Tradcast Express
January 27th. You can find part one of our critique in Tradcast Express 169, published on
February 7th. Probably the key takeaway from that episode is that Matt Gaspers has provided a few
Catholic quotes that could be read as saying that a pope does not have the authority to abolish the
traditional Roman rite of mass, but there are two ways to understand such a lack of authority
and Gaspers has not proven that the way he understands it is the correct way. Let me explain.
To say that a pope cannot abolish the traditional Roman rite of mass could be understood in the
sense that if he does issue a decree abolishing it, that decree is automatically null, void,
and worthless, and the cardinals, bishops, priests, and all the faithful are morally required to put
it through the schwein.
So to speak, and that's that. That is Gaspers' position and, in general, the position of the
recognize-and-resist traditionalists. The other way to understand that a pope cannot abolish the
traditional Roman rite of mass is to say that because he cannot do it, no true pope ever will
publish legislation abolishing the traditional mass. And only that position,
really makes sense because it alone harmonizes with the promised divine assistance to the papal
office. The Gaspers' position does not involve any protection of the papacy in that regard and
basically just means that the inferiors have to make sure that the pope won't get away with
legislating things he's not supposed to legislate. And that would mean that the papacy is not
distinguishable.
In that respect, from any merely human institution. Keeping all that in mind, we can now continue with
the next soundbite from that video, beginning at the 28 minute and two second mark. This is
Matt Gaspers speaking to Taylor Marshall. The other quote I want to share with you is from
Pope Pius IX in his profession of faith, January 6th, 1870, at the beginning of Vatican I, because
this is the pope who defined papal primacy and infallibility. So people often, the hyper-papalists
often point to him as saying, well, look, you know, he has supreme, he defined the pope as supreme
jurisdiction and everything. So obviously he can change whatever he wants, right? No, wrong. Very
wrong. This is what Pius IX said, January 6th, 1870. He's basically quoting from the Tridentine
profession of faith of, you know, the Pope. He's saying, well, look, he has supreme, he defined the
pope as supreme. So he's saying, well, look, he has supreme, he defined the pope as supreme. So
Pius IV, as you'll hear, apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and
constitutions of that same Catholic church, I most firmly accept and embrace. I profess also that
there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord
Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation. And here he says what Pius IV did. I likewise receive
and accept the rights of the Catholic church and the rights of the Catholic church and the rights
of the Catholic church, which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all
the aforesaid sacraments. So again, note this very well, everyone listening. The same pontiff
who defined papal infallibility and reaffirmed, quote, the full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the whole church in pastor eternus, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals,
but also those that pertain to the discipline and government of the church, the same pope,
who did that, also clearly recognized, as I just read to you, that he himself was bound to, quote,
firmly accept and embrace not only apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, including the rights of
the Catholic, the received and approved rights of the church, but also all other observances and
constitutions of the church. So the very pope who defined papal primacy and infallibility is
recognizing, I'm not an absolute monarch whose will,
is the law. I am underneath these other things. Okay, fine. For the sake of argument, let's say
that this proves that the pope cannot abolish the traditional Roman right of mass. But then
it means precisely that, that he cannot do it. Not that he can, and then everybody has to tell
him to go fly a kite. See, ironically, it is actually Matt Gaspers who believes,
that the pope can abolish the traditional mass. He's just not allowed to, and so then it doesn't
count. Now, I'm not conceding that what Gaspers just quoted there from Pope Pius IX necessarily
means or implies that no pope can validly abolish the traditional Roman right of mass
and replace it with another perfectly orthodox and sacred right. After all, the words speak
of the rights of the Catholic Church, which have been received and approved in the solemn
administration of all the sacraments. Well, obviously, if the pope revokes the approval
for a particular right, then it is no longer a right that has been received and approved.
