TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Saturday, October 7th, 2023.
What a week. What a week it's been.
Every day this past week, you just didn't know what to do first.
Somehow everything was hitting at the same time.
Here are the major things that happened in the last, well, let's say, nine to ten days.
First, the Catholic Identity Conference of the Recognize and Resist crowd here in the U.S.
Then, a consistory of new cardinals in the Vatican,
followed by a pre-Synod ecumenical prayer vigil in St. Peter's Square.
The publication of Dubia on the Synod by five cardinals,
plus Francis' response,
plus follow-up Dubia Francis has refused to answer.
Then, Francis answering a set of Dubia submitted by Cardinal Duca on Amoris Laetitia.
Then, the Synodal Tower of Babel conference in Rome.
Then, the release of Bergoglio's new apostolic exhortation, Laudatideum.
Then, the opening and first few days of the Synod.
Then, let's back up a few more days,
and note that the Kazakh Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider,
I call him now the world's most significant, insignificant Novus Ordo bishop,
released a provocative prayer for the 2023 Synod on Synodality on September 28th,
and on September 19th, had published his own semi-trad catechism called Credo.
And, of course, that's now being hailed by some as the greatest thing ever.
But, anyway, I don't know.
I don't mean to get into that now.
I just wanted to mention all these major things happening in just the past few days and weeks.
And the remainder of the month of October promises to be busy, too.
Francis has threatened to release a new apostolic letter on October 15th,
and the Synod will continue until October 29th.
And, finally, there will be another Recognize and Resist conference in Rome regarding the Synod,
the Rome Life Forum,
and that will begin on October 31st and end the following day.
So, yeah, lots going on.
So, let's get started looking at some of these things a bit more in-depth.
First, the dubia.
For those who don't know what that means,
dubia is the Latin word for doubts
and refers to questions that clergy can submit to the Holy See
when there is something they want clarification on.
And that's something that was done before Vatican II as well.
For example, in 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was asked
whether in Genesis chapter 1, the word day means a 24-hour period,
so that when it says that God created the world in six days,
it would mean in six 24-hour periods.
Or whether it was permissible to believe that by day is meant just an unspecified period of time.
And the Holy See responded that either understanding was permissible to hold
and that there could be free discussion about this among theologians.
And you can look that up in Denzinger, the pre-Vatican II edition, number 2128.
So, that's what dubia are.
Now, you may remember that in 2016,
when Francis published his exhortation Amoris Laetitia,
after the two synods on the family,
all hell broke loose because it appeared that he was opening the doors
to allowing unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion.
Of course, he didn't say it quite like that,
but once you cut through all the smooth-sounding rhetoric and the sophistry
and read all the footnotes, that's what he was actually doing.
So, the Novus Ordo cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Meisner, and Cafera
wrote five precise questions, dubia,
to challenge Francis to say openly and directly
whether certain points in his exhortation
were indeed saying what they appeared to be saying
and therefore contradicting the prior Catholic teaching
or whether there was some other way these points were to be understood
so that they did not contradict prior teaching.
So, Francis was pushed against the wall.
One way or another, he had to be clear.
Either Amoris Laetitia,
was now teaching something new
and in contradiction to perennial Catholic doctrine
or the document was not teaching anything new
and therefore nothing had changed
and remarried divorcees could still not receive Communion.
Well, guess what Francis did?
Nothing.
He knew that either way he'd be hosed.
So, he simply did nothing.
And when the four cardinals requested an audience with him
to talk about it, he simply refused to grant it.
And still, he has still not received them to this very day.
In fact, two of the cardinals died in 2017.
Meanwhile, people like Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi,
Emma Bonino, and others have had no problem
getting an appointment to meet with Francis for an extended chat.
It's just for some perspective.
Anyway, to this day,
Francis has not answered the dubia from 2016.
Meanwhile, a few days ago,
it was revealed that more dubia had been submitted
to the Vatican just this past July.
One set consisted of 10 questions submitted
by Cardinal Dominic Duca,
the retired Archbishop of Prague, Czech Republic.
His dubia concern Amoris Laetitia,
just like the original dubia of the other cardinals in 2016.
But this time, Francis responded.
And what do you know?
He made another mess.
Of course.
Now, we don't have time here to go through
all the individual questions and Bergoglio's responses,
so let me just give you the long and the short of it.
The official Vatican response to the dubia affirms,
first, that Amoris Laetitia is an act of the papal magisterium,
to which every Catholic must submit.
Second,
that, yes, it does open the possibility of access
to confession and communion,
when, in a particular case,
there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and guilt.
Something that, of course,
is to be discerned through pastoral accompaniment,
but that ultimately belongs to the individual spouses to decide on.
