TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Monday, October 30th, 2023.
Scott Hahn is a famous convert to the Vatican II religion from Presbyterianism.
He converted back in 1986 and has long been a professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville
and, of course, a prolific author for popular books on theology and apologetics.
Although he may appear orthodox compared to Pope Francis,
he is at best a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Novus Ordo in the mold of John Paul II.
He is also a raving charismatic acumenist,
and has publicly put forward the blasphemy that the Holy Trinity is a family.
And since a family does not only have a father and a son, but also a mother,
you can probably guess which of the three divine persons is feminine, motherly, and bridal for Hahn.
And what impact that has on the teaching that the Holy Ghost is the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
well, we don't need.
To go there, because our topic now is a different one.
Hahn just appeared on the YouTube show Pints with Aquinas with Matt Fradd,
who is a Novus Ordo apologist from Australia.
The episode premiered on October 24th under the title Catholics in Exile,
and a five-minute excerpt of that was made into a separate video entitled
Christ is Head of the Church with Dr. Scott Hahn,
released on YouTube.
October 27th.
Hahn was asked to respond to a viewer's question about
how to deal with that Jesuit from Buenos Aires,
the so-called Pope Francis, Jorge Bergoglio,
considering that it is evident now that he is changing doctrine,
that he's teaching things at variance with the Catholic faith.
Let's listen to the response Hahn gives.
You know, for 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has gotten by with,
what, 265 popes.
And some, like Benedict IX, have just been rank scoundrels.
I mean, perverts.
And most of them have been good.
Some great, some holy, but only a few saints.
And we're not in a personality cult because the pope is not the head of the church.
He's the vicar of Christ, and he alone is the head.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Let's stop right here for a moment.
Scott Hahn just said, in all seriousness,
that the pope is not the head of the church,
that our,
Lord Jesus alone is the head of the church. Really now? Do they not teach the first Vatican
Council at Franciscan University in Steubenville? Only Vatican II, huh? Well, here's what Vatican I
says back in 1870, quote, if anyone then says that the blessed apostle Peter was not established by
the Lord Jesus Christ as the chief of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole
militant church, or that the same received great honor but did not receive from the same our Lord
Jesus Christ directly and immediately the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction, let him be.
Anathema, unquote. That's from the Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 1,
found in Denzinger, number
1823. Let's choose another example. In chapter 3 of the same document, Vatican I quotes the
Council of Florence as follows, quote, the pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed
Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole church and
faith and teacher of all Christians, unquote. That's found in
Denzinger, number 1823. Let's choose another example. In chapter 3 of the same document, Vatican I quotes the
1826. Now, let's fast forward to 1943. Pope Pius XII writes in Mystici Corporis, his great encyclical
on the church as the mystical body of Christ, quote, since he, Christ, was all wise, he could
not leave the body of the church he had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor
against this may one argue that the primacy of Christ as the chief of all the apostles and the
of jurisdiction established in the church gives such a mystical body two heads. For Peter, in virtue
of his primacy, is only Christ's vicar, so that there is only one chief head of this body, namely
Christ, who never ceases himself to guide the church invisible, though at the same time he rules
it visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious ascension into heaven,
this church rests,
that not on him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his
vicar constitute one only head is the solemn teaching of our predecessor of immortal memory,
Boniface VIII, in the apostolic letter Unam Sanctam, and his successors have never ceased
to repeat the same. Unquote. Again, that is Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis, number 40.
And honestly, I could give you endless quotes on this, but we can just stop here. The bottom line
is that the Pope is so linked with Christ that together they make up only one single head,
and that's why you sometimes hear the Pope being referred to as the head of the church
and sometimes Christ. Now, because of this intimate union of our Lord Jesus Christ with his vicar,
it is clear that we can never pit,
the Pope against Christ, nor Christ against the Pope. And of course, by that I mean the Pope in
his official acts, not the Pope as a private person who is obviously a sinner and can be
in mortal sin even, and can even go to hell, God forbid. So, Hahn is wrong to say that Christ alone
is the head of the church and the Pope is not the head of the church. And it's very important
to understand that this is not just semantics.
