the modernist Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller in February,
of 2019.
Hunwick writes,
quote,
I find it hard to express adequately the great debt I feel I owe to Cardinal Muller
for his unfailing and continuing defense of the Catholic faith
during these dark days of papal apostasy.
It fills the need that many of us feel for the sort of sound and intelligent teaching we received
in the last two pontificates.
Unquote.
Yeah, well, when your gold standard of orthodoxy is the magisterium of John Paul II and Benedict XVI,
I guess we shouldn't be surprised if you also believe that there is such a thing as papal apostasy.
In any case, to hold up Gerhard Ludwig Muller as a great defender of the faith is really quite scary,
considering the man denies the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Transubstantiation and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Muller is a disciple of Karl Rahner, so no surprise there.
Anyway, Hunwick thinks it was remarkable that Muller's 2019 Manifesto
didn't mention anything about the papacy.
And he says that maybe that's because papal infallibility
doesn't tell us anything about the Catholic faith.
That, at least, is what he read in a book by an Anglican theologian,
and he is just smitten with that incredible insight.
He quotes from the book The Recovery of Unity, a Theological Approach,
first published in 1958, written by Eric Lionel Muscal,
an Anglican theologian who died in 1993.
Here is what Muscal says regarding the First Vatican Council.
Quote,
The definition of infallibility has a logical status
quite different from that of any other definition.
It is a second-order definition, a definition about definitions,
whereas there are first-order definitions, definitions about the faith.
Thus, to be told that, under certain conditions, the Pope is infallible
is not to be told anything about the Christian faith at all.
It is only to be told something about the condition,
under which you may be told something about it.
Unquote.
Now, that may sound rather profound and insightful at first,
but it is really misguided.
Muscal doesn't grasp that the infallibility of the Pope
is itself a revealed dogma and therefore does tell us something
about the Christian faith.
When the Pope is infallible, and when he is not,
is part of the faith.
It is part of the faith handed down to us by our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
The papacy does not just give us revealed doctrine,
it is itself a revealed doctrine.
And so, Muscal's observation is simply false.
Now, of course, we can overlook the fact that a non-Catholic
doesn't properly understand Catholic theology.
That's not surprising.
But why in the world does Mr. Hunwick, of all people, not get it either?
See, the way he presents himself on his blog
is as some kind of incredibly enlightened expert in Catholic orthodoxy.
One who doesn't fall for, you know, silly hyper-papalism
and knows all about the real Catholic doctrine on the papacy.
Unlike those people who not only acknowledge Francis as a true Pope,
but also actually follow him.
Now look, Hunwick is no dummy.
He's an extremely well-educated man, a genuine Oxford scholar.
So the question is, why does he fall for that faulty thesis of the Reverend Muscal?
In my opinion, the answer lies in his personal anti-papal bias.
Muscal's thesis is extremely attractive to Hunwick
because it fits and feeds right into the narrative he has been promoting.
A narrative of minimization,
recognizing as much as possible the nature, authority, function, and effects of the papacy.
Just so he can fit Jorge Bergoglio, Francis, into it.
My recommendation to the Reverend Hunwick is this.
Spend less time reading what Anglicans are saying about the papacy,
and instead read what the Catholic Magisterium says about it.
Now, unfortunately, Hunwick is...
Hunwick is, of course, not the only one trying to refashion the Catholic doctrine on the papacy
into something that will work with Francis.
Another man who has apparently now made it part of his life's work
to rethink the papacy, his words,
is Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.
In a 2018 article entitled,
Lessons from Church History, A Brief Review of Papal Lapses,
which has just been reprinted in Volume 1,
one of his grossly misnamed two-volume set,
The Road from Hyper-Papalism to Catholicism,
Rethinking the Papacy in a Time of Ecclesial Disintegration,
Kwasniewski writes the following.
Quote,
This article has listed 11 immoral popes and 10 popes
who dabbled, to one degree or another, in heresy.
There have been a total of 266 popes.
If we do the math, we come out with...
0.14% of the successors of Peter
who earned opprobrium for their moral behavior
and 3.76% who deserve it for their dalliance with error.
On the other hand, about 90 of the pre-conciliar popes
are revered as saints or blessed,
which is 33.83%.
We could debate about the numbers.
Have I been too lenient or too severe in my lists?
But is there anyone who fails to behold in these numbers
the evident hand of divine providence?
A monarchy of 266 incumbents
lasting for 2,000 years
that can boast failure and success rates like this
is no mere human construct
operating by its own steam.
Unquote.
That is on page 43 of volume 1 of his book.
Now, what may sound fairly reasonable at first
is actually a blasphemy.
Kwasniewski is essentially saying
that the miracle of the papacy
consists in most of the popes
being reliable and orthodox
and not leading the sheep astray.
Not all of them, mind you,
or all the time,
but for the most part.
See? It's a miracle.
Usually, the popes get it right.
It's just too bad if you happen to live
during one of those unusual periods of church history.
But hey, even then,
there may just be a Peter Kwasniewski around
to keep us all on the straight and narrow, right?
Lest we be so unfortunate
as to follow and adhere
to the pronouncements of the apostolic see.
