TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Thursday, March 23rd, 2023.
I don't know where the Church of Saints is. Here, we are all sinners.
These are the words of the Argentinian apostate Jorge Bergoglio,
who for 10 years now has been playing Pope Francis in the Vatican.
He said this in an interview published on Vatican News on March 10th of this year.
So, what's wrong with what he said?
Well, a number of things, but I'd like to focus on just one of them.
The inconsistency of what he said with his words and actions at other times.
Let's refresh his memory a little.
In 2018,
Bergoglio published his so-called apostolic exhortation,
Gaudete et Exsultate,
in which he dedicated four paragraphs to what he called the saints next door.
Listen to this.
Quote,
Nor need we think only of those already beatified and canonized.
The Holy Spirit bestows holiness in abundance among God's holy and faithful people.
I like to contemplate the holiness present,
in the patience of God's people.
In those parents who raise their children with immense love.
In those men and women who work hard to support their families.
In the sick and elderly religious who never lose their smile.
In their daily perseverance, I see the holiness of the church militant.
Very often, it is a holiness found in our next-door neighbors,
those who, living in our midst, reflect God's presence.
Quote,
We might call them the middle class of holiness.
Holiness is the most attractive face of the church.
Unquote.
These were excerpts from paragraphs 6, 7, and 9 of Gaudete et Exsultate.
And then he goes on to talk about non-Catholic saints,
a notion which is actually a heresy.
So, it's funny how that works,
but back in 2018, he had no problem identifying
a church full of saints, even saints outside the church.
They were everywhere, even next door.
Besides, he claims to believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church, doesn't he?
And of course, no one claiming to be Pope since Vatican II
has officially canonized more saints than he has.
But now, he puts on his somber face and can only find sinners, no saints.
All of a sudden.
Why is that?
Well, I can tell you why.
Because of what he was trying to do.
Francis will say contradictory things depending on what point he's trying to make.
You see, the context in which Francis said that we are all sinners
was that of welcoming unrepentant sodomites.
Of course, it would never occur to him to make that same argument,
to say, well, we're all sinners.
In response to someone putting up walls to keep migrants from entering a country illegally,
for example.
No, no.
That ultra-merciful face of his only comes out with regard to sins he wishes to minimize,
usually those against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
So, because he was trying to regularize, effectively, the vice of Sodom,
in that particular moment,
at the end of that interview,
he could suddenly no longer remember anything about a church of saints.
Only one of sinners.
And boy, doesn't that make him look humble.
Oh, by the way, Bergoglio uses that tactic all the time.
For instance, we all know that the man has no problem with paganism.
Just think of Pachamama, the Amazon Synod, Mother Earth coins,
or the Life of Buddha book that he gave to the president of Myanmar.
But, when it comes to denouncing traditionalism, or clericalism, guess what?
Francis suddenly discovers his great dislike for paganism.
And so, this past March 15th, he stated in his general audience
that to seek clerical advancement for the sake of being superior to others is pure paganism.
Just as he denounced traditionalism as
paganism of thought this past summer in Canada.
Ironically, during the very same trip
in which he participated in a smudging ritual
with a Native American sorcerer
who performed the rite in order to obtain
access to the sacred circle of spirits
through the intercession of the Grandmother of the West.
You can't make this stuff up.
Funny how it didn't occur.
It occurred to Mr. Who-Am-I-To-Judge to ask,
Who-Am-I-To-Smudge?
In other news, not that we needed additional confirmation,
but it doesn't hurt.
The English modernist Arthur Roche,
who in the Vatican II Church is known as
the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship,
just stated rather candidly
that the reason for the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass
is theological, doctrinal,
and religious beliefs in nature.
On March 19th, Roche appeared on a BBC radio broadcast
and said this.
You know, the theology of the Church has changed.
Whereas before the priests represented at a distance
all the people, they were channeled, as it were,
through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass.
It is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy,
but also those who are baptized with him.
You know, it's unfortunate,
but what Roche mentioned is probably more of a minor difference
between the pre- and the post-Vatican II theology on the Mass.
Much more important and new
is what the false cardinal didn't mention,
and that is the idea of the Mass as a meal
and the idea of the priest as a mere presider over that meal.
Neither of these two new ideas pose a problem for Protestants,
and that makes sense,
and that makes ecumenism so much easier, doesn't it?
They went from holy sacrifice to Eucharistic celebration,
if that isn't progress.
When in 1969 the false pope Paul VI issued the first edition
of the Guidelines for the Proper Celebration of the Revised Roman Missal,
commonly known as the New Mass,
he wrote the following.
Listen closely.
Quote,
The Lord's Supper, or Mass,
is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God
assembled, the priest presiding,
to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.
For this reason,
Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of Holy Church,
where two or three come together in my name,
there am I in their midst.
Unquote.
Wow.
Martin Luther could not have said it better.