It's a matter of real theological difference. Because if the Pope is not the head of the visible
church on earth, then he cannot function as the head and have all members of the body under his
direction and preeminence. Otherwise, each diocese could just say to Rome, well, you know what? It's
nice you've got the Pope there and all, but that's really just a ceremonial thing and we're done with
you. We're just going to submit to Christ instead of you because he's the true head of the church.
Anyway, that's impossible in the Catholic Church. In fact, that's heresy against Vatican I. You can
find that in Denzinger number 1831 if you want to look it up. See, Christ established the papacy
and made the Pope his vicar precisely so that while he is in heaven until the second coming,
there would be a visible representative of him to govern and teach with his authority.
One who allows the Pope to be the head of the church. And that's why he's the head of the
would have the ultimate power of binding and loosing on earth and in heaven.
The whole idea, the whole point of the papacy is to be able to cling to Christ
in a way that is objective and visible and ratified by our Lord himself. It is the visible
way of knowing for sure that you are in the true church and have the true doctrine, the true
sacraments, and salutary discipline. And that's why he's the head of the church.
And so it's by being subject to the Pope that you can be sure you are subject to Christ. That is
the point. And that is why it's so important to understand that Francis is not a true Pope
and could not possibly be one. In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII says,
quote,
They therefore walk in the path of dangerous error, who believe that they,
in accept Christ as the head of the church, while not adhering loyally to his vicar on earth.
They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity,
and left the mystical body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed that those who are seeking
the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. Unquote. That's paragraph number 41.
Now, this is a very significant passage,
there. Notice two things. First, Pius XII condemns those who have taken away the visible
head. I think he's talking about Protestants there, or maybe Eastern Orthodox. But it's also
applicable to Scott Hahn, because he just said that the Pope is not the head of the church.
So Hahn is taking away the visible head, in principle, we might add, just like Protestants.
And no,
that has nothing to do with Sedevacantism. Some people will say, that's a condemnation of
Sedevacantism. No, it's not. We don't take away the Pope in principle at all. We believe in the
papacy. We believe the Pope is the visible head of the church. We believe he is the principle of
unity in the church and the true vicar of Christ who governs, teaches, and sanctifies in Christ's
stead and with his authority.
Such that what he binds and looses on earth is bound and loosed in heaven. It's just that given
the evidence, we believe we don't at present have a Pope, that no man currently fills that office.
So we're not saying that the Catholic Church has no Pope in the sense of not having the
institution of the papacy, that the church has no papal office. We're saying that Jorge
Bergoglio isn't the one who fills that office. And there hasn't been anyone to fill it
legitimately, validly, as far as we know, since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
And the reason why, one of the reasons why, is evident from the second point Pius XII makes
in that quote from Mr. G. Corporees, namely that if you take away the Pope, the papacy,
and those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. Meaning
that the whole point about having a visible head of the church, the point of having a Pope,
a papacy, is to be able to cling to him and follow him as the safe haven, the sure guide
to eternal salvation. Now, who in his right mind could possibly say that Jorge Bergoglio,
Pope Francis, is a sure guide to eternal salvation? And I'm not talking about his personal sins,
right? We're all sinners. I'm talking about his official magisterium, the official acts
of his supposed pontificate. Who in his right mind could say that by clinging to the magisterium
of Francis, one is assured of clinging to the doctrine of Jesus Christ? I mean, that's just
insane.
So, in a nutshell, if Francis is the Pope, then his teachings are safe to follow. If,
on the other hand, his teachings are dangerous nonsense, then he cannot be the Pope. And
notice this has nothing to do with infallibility, per se. We're not even addressing that topic.
But in order for traditional Catholic doctrine on the papacy to have any meaning, it must
be the one or the other.