The nonsense these people are willing to embrace
and proclaim
just so long as it avoids
the set of accountism,
is absolutely staggering.
And this makes me very upset
because countless good-willed,
pious people
are impressed by this junk
and buy into it.
There is no question
that the papacy is a miracle.
It is a divine institution, after all.
But God doesn't work half-miracles.
When our Lord cured paralytics,
he cured them entirely.
He didn't cure most of their paralysis,
but all of it.
The paralytics were able-bodied again all the time,
not just during most of the week.
When our Savior cleansed the lepers,
he made them whole.
He didn't cleanse most of their leprosy,
leaving little spots here and there thinking,
eh, close enough.
What an insult to God
to say that the miraculous thing about the papacy
is that it's a miracle.
It's a miracle.
It's 96% orthodox and reliable.
If Kwasniewski could at least keep his repulsive ideas to himself,
but no, of course he has to publish them for public consumption.
And one of his latest victims is Julia Maloney.
She's an American writer and commentator who contributes articles to various semi-trad websites
and a year ago published a book exposing the St. Gallen Mafia.
Just a few days ago, on October 15th, an article by her appeared at Crisis magazine
entitled Modernism and the Miracle of the Papacy.
She says that years ago she abandoned her old hyper-papalist self
and now appreciates the miracle of the papacy,
by which she means, however, the Kwasniewski close enough version.
Now, I'm not trying to criticize her.
My problem is with Kwasniewski.
Maloney is just a victim of his false and dangerous theology.
Now, to refute Dr. Kwasniewski, you know what we do here.
We go by Catholic teaching.
Here are a few examples.
In his encyclical letter, Edite Sepe, released in 1910,
Pope St. Pius X taught,
quote,
Only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church,
the mystical body of Christ,
from blemish in the holiness of her doctrine, law, and end,
in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members.
Her doctrine, law, and end have produced an abundant harvest.
The faith and holiness of her children have brought forth the most salutary fruits.
Here is a quote,
Here is another proof of her divine life.
In spite of a great number of pernicious opinions and a great variety of errors,
as well as the vast army of rebels,
the Church remains immutable and constant
as the pillar and foundation of truth
in professing one identical doctrine
and receiving the same sacraments in her divine constitution,
government, and morality.
Unquote.
That's paragraph number 8.
Of Edite Sepe.
Then Pius XII.
In his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis,
Pius XII made clear that the Church is spotless.
Not pure for the most part, but without stain.
Quote,
Certainly the loving mother is spotless in the sacraments
by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children.
Unquote.
In the faith,
which she has always preserved inviolate,
in her sacred laws imposed on all,
in the evangelical councils which she recommends,
in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces
through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,
she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.
Unquote.
That's paragraph 66.
And then let's go back to the First Vatican Council of 1870
Unquote.
Now, imagine if Dr. Kwasniewski had said that the Immaculate Virgin was only 96% immaculate.
The remaining 4% kind of didn't really work out.
Would we not be completely outraged at such a blasphemy?
And what if he then maintained that, hey, don't get all worked up over this.
96% is close enough.
That's still pretty miraculous.
Since no one could be that holy without God working a miracle.
Would we not be beside ourselves and denounce him as a blasphemer and a heretic?
And yet, how is what he said about the papacy all that much different?
God's miracles aren't 96% miraculous.
Because there is no such thing as a partial miracle.
The works of God.
Are perfect.
We read in Deuteronomy chapter 32 verse 4.
And when we're talking about perfection.
No, 96% isn't close enough.
Either you have perfection or you don't.
There's nothing in between.
In an address given to cardinals on March 20th, 1900.
Pope Leo XIII taught that, 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.
In his address.
Ancora Una Volta given on February 20th.
1949.
Pope Pius XII taught that, 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 errors, idolatries, superstitions.
He condemns iniquities.
He makes charity and virtue lost.
Unquote.
Now that's clearly not describing Jorge Bergoglio.
But that's not because the teaching is false.
It's because Bergoglio isn't actually a valid pope.
Now we know that Dr. Kwasniewski isn't really into magisterial teachings.
Unless, of course, they happen to support his narrative.
So this evidence from the papal magisterium I just presented will not mean much to him.
And don't think I'm kidding.
You think I'm just assuming that?
Oh, no.
In a Facebook post of March 26th, 2021,
Kwasniewski dismissed the magisterial evidence as, quote,
Digging up quotes from a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago from papal maximalists.
Unquote.
And I've got the link to that in the show notes.
It's unbelievable.
You know,
Sometimes I think the man has lost his mind.
His popularity and worldly success have gone to his head.
And now he thinks that sacred theology is his private playground.
Where he can just toss around various ideas and publish them for the world to see.
As long as they don't disturb the desired and preconceived conclusion.
Namely, that the Novus Ordo religion is false.
But Francis is nevertheless a true pope.
It's a backwards approach to theology.
You start with a conclusion and then try to come up with arguments to get there.
While ignoring, minimizing, or arguing away anything that goes contrary to it.
That's what his rethinking of the papacy is all about.
But it's not Catholic theology.
It's sophistry.
Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo.
Check us out at Tradcast.org.
And if you like what we're doing, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution at NovusOrdoWatch.org.
Slash donate.