Translation, Francis is essentially saying,
that living in a non-celibate, adulterous union could,
depending on the circumstances,
be only a venial sin.
Now, that's obviously complete nonsense.
The Portuguese novelist-orto-apologist Pedro Gabriel
wrote an article for Where Peter Is, back in 2019,
arguing that very thing,
the same argument that Francis made.
And we shredded it to pieces back then on our blog.
I got it linked in the show notes.
Well, with the official papal thesis
that adultery can only be a venial sin in particular circumstances,
maybe we will now see promotional flyers in Novus Ordo parishes.
Go through an accompaniment session with our merciful pastor
and see if adultery is venial for you.
You can't make this stuff up.
But wait, there's more.
Cardinal Duca's dubia weren't the only dubia
the Vatican received in July and answered.
Cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Iniguez, Serra, and Zenn
had submitted five precise questions
regarding the work of the Synod on synodality on July 10th.
The first dubium concerns divine revelation.
The cardinals ask Francis to confirm, or perhaps deny,
that divine revelation is unchangeable
and can never be contradicted,
and that it's not subject to change
based on new scientific findings or cultural changes of the times.
The second dubium is the one that's been getting the most attention.
It's basically about finding good elements
in mortally sinful situations, such as sodomitic unions.
The cardinals want to know if the divinely constituted
natural order of male and female for marriage
is now to be determined.
It is now to be considered a mere ideal,
such that same-sex unions could also be accepted
as a possible good.
And they're asking this specifically
in the context of blessing homo couples.
The third dubium asks if synodality
can be the supreme regulative criterion
of the permanent government of the Church
without distorting her constitutive order
willed by Christ.
The fourth dubium asks if the divine order
asks Francis to confirm
that there is an essential difference
between the ministerial priesthood of the ordained
and the universal priesthood
in which all the baptized share,
and that it has been infallibly decided
by John Paul II
that women cannot be admitted to priestly ordination.
And lastly, the fifth dubium concerns
Francis' repeated insistence
that confessors are to absolve all penitents
of all their sins,
always, no matter what.
The cardinals ask Francis to confirm
that the Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching
is still valid,
which says that for absolution to be valid,
the penitent must be contrite for his sins
and have the intention
of not committing mortal sin again in the future.
Now, these five dubia,
these are all really good questions to ask.
And this time, though,
Francis responded.
But of course, as you can probably imagine,
he didn't just respond with a clear yes or no.
And of course, it's true that sometimes
a simple yes or no cannot be given
depending on how a question is framed,
what assumptions are built into the question,
and so on.
And sometimes you need to add more information
to ensure clarity.
However, what Francis did in his responses,
and by the way,
don't think for a minute that he wrote those himself.
The fact that he responded with lengthy answers
the very next day
indicates, to me at least,
that he knew these dubia were coming
or that someone else was tasked with answering them
and given all day to do it.
Perhaps Victor Manuel Fernandez,
who had just been appointed
the new head of the Dicastery
for the destruction of the faith.
Now, let's look at just one response
of Francis.
Which is also representative of the others.
In the second dubium,
the cardinals ask about marriage versus homo-unions.
If the former was now to be considered
simply the ideal,
and the latter an acceptable,
just not as good option,
in light of widespread claims
that the church could bless homo-couples
without betraying revealed doctrine.
Here is Bergoglio's lengthy reply,
a total of seven,
see how much of it you can take
before your mind starts rebelling.
Quote,
A. The church has a very clear conception of marriage,
an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union
between a man and a woman
naturally open to the generation of children.
She calls marriage only such a union.
Other forms of union do so only
in a partial and analogous way,
which is why they cannot be called marriage
in the strict sense.
B. It is not just a matter of names,
but the reality we call marriage
has a unique, essential constitution
that requires an exclusive name
not applicable to other realities.
It is certainly much more than a mere ideal.
C. This is why the church avoids
any kind of rite or sacramental
that could contradict this conviction.
And imply that something which is not marriage
is recognized as marriage.
D. In dealing with persons, however,
we must not lose the pastoral charity
that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes.
The defense of the objective truth
is not the only expression of this charity,
which is also made of kindness,
patience, understanding, tenderness,
and encouragement.
I think he forgot encouragement.
Therefore, we cannot make ourselves
into judges who only deny, reject, exclude.
E. Pastoral prudence must therefore
properly discern whether there are forms
of blessing requested by one or more people
that do not convey a misconception of marriage.
Because when a blessing is requested,
it is a request for help from God,
a plea to be able to live better.
A trust in a father who can help us to live better.