Furthermore, as far as embracing and accepting all apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions,
surely that requires
or at least admits of interpretation. For example, Holy Communion used to be given to
infants, and I believe in the Eastern Churches that is still done. However, in the Latin Church,
that was discontinued at some point. In his 1910 decree Qua Singulare, Pope St. Pius X
writes about this as follows, quote,
Qua Singulare says,
also frequently thereafter, were admitted to the sacred repast. In some churches, it was the custom
to give the Eucharist to the children immediately after the clergy. In others, the small fragments
which remained after the communion of the adults were given to the children. This practice later
died out in the Latin church, and children were not permitted to approach the holy table until
they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august sacrament. This
new practice, note well, new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly
confirmed by the fourth council of the Lateran in 1215. Unquote. So, yeah, I think all this is a bit
more complicated and nuanced than Gaspers thinks.
The bottom line is that the Eucharist is not a new practice. It is a new practice.
The bottom line is this. The papacy is of divine institution, and God has promised his assistance
not merely of infallibility for ex cathedra pronouncements, but of safe guidance for the
church generally, such that people can safely entrust themselves like little children to Holy
Mother Church, guided by Christ's very own vicar. It is then for the Pope to determine, legislate,
and judge.
After all, Christ's words, what you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, were to St. Peter,
and not to YouTubers from Texas or journalists from Colorado.
All right, next we'll see how Gaspers deals with the following words from Pope Pius XII,
from the encyclical Mediator Dei, paragraph 58. Quote,
It follows from this that the sovereign pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish
any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to
modify those he judges to require modification. Unquote. Again, that's Pope Pius XII, encyclical
Mediator Dei. Gaspers says this,
Pius XII did not say,
that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or even the Pope himself, has the right to abolish the received
and approved rites of the Catholic Church. He said that the sovereign pontiff alone enjoys the right
to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to guard and preserve what
he's received, to introduce and approve new rites, which doesn't necessarily mean an entirely new
liturgical rite for the whole mass. In the Council of Trinity, he said, that the sovereign pontiff
that word rite referred to things like mystical blessings, candles, incense, lesser things.
Okay, so in other words, it's not clear what Pius XII meant, but then it doesn't exclude the idea
of a whole new rite of mass either. Mr. Gaspers, you're only giving opinions here. You're not
proving anything. And he said also to modify those he judges to require modification. He is not
saying, I have a wholesale right to get rid of the rite of mass. I have a wholesale right to get rid of the rite of mass.
I have a wholesale right to get rid of the traditional Latin mass. That's simply not what
he's saying at all. Okay, but remember, Paul VI wasn't claiming to be getting rid of the entire
Roman rite either. He claimed to be merely introducing revisions to the rite, albeit
considerable ones. So that would be in line with Pius XII's teaching that the Roman pontiff can
modify rites he judges to require modification. In reality,
you can say, yes, Paul VI did introduce a new rite. But my point is that that's not what was
said officially. If you look at the Vatican's documents, they always speak about the reform
of the Roman rite, not about the creation of the new rite.
And he goes on in the very next paragraph, actually, he says,
provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. And as we know from the Ottaviani
intervention, the brief critical study of the mass, of the new mass, rather, that's precisely
what's at stake here is the integrity of her doctrine in the new liturgical rite.
Exactly. Now, of course, a true pope could never crank out such impious junk as the Novus Ordo rite
of mass. We're in the middle of a period of time where we're in the middle of a period of time where
we're in the middle of a period of time where we're in agreement on that. But the point is that
the only possible explanation for why Paul VI was nonetheless able to promulgate this evil rite
is that he wasn't a true pope. That is crucial. The idea that the Roman pontiff could promulgate
to the universal church a rite of mass that attacks or undermines Catholic dogma or doctrine
is absurd. So it's impossible that Paul VI was a true pope. And in fact, Taylor Marshall now
throws that objection at Gaspers for the sake of argument and asks if that doesn't mean that we
need to be Sedevacantists now. But unfortunately, Marshall doesn't quite phrase the question
correctly. He doesn't ask how it would be possible for a true pope to produce a heretical,
bad, evil, sacrilegious, harmful rite of mass. I would love to hear Gaspers' response to that.
Instead, he asks him how a true pope could abolish the ancient Roman mass and reset it.