He is Pope, and then you can safely follow what he teaches, or you cannot safely follow
what he teaches, and therefore he cannot be the Pope.
What you cannot do, what you cannot have, is precisely what the semi-trads, and that's
why we call them that, by the way, semi-trads, is what they keep offering you. And that is
verbally acknowledge Francis as Pope, but don't even think about following him, because
his doctrine is false.
All right, let's go back to the audio with Scott Hahn and listen to some more of what
this celebrity professor had to say on The Pints with Aquinas show with Matt Fradd.
If the Catholic Church has expanded and flourished in all kinds of places for centuries, where
they didn't even know for sure the name of the Pope, because he might have died last
year, and you haven't heard yet who the new one is, you pray for the Holy Father, you
love the Holy Father.
Father, and then you pray some more for the Holy Father. But as though you've got to keep up with
every daily release from the Vatican, I think it's unhealthy. I think it lends itself either
to a personality cult or ecclesiastical gossip and a kind of critical spirit that will invariably
lead to divisions within the church. We love Pope Francis. We don't have to read every single word
that he publishes. We want to pray for him so that he is teaching with clarity. And when he
doesn't seem to be, we want to pray for him a little bit more and try to find the good, you know.
My goodness, what a poor answer. So apparently Scott Hahn's suggestion on how to deal with
Francis is, well, don't pay so much attention to him. Pray and just focus on what he gets right.
Well, excuse me, but one could say the same thing about the Anglican Archbishop of
Cambridge.
Canterbury, right? Or the Dalai Lama. The advice Hahn just gave does absolutely nothing
to resolve the actual problem posed by the Bergolian Magisterium. Look, prayer is a good
thing, but the problem with Francis is not a lack of prayer for him. I think there is not a single
person in the world who gets more prayers every day than Francis. Close your eyes and pray,
is not a theological answer, okay? You're just asking people to please ignore the problem
and spend time doing other things. So Hahn says you don't have to keep up with everything the
Pope does or publishes every single day. All right, fine. But that's beside the point.
The problem isn't that people are paying too much attention to Francis. The problem is what
Francis is teaching and legislating in his
official magisterium, regardless of whether anybody is paying attention to it or not.
I mean, come on. And by the way, as far as papal personality cult goes,
I may not be remembering this right, but I thought that Scott Hahn and this whole
Steubenville EWTN world contributed a lot to the personality cult of John Paul II.
Okay, that just as an aside. Also,
Hahn seems to be thinking that the problem with Francis is just a lack of clarity and that if only
he were clearer, all would be well. So let's just pray for Francis to teach more clearly.
Now that too is a misrepresentation of the real problem. Sure, lack of clarity is one of the
problems, but we're way beyond that now. Let's listen to some more from Professor Hahn.
It's always the Philippians 4.8 principle. That is,
if there's anything true, anything good, anything excellent, anything worthy of praise,
think on these things. So when Amoris Laetitia comes out, all we think about is chapter eight
and that controversial footnote. That is still problematic in my interpretive matrix, but
you read the first seven chapters, he quotes Pius XI's Casta Canubi more than John Paul ever did.
That was one of our favorite documents when we were becoming Catholic. There is so much good stuff
in Amoris Laetitia.
Amoris Laetitia, okay, there is that flashpoint. Let the experts adjudicate that over time and all
of the rest. Well, wait a minute. Isn't he supposed to be one of those experts? In any case, let me
address this argument that we should just find the good and focus on that. The reason why that
is baloney is that an essential defect ruins the whole thing. Let me illustrate that with a very
simple analogy.
When you go to buy a car and later you find out that the vehicle they sold you has a defective
engine and a transmission that only lets you get into second gear, you don't want to hear from the
dealership that, well, but it's got leather seats and a cool spoiler and look at those rims, right?
That's the problem with that, but what about the good things argument? A single heresy,
a single pernicious error in a papal document,
would cripple the papacy and prove it false. For Scott Hahn to argue that, oh, well, but there's,
you know, 77% of the encyclical is really great, that is a really, really bad argument.