F. On the other hand,
even if there are situations
that from an objective point of view
are not morally acceptable,
the same pastoral charity demands
that we do not treat as no more than sinners
other persons whose guilt or responsibility
can be mitigated by various factors
that influence subjective imputability.
G.
Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence
in certain circumstances
need not be transformed into a norm.
In other words, it is not appropriate
for a diocese, a conference of bishops,
or any other ecclesial structure
to authorize constantly and officially
procedures or rules for every type of affair,
since everything that is part of a practical discernment
in particular circumstances
is not a matter of fact.
E. Pastoral prudence
cannot be elevated to the level of a rule
since this would lead to an intolerable casuistry.
Canon law should not and cannot cover everything,
nor can conferences of bishops pretend to do so
with their various documents and protocols
because the life of the church
runs through many channels besides the normative ones.
Unquote.
Are you still there?
Yeah?
So, what do you think?
What did Francis say?
I'd say there's something in there for everyone.
And so, not surprisingly,
different journalists and different commentators
have different opinions about what the Pope
actually decided here.
And so it's the usual game of
did the Pope just allow blessings for gay couples?
And what did Francis really say?
And that's exactly what the false Pope wants, of course.
Now, for those of us who have learned to read between the lines,
this is clearly Bergoglio signaling
to go ahead with blessings for same-sex couples.
At first, it may be a kind of exception,
a toleration with lots of emphasis on individual cases
and pastoral accompaniment and personal discernment.
And then there's that caveat
that it has to be clear that it's not a marriage.
Of course, that won't last long
because, you know, discrimination and stuff
and also because they will consider it a marriage
and all distinctions will be blurred in the practical order.
The exception quickly becomes the rule in Novus Ordo land.
But what for now will be considered by Francis' apologists
as that crucial criterion
that there cannot be any misconception about it being a marriage
is that it's not a marriage.
The question is also disingenuous.
The question is not simply whether it's a marriage,
but whether the union is intrinsically evil, sinful.
And of course it is.
And for that reason alone, it cannot take place.
A homosexual union, for that reason alone, cannot be blessed.
You cannot invoke God's blessing
on something that is intrinsically evil.
As a friend of mine noted,
it would be like saying that a priest can bless an abortion center
as long as he makes clear that it's not a pediatric clinic.
Ultimately, Francis' message to each individual cleric is,
you decide if you want to bless gay unions.
I certainly will not interfere if you do.
Unlike saying mass using the 1962 missile, by the way.
That's something they need to get Vatican permission for.
The Constitution,
the consequences of this will be catastrophic.
Not only will it unleash chaos in dioceses,
where one parish blesses and another condemns,
it will also put conservative Novus Ordo priests on the spot,
where denying such a blessing could lead to lawsuits
and persecution by authorities for so-called hate crimes.
Anyway, what Francis did in his responses to the Dubia
is use the typical modernist strategy.
Instead of giving answers that are clear and succinct,
he offered a lot of words.
Words that do not clarify, but obscure.
When you read what he wrote, your brain turns to mush.
After reading two or three paragraphs, you get the message.
And the message is, whatever.
His answers include everything.
Yes, no, maybe, it depends, you decide.
And that's exactly what some astute observers have concluded as well.
Luisela Scorsari, for example, writes at the Daily Compass,
Yes, yes, or perhaps not.
Francis raises more doubts than the Dubia.
And that's exactly right.
By pretending to respond to one doubt,
Francis, with his answer, raises three or four more.
And then he complains when the cardinals issue follow-up questions,
which is exactly what they did.
On August 21st,
Cardinals Burke, Braunmuller, Iniguez, Serra, and Zenn
submitted their five Dubia again,
this time reformulated in light of Bergoglio's obfuscating answers.
And to those reformulated Dubia,
Francis, of course, did not respond.
Which is why the five Novels Ordo Cardinals now made them public.
Now, Cardinal Fernandez, Bergoglio's new doctrinal undertaker,
complained about the five cardinals' submission,
of the reformulated Dubia,
saying that Francis isn't their slave for errands.
But that is not quite true.
See, if Francis were what he claims to be, a true pope,
then teaching, defending, and clarifying true doctrine
would be his very first duty.
Unlike, you know, making video messages about food waste
or chatting with Bill Clinton about the weather in 2050.
Or writing the umpteenth forward to somebody else's book.
All right, let's talk about the synod for a moment.
You know, the synod on synodality that began on October 4th.
The big conference in the Vatican
where they're all walking together and listening and discerning
like there's no tomorrow.
Yep, that one.
Vatican reporter Joshua McElwee spoke to Cardinal Pietro Parolin,
the Secretary-Elect,
the Secretary of State,
and he said that the synod is going well
and that the Holy Spirit is breathing.