And Gaspers conveniently answers that, well, he didn't really do that. Take a listen.
It's very important to understand
that as Benedict XVI finally acknowledged in the year 2007 that the 1962 Missal, in his words,
quote, was never juridically abrogated and consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
So even if it was Paul VI's will that all of us get on board with the Novus Ordo and leave
the traditional mass behind, he technically never abrogated it. That's simply a historical fact.
Which is awesome. Which means if you were a priest in 1974 and you're like, I don't want to do the
Novus Ordo, I'm using the old one. Technically, he was right. The old mass was not abrogated.
Correct.
Wrong. I'm sorry, but that's actually not correct. Now, it is true, of course, that Benedict XVI said
that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated.
Meaning that Paul VI never actually abolished it. But that was a lie. And that's quite easy
to prove, actually, simply by looking at what Paul VI actually wrote. In his so-called apostolic
constitution, Missale Romanum of April 3rd, 1969, Paul VI notes in various places that what he's
publishing is a revision.
Right.
Of the Missal of St. Pius V. An adaptation, not a new separate rite of mass that can be used
as an alternative, but rather a recomposed Roman Missal. Then he outlines some of the changes and
ends by saying these solemn words, quote,
We order that the prescriptions of this constitution go into effect November 30th of
this year, the first Sunday of Advent. We wish that these our decrees and prescriptions may be firm
and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions
and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving
particular mention and derogation. Unquote.
Unquote.
That is a formula for abrogation.
The canonist Archbishop Amleto Siconiani states very clearly in his 1935 book on the Code of
Canon Law that the Pope doesn't have to say, we hereby abrogate. He can say that, of course,
but a more typical way for a law to be revoked by the legislator is by him, quote, inserting
abrogatory or derogatory clauses as is common in decrees, re-scripts, and other pontifical acts, such as notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention. Unquote.
That's from page 629, and I've got this linked in the show notes.
Unquote.
This means that Paul VI was making it abundantly clear that what he had just decreed concerning the Roman Missal superseded anything and everything that had come before it.
In other words, if Paul VI was a true Pope, then the Roman rite as found in Pope Pius V's Quo Primum, which we typically call the traditional Latin Mass, is history,
as it has been authoritatively revised in such a way that it is now what we typically call the New Mass, or the Novus Ordo Mass.
If Paul VI was a true Pope, that's what you would have to conclude.
The rite as it was prior to the Novus Ordo revisions, basically the 1962 Missal, was no longer permitted,
which, by the way, is the reason why priests who still...
wanted to use it, needed an indult to do so.
An indult is a special permission granted by the lawgiver for something that would not otherwise be permitted.
Archbishop Siconiani defines indult as, quote,
faculties and favors which the legislator benevolently grants for a time either outside the law or contrary to the same.
Unquote.
It's on page 477.
An indult for the traditional Mass was needed between 1969 and 2007
because the traditional Mass had been forbidden.
It had been abolished by the modernist Vatican.
Such are the historical facts.
Benedict XVI's claim, then, that the traditional...
Latin Mass wasn't really abolished by Paul VI, was a lie.
It's simply not true.
But it was a lie that worked in the Semitrads' favor.
And perhaps that is the reason why they never noticed, or simply didn't care, that it was historically false.
Okay, now, let's return to Matt Gaspers.
Maybe I was a little too quick in my refutation here because...
Listen to what else he says.
About the traditional Mass never having been repealed.
And it wasn't because it can't be.
I mean, that's the point.
And that's the point that Benedict made in his...
That quote I just read is from his letter to bishops in reference to Samorum Pontificum,
the attachment to it, you might say.
He goes on in that same letter,
What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too.
And it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
Ah, see, it wasn't abolished because it cannot be.
In other words, who cares what Paul VI actually said or decreed?
If we decide he cannot do it, then it means nothing.
So, I guess a Catholic can't go by the words of the Pope, even legislation, in an apostolic constitution.
Rather, he first needs to check with his favorite Semitrad official,
pseudo-authority, to see if it's any good.