You would never want to fly in an airplane that's only 77% intact. And yet, doctrine,
matters of faith, matters of salvation are much more serious than flying in an airplane,
let's remember what Pope Leo the 13th wrote in his 1896 encyclical Satis Cognitum, paragraph nine,
quote, there can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle
of doctrine. And yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, in fact, the real and simple faith
taught by our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition, unquote.
And let's also not forget the words of Pope Clement the 13th in his encyclical in Domenico Agro,
issued in 1761. And this is from paragraph two, quote,
meaning of expressions, and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes with a slight
change, inches toward death, unquote. And Scott Hahn says, just focus on the good stuff.
Unbelievable. Oh, and then, of course, there's Pope St. Pius the 10th in his great encyclical
against modernism, Paschendi Dominici Gregis, in paragraph,
three, he calls the modernists the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the church.
And later on in paragraph 18, he says about them, quote, in their books, one finds some things which
might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page, one is confronted by
other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist, unquote.
Pius the 10th is warning us that the modernists don't only write heresy. There is a lot of truth
in their writings too. But that makes them all the more dangerous. St. Pius the 10th did not say,
hey, look, the modernists aren't all bad. Just focus on the good stuff.
Okay. One last clip from the Steubenville professor.
But I think we just live in terms of the news cycle and we live in terms,
of the election cycle. And we've got to break out of this kind of straightjacket and think as
Catholics, live from an eternal perspective, think in terms of the generations, and build houses,
you know, and avoid cable news, at least more than you have been.
That's good advice.
Yeah, really good advice there. Turn off the news. Just don't listen to it. Shut up and pray.
Folks, if you have to tune out the Pope in order not to become a heretic,
what does that tell you? See, that conundrum is precisely what the questioner wanted an answer to,
and Han really didn't answer anything. Sure, he said a lot, but he really failed to give
a substantial response. And you know what? There is no response, for as long as Francis is accepted
as a true Pope. The only consistent response would be, Catholicism is false.
But,
we know Catholicism is true, and therefore, it is Francis who must be false.
And, okay, it's fine to point out that just saying that Francis isn't the Pope,
or that we haven't had a Pope since Pius XII, that that by itself isn't sufficient,
okay? That it raises all kinds of other issues, etc. All right, that's fine.
But the fact still remains that Francis is not the Pope. And unless we first
acknowledge that, with all the difficulties that may entail, we will never be able to make
sense of what we're seeing coming from Rome, and we'll never arrive at the truth of the matter.
We cannot reject a clearly evident conclusion simply because we don't want to deal with the
repercussions of it. It won't work, and it's not honest. In any case, it's pretty clear now,
I think, that the Novus Ordo apologists are, at their,
wit's end, with regards to Francis. They're essentially telling you to distract yourself
with other things. Just don't look at it, right? Hey, look over here, a traditional prayer book.
Or, oh my gosh, check out this Catholic artwork. Well, that's all well and good,
but it misses the point. The point is that, whether we pay attention to it or not,
the supposed Pope is teaching all kinds of heresies and other errors,
and is leading souls to destruction. And we're not talking about private moral failings here,
like a Pope who has a mistress or who's a sodomite. We're talking about the official
magisterium, doctrine, catechism, liturgy, sacraments, canonized saints, and disciplinary
laws. And that's not something you can just wipe away with comments like, hey, hundreds of years
ago, the average Catholic didn't...
know who the Pope was, or what he was teaching. So what? The point is, you do know. You do know
the man whom you're accepting as Pope, and what his official acts are. And you cannot plead a
kind of ignorance by proxy on the grounds that peasants a thousand years ago wouldn't have known
what you, today, do know.
Please, everyone,
don't let the apostate Jesuit from Buenos Aires make you doubt the truth of the timeless
Roman Catholic religion. Not Catholicism is the fraud. Francis is.
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.
Transcription by ESO. Translation by —