It just doesn't get any more Protestant than that.
Now, it is true that that was subsequently revised because of a big outcry,
but that's not the point.
The point is that it was published like that in the first edition,
and that tells you all you need to know.
So that was the first edition of the so-called
General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 7.
You can look at it.
You can look it up yourself.
The link is in the show notes.
Now, in Roman Catholicism, by contrast,
the Holy Mass isn't an assembly of the people of God with a presider.
It is the true sacrifice of Calvary,
offered in an unbloody manner and perpetuated through time.
This requires an ordained priest acting in the person of Christ,
who is both priest and victim,
the faithful join in that sacrifice by uniting themselves to the priest spiritually.
And that, interestingly enough, is precisely what is denied and detested by Protestants.
They may agree that the Mass is a sacrifice, or their Eucharist is a sacrifice,
but they say it can only be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,
not a propitiatory sacrifice.
Meaning, a sin-atoning sacrifice.
And wouldn't you know it,
the notion of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice
has been completely erased in the new Mass.
And when I say completely, I mean like 99%.
Okay?
It's gone.
It's no accident that in the Vatican II Church,
a lot of the conservatives think that
if they believe in the real presence and transubstantiation,
that's all that matters.
That's what the Mass is ultimately about.
Christ being truly present and giving himself in Holy Communion.
But although that is a part of it,
the essence of the Mass is the sin-atoning sacrifice.
It is not simply Christ being present.
In Session 22, the Council of Trent taught this.
Quote,
If anyone says that in the Mass,
a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God,
or that the act of offering is nothing else
than Christ being given to us to eat,
let him be anathema.
Unquote.
That's Canon 1 of Session 22,
and you can find that in Denzinger 948.
Likewise, Canon 3.
Quote,
If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass
is only one of praise and thanksgiving,
or that it is a mere commemoration
of the sacrifice consummated on the cross,
but not one of propitiation,
or that it is of profit to him alone who receives,
or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead,
for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities,
let him be anathema.
Unquote.
That's Denzinger 950.
Now, is it not evident that what Trent condemns here
is precisely what is believed in the New Church
regarding the New Mass?
Back in 1969, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani
published a critique of the New Mass
known as the Ottaviani Intervention.
In an accompanying letter to Paul VI,
his eminence wrote, quote,
The Novus Ordo represents both
as a whole and in its details
a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass
as it was formulated in Session 22
of the Council of Trent.
Unquote.
Now, Cardinal Ottaviani wasn't just anyone.
He had been working in the Holy Office,
the chief doctrinal authority in the Vatican,
since at least the days of Pope Pius XII,
and eventually became the head of the Holy Office,
under Antipope Paul VI.
By 1969, Ottaviani had retired,
but what he had to say regarding doctrine
obviously still had tremendous weight.
So, when he said that the New Mass
departs from the Council of Trent,
that was huge.
And consider what that's saying.
The Council of Trent's teaching on the Holy Mass
is infallible dogma.
So, a rite of Mass,
that departs from that,
is necessarily heretical.
The Novus Ordo Mass is Protestant.
It is a Protestant liturgy.
That's why they don't have a real offertory anymore.
See, offertory suggests sacrifice.
What do they have instead?
A preparation of the gifts.
Preparing gifts.
That goes well with a meal service, right?
Gotta set the table.
And that is exactly why the altar
is very often only a table now.
See, altar implies sacrifice.
Table implies meal.
And so, there is no communion rail
separating the priest from the people,
because if it's a meal,
you want everyone around the table.
So, there is no more holy place
set apart for sacrifice,
separate from what is profane.
The sanctuary has no...
has become a worship space.
And, of course,
communion in the hand
fits all that perfectly.
Who eats a meal by opening his mouth
and waiting for someone else to feed him?
No, you go and pick up your food
and then you eat it.
And you can find that confirmed also
when you look at the architecture
and the art that have accompanied
that false new theology about the Mass.
Many Novus Ordo churches
look like alien spaceships,
and the inside is usually designed
in a circle or a half circle,
because that expresses the community
that is gathering around the table,
whereas the traditional theology
is that of the priest
standing at the altar
like the captain of a ship
with the passengers behind him,
facing God,
and making intercession
on behalf of the people,
through that sacrifice
which speaks more eloquently
than that of Abel.
The true Catholic Mass,
in every way,
bespeaks transcendence,
mystery,
sacrifice.
The new Mass,
on the other hand,
bespeaks community,
fellowship,
meal.
So, yeah,
Arthur Roche is entirely right
when he says that the theology
that underlies the new Mass
is quite...
quite different
from the theology
of the traditional Catholic Mass.
That's true.
The new Mass does not fit
the Catholic religion,
just as the traditional Mass
does not fit
their new conciliar religion.
And now you know
why they must get rid
of that traditional Mass
if their conciliar religion
is to survive.
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.