Yes, he actually said that.
Now, Vatican journalist Diane Montagna
had a really good question about that.
On Friday, October 6th, at the official press briefing,
which, by the way, is the only official and approved source of information
regarding the synod,
while the assembly is still in session,
Montagna asked this.
A fundamental question about the synod.
Repeatedly, synod officials, including yourself,
have talked about the Holy Spirit as the protagonist of the synod.
Over and over again, we hear about the Holy Spirit.
Traditionally, well, not just traditionally,
the Catholic Church discerns the Holy Spirit
with a perspective,
by knowing, by determining,
if something is in accord with divine revelation,
the unanimous consensus of the Fathers,
and apostolic tradition.
How is this assembly discerning
whether something comes from the Holy Spirit
or from another spirit?
The spokesman was Dr. Paolo Ruffini,
the Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Communication.
In other words, the top dog
when it comes to the press,
and the Catholic Church.
And he answered in Italian,
so there's no point in playing his answer
on an English-language podcast,
but I will quote the English translation of his answer
that Montagna provided on Twitter.
Here is how Ruffini answered.
Quote,
I can respond by citing the creed which you know.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
For the rest, it is the people of God
on a journey that is meeting to pray
and converse together.
In history, as in prior history,
moments happen when the people of God
gather, pray, God with them,
and the Holy Spirit acts.
Unquote.
Now, Montagna attempted to ask a follow-up question,
but the microphone had already been snatched away from her,
and so she just used her natural voice to ask,
but how do we know that it's,
the Holy Spirit?
But by that point,
the vice director of the Holy See press office,
Christiane Murray,
was already jumping in, saying,
thank you, thank you, Dr. Ruffini,
are there other questions?
No?
Then tomorrow there's another meeting here.
So, kudos to Diane Montagna.
That was a really great and courageous question to ask,
and of course, these people can't answer that,
because the whole Senate is just a bunch of bloviating,
garbage, and in the end,
they will come up with whatever they want,
or whatever Francis wants,
and say it was the Holy Spirit.
I mean, let's not kid ourselves, okay?
That's all this is.
And I'm glad that one journalist
has now helped to make that more obvious.
All right, so the Senate on Synodality
began with an opening mass in St. Peter's Square,
presided over by Francis,
and although he didn't actually celebrate himself,
he did give.
The sermon, as usual.
Yeah, that mouth has its own engine, really.
And he began his sermon with not just a lie,
but with a blasphemous one.
In his second sentence,
where he claimed that, quote,
John the Baptist doubts that Jesus is really the Messiah, unquote.
Blasphemy.
It's a lie.
St. John the Baptist never doubted
that Christ was the Messiah,
He was not, after all,
a reed shaken by the wind,
as our Lord himself had emphasized.
Now, this blasphemous lie is not new for Francis.
He had told it a few times before in the last 10 years,
and we've put together several posts over the years
refuting this nonsense in depth.
And I'm going to post the most recent one
in the show notes for you.
The gospel passage that Francis claims
tells us of the Baptist,
is Matthew 11, verses 2 through 5,
which reads, quote,
Now when John had heard in prison
the works of Christ,
sending two of his disciples,
he said to him,
Aren't thou he that art to come,
or look we for another?
And Jesus, making answer, said to them,
Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen.
The blind see, the lame walk,
the lepers are cleansed,
the deaf hear,
the dead rise again,
the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Unquote.
At first sight, sure,
it sounds like St. John is doubting.
But that's only at first sight,
and once you consult approved pre-Vatican II
Catholic scripture commentaries,
writings of the church fathers, and so on,
you will understand very quickly
that the true understanding of this passage
is that the Baptist was sending his disciples
to our Lord to inquire about his messiahship,
not because he doubted it,
but because they did.
Now Francis knows this.
There's no way he doesn't know.
He's had a Jesuit education.
And say what you will about that,
it is intense.
I mean, it's not difficult to look that up.
Besides, even if he truly didn't know,
well, it was his job to know.
It's his responsibility
more than any other persons on earth,
if he really is what he claims to be,
to look up how the church understands this passage
before teaching the whole world about it, right?
Especially before blasting St. John
for doubting our Lord.
For heaven's sake,
St. John the Baptist recognized the true Messiah
when he and the Messiah were both still in the womb.
And when our Lord said,
the Lord came to be baptized by him as an adult,
he witnessed the Holy Ghost descend upon him as a dove,
and he testified,
behold the Lamb of God,
even though he had never met him.
So Francis began the synod on synodality
with a mendacious blasphemy.
If that isn't a sign of what to expect
for the remainder of the synodal journey.
Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making a tax-deductible contribution
at novusortowatch.org
slash donate.