But then it gets really messy if the Semitrad pundits disagree with one another.
Imagine if Athanasius Schneider says one thing and Carlo Maria Viganò says the opposite.
Then what?
Well, see, a Catholic would say that you simply turn to the Pope.
And that's the end of it.
But then that doesn't work for the recognize and resist people,
since they've already decided that the Pope is not the final authority,
at least not when they disagree with him.
It's a madhouse.
Now, I love how Benedict XVI is always quoted as saying that
what was sacred for the prior generations is still sacred for us today.
Well, that's very nice to say, but with regard to the liturgical revolution after Vatican II,
it simply is...
He's whitewashing the liturgical crimes after the Council.
That's all this is.
And when I say liturgical crimes,
I don't even mean any abuses that were taking place.
I'm just talking about the official legislation coming from the Vatican.
All right, let's go back to Matt Gaspers and Taylor Marshall.
Gaspers is still quoting Benedict XVI.
It behooves all of us to preserve the religious,
which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer,
and to give them their proper place.
That is the traditional Catholic understanding of liturgy right there.
And that might be one of the most important legacies of Pope Benedict XVI,
to say what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too,
and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
And there's apologists out there.
Who say that the traditional Latin mass that is harmful,
it's considered harmful, it's bad, it's leading people into schism.
It's being weaponized.
And Benedict says, no, it cannot be considered harmful.
And it behooves all of us to preserve the riches,
which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer.
Well, but the traditional mass,
is harmful to the new religion of Vatican II.
That's why it had to go.
And that is why Francis is fighting it so much.
See, at first the idea was that the new mass would simply
replace the traditional mass more or less overnight.
And that will be that.
But then with all the stress being caused by the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
the Society of St. Pius X,
John Paul II decided it might be a good idea
to still let people have the traditional mass
if that prevents them from attaching themselves to Lefebvre.
And so in 1984, he allowed a limited indult for the traditional mass.
And then four years later, in 88, after Lefebvre went into schism,
John Paul stepped it up and made the indult much more generous.
But the idea was always to keep people from leaving the new church,
from abandoning the Vatican II religion.
In fact, the indult was never given for theological reasons.
As if the Vatican ever conceded that the new mass was deficient theologically.
It was always given only for pastoral reasons having to do with nostalgia,
and an emotional attachment to the traditional liturgy,
or some spiritual need.
It was always on the basis of the subjective preference or needs
of a few traditionalists,
whom John Paul II and later Benedict XVI didn't want to defect to the Lefebvres.
With some more in Pontificum in 2007 then,
Benedict XVI,
introduced this nonsense of the one Roman rite having an ordinary and an extraordinary form.
Which was another lie, of course,
but it too helped the Semitrads so they didn't mind too much.
But it too was done to try to keep traditionalists from leaving the Vatican II church.
The idea was always to eventually lead the traditionalists
into the new church,
into the new religion and the new worship.
Perhaps with a little more incense and a little more Latin,
a little more reverence.
But this idea of a restoration of the church back to pre-Vatican II times
was always out of the question for both Benedict and John Paul.
And so, 14 years after Summorum Pontificum,
the false Pope Francis,
Jorge Bergoglio,
saw the need to act.
See, he noticed that a great number of these traditionalists in his church
are not merely attached to the traditional mass
for reasons of nostalgia or personal preference,
but for theological, doctrinal reasons.
They have no interest in eventually coming around on Vatican II
and the new orientation with ecumenism,
interreligious dialogue,
and all that stuff.
And in fact, they have been telling themselves
that there will eventually be a glorious restoration of tradition
and all the Vatican II junk will one day be rescinded.
That's because they were reading the Remnant
and Catholic Family News
and Christopher Ferrara
and Peter Kwasniewski.
And that's why Francis has now said,
enough, enough already.
If you guys aren't going to go to the Vatican,
to get with the Vatican II program here,
you're done.
I'm taking away your traditional mass.
Instead of bringing those who've been dragging their feet
gradually around to the new religion,
it actually accomplished the opposite.
It's made people think that it was just the first step
in turning everything back around
to how it was before the council.
And from his perspective,
from Bergoglio's,
his reaction makes perfect sense.
Why continue to put out a decoy
if you're finding out
that not only is it not having its intended effect,
it's actually making the problem worse?
So, of course he's going to put a damper on this.
It was the traditionalists,
the recognize and resist trads,
who, because of bad theology
and an unreasonable,
a priori rejection of Sedevacantism,
had convinced themselves
that they could get the post-Catholic Vatican
to change course,
and that Benedict XVI's concession
of the traditional mass
was only the first of many victories
in that great battle
for the restoration of tradition.
They thought they could fight from within,
as the saying goes,
as if it were possible
to turn an opposition,
apostate institution,
into the Catholic Church.
So, any traditionalist
who believes Francis is the Pope
and is surprised at his suppression
of the traditional mass
has not understood
what is really going on.
The Vatican hierarchs
have no intention
of returning to Catholicism.
The traditional mass
was only given
as a temporary concession
for a group of people
they didn't want to lose entirely.
They figured that
if they could attach people
to the new religion
by giving them the externals
of the traditional liturgy,
then that was a price worth paying.
They figured that eventually
the people who liked the old mass
would die out,
and then this would no longer be an issue.
But the strategy backfired,
and now they're adjusting course.
Therefore,
as evil as Francis' hatred
of the traditional mass is,
it is not surprising.
It is only surprising
if you think he is a Catholic
and the Pope of the Catholic Church
trying to lead souls
to eternal happiness
through faith, hope, and charity.
Back to Taylor Marshall
and Matt Gaspers.
That right there
might be the most important
legacy of Pope Benedict XVI,
because if Francis does try
to cancel and delete
the traditional Latin mass,
all we have to do
is show that quote.
Oh, really?
You're going to defeat Francis
by showing a quote, huh?
What's that going to do?
If you can dismiss Francis
by quoting Benedict XVI,
then by the same token,
you can dismiss St. Pius V
by quoting Benedict XVI.
Or you could dismiss Pius V
by quoting St. Benedict XVI.
Or you could dismiss St. Pius V
by quoting St. Benedict XVI.
Or you could dismiss St. Pius V
by quoting St. Benedict XVI.
And so on.
All popes have the same authority.
If Francis is the pope,
what he decrees and legislates
is what matters.
As Pope Leo XIII said,
those who, faced with
two differing directives,
reject the present one
to hold to the past
are not giving proof of obedience
to the authority
which has the right and duty
to guide them.
That's from the apostolic letter
Epistola Tua.
Next,
Gaspers quotes from
Francis' letter
Desiderio Desideravi
of June 29, 2022
on liturgical formation.
Paragraph 31.
Listen closely.
Quote,
It would be trivial to read the tensions
unfortunately present around
the celebration
as a simple divergence between
different tastes
concerning a particular ritual form.
The problematic, Francis says,
is primarily ecclesiological.
That is huge
because what he is saying
is that the tensions
which exist between Catholics
who embrace the liturgical form
and those who resisted
are based not on
what he calls different tastes
but on divergent ecclesiologies.
That is, on fundamental
different doctrinal positions
about the Church's very nature.
So when he's trying to get rid
of the traditional Mass,
what he's really trying to do
is get rid of the Church's
traditional ecclesiology.
That's what we have to understand.
Bingo!
And that is exactly
what I was talking about earlier.
It's about Vatican II,
about doctrine,
not about liturgical preference per se.
The tradition,
the traditional Mass
teaches Catholicism
and therefore a Catholic ecclesiology.
The new Mass
teaches a different religion,
a different idea of Church.
And that is further evidence
that the new Mass
could not have come
from a true Pope.
But that is a conclusion
Gaspers resists
with every fiber of his being.
He just does not want to go there.
Instead, he creates this new doctrine
according to which Popes can legislate
all sorts of impious
and heretical liturgical nonsense.
And then those Catholics
who are really enlightened
and really faithful
understand that they have the right
and duty to reject it.
Ultimately, even to the point
of schism and excommunication,
which of course they then get to overrule
as well, so to speak,
by taking the doctrine of Catholicism
and telling everyone
that that's not valid or binding either.
It is insane.
Now, listen to this from Taylor Marshall.
And you can't have sodomy
and same sex blessings.
And abortion is not always that bad
if you just follow your conscience
and contraception and all this nonsense,
women's ordination.
You can't have all that
in the old, real, Catholic tradition.
So you have to recreate
and ape it with something new.
Did you get that?
He just referred to the
old, real Catholic Church,
which implies that he admits
deep down that the current thing
isn't the old, real Catholic Church.
To hold that Francis
is nonetheless the real Pope
makes a complete mess of everything.
And so it's ironic,
that Taylor Marshall should complain
about a false ecclesiology,
while at the same time pushing the idea
that Francis can be a true Pope
leading a false church.
All right, next,
Gaspers once more recycles two famous quotes,
which actually have nothing to do
with the topic under discussion.
Let's start with the first one
from St. Thomas Aquinas.
So yeah, this, now we're gonna try,
transition into what should our response be as Catholics,
if the Pope tries to cancel the traditional Latin mass,
even though objectively speaking,
the papal, he doesn't have the authority to do that,
but what if he tries to do that?
Okay.
First we'll go with St. Thomas Aquinas
about fraternal correction.
This is in the part of the Summa
that deals with fraternal correction.
And St. Thomas says,
if the faith were endangered,
and indeed it is with these radical changes
and trying to get rid
of the received and approved Roman right.
If the faith were endangered,
a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.
Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject,
rebuked him in public on account
of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith.
And as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2.11,
this is Augustine speaking,
Peter gave an example to superiors
that if at any time they should happen
to stray from the straight path,
they should not disdain to be reproved
by their subjects, end quote.
That's Thomas Aquinas in the Summa.
Yes, and people are gonna say,
well, you can rebuke your prelate publicly,
but I mean, that's just like your Bishop.
No, the example that Thomas uses is Paul rebuking Peter.
Peter was the Pope.
So the quote here, Thomas Aquinas is not just talking
about rebuking your priest, your pastor,
a deacon, your local Bishop.
The example he gives is rebuking Peter, the Pope.
That's right.
All right, so it is certainly true that any Catholic,
even the Pope himself, can be rebuked
by an inferior if he sins, especially if it's public
and he scandalizes the faithful.
That is a matter of fraternal correction.
Since even the Pope is a sinner, even the Pope can be
fraternally corrected. So, if the Pope tells you to rob a bank and use the money to build a church,
you must refuse, first of all, and you should also rebuke him for telling you that. That's
fraternal correction, and that is what St. Thomas is talking about. That's also what St. Paul did
with regard to St. Peter in Galatians 2. St. Paul thought that St. Peter's decision to eat
with the Jewish converts separately, apart from the Gentile converts, out of human respect,
was scandalizing the Gentiles, and so he reproved him for his imprudence. That's all that was.
St. Peter didn't issue some decree establishing a law for the whole church,
nor did he teach anything. He simply acted imprudently. St. Augustine held that St. Peter's
was merely a venial thought.
fault of imprudence, and you can look that up in the traditional Catholic Hadoc Bible
in the Commentary on Galatians 2.11. Cardinal Baronius thought that St. Peter didn't sin at all.
Next, Gaspers quotes St. Robert Bellarmine from his work On the Roman Pontiff, Book 2, Chapter 29.
Just as it would be lawful to resist a pontiff invading a body, so in other words threatening
physical harm, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much
more if he should endeavor to destroy the church. And I would say that trying to destroy the Roman
Rite of the traditional Roman Rite is an attack on the church herself, definitely. So Robert
Bellarmine goes on to say,
I say it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he commands and by blocking him,
lest he should carry out his will. Still, Bellarmine says, it is not lawful to judge
or punish or even depose him because he is nothing other than a superior. So this is really where we
get the idea of recognizing the Pope is the Pope while also resisting illegitimate commands and
decrees, etc. Yeah, well, it's unfortunate that they never quote,
this passage from the same book by St. Robert Bellarmine, quote,
The Pope is the teacher and shepherd of the whole church. Thus, the whole church is so bound to hear
and follow him that if he would err, the whole church would err. Now, our adversaries respond
that the church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than
men. On the other hand,
who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to
judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly
doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse.
As we showed above, from the whole church one can appeal to the Pope, yet from him no one is able
to appeal.
Therefore, necessarily, the whole church will err if the pontiff would err, unquote.
That is from St. Robert Bellarmine's book on the Roman Pontiff, Book 4, Chapter 3.
And it's easy to see that this is very applicable to the issue we're actually talking about,
which is the Pope teaching or legislating in his official capacity. In any case,
it's not.
What do we make of the Bellarmine quote cited by Gaspers? Well, the late Father Anthony Ciccata
once explained what that quote is actually talking about. We got it linked in the show
notes, so you can look it up. But let me just quote Father Ciccata's summary.
Quote,
1. Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands,
not one who,
like the
post-Vatican II popes teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. Number two, the context of the
statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.
Number three, Bellarmine is justifying resistance by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.
Number four, Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work, chapter 30, that a heretical
pope automatically loses his authority. In a word, the passage can neither be applied to the present
crisis nor invoked against Sedevacantism, unquote. But hey, the Semitrats have been using that quote
for decades.
And although Father Ciccata wrote this almost 20 years ago, in 2004, no one has ever, to my
knowledge, interacted with it or attempted to answer it.
All right, Gaspers then wraps it up with a recommendation of two books by Peter Kwasniewski,
one of them about true obedience. Let me just say here that Dr. Kwasniewski is on record
accusing
Pope St. Pius X of, no joke, liturgical modernism. Oh, you think I'm kidding? Not at all.
Look it up yourself. He wrote that in an article posted at newliturgicalmovement.org
on February 4th, 2019. The piece is entitled, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the
SSPX and the Bible.
The piece is entitled, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the Bible.
and the FSSP. So, that man is informing the Semitrads on proper submission to the Pope.
Okay, then. No, I'm not going to spend any time now on Peter Kwasniewski. At
novusortowatch.org, there is plenty of material refuting the man. And, you know, just recently,
he called some of St. Pius X's papal allocutions a historical embarrassment.
You know, if we had a true Pope, some of what this man has written would be on the index of
forbidden books. But he's very popular among the Semitrads because he gives them academic
justifications for their position. But academic is one thing, and capitalistic is another.
Catholic is another. All right. Thus far, our critical review of Taylor Marshall's and Matt
Gasper's video, Can Pope Francis Ban the Latin Mass? As you can see, what may at first sight
look like a really convincing presentation falls apart rather quickly once you actually examine
what they say critically. Marshall and Gaspers spoke for about an hour and a half, and they
were in total, but at no point did they offer clear, irrefutable evidence that the Pope
absolutely cannot abolish the ancient Roman rite of mass and replace it with a new one that is also
orthodox and holy. What they did is offer certain quotes that can be interpreted in that way,
but they have not shown that it is the correct or the only possible interpretation. And,
even if they could do that, still, that would only establish that the Pope will never do such a
thing, precisely because he cannot. It would not mean, as Gaspers and Marshall would have you
believe, that the Pope can issue such legislation, but it remains without any effect, and everyone
else in the Church then has the right and obligation to ignore or resist it because of
something St. Robert said over here, or St. Robert said over here, or St. Robert said over here, or
St. Thomas said over there. That is a pipe dream of the Semitrads, and neither Gaspers nor Marshall
have given any evidence that, per Catholic doctrine, such a scenario is even possible.
At best, Marshall and Gaspers simply gave us their own private and non-authoritative opinions
about things. But against those opinions, there stands the official,
and authoritative, legislation of the person they claim is definitely the Vicar of Christ.
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.