[ 0 → 14] Tradcast Express, it's Friday, November 8th, 2019. [ 14 → 22] Well, if you're tired of hearing about Amazon Senate this and Pachamama that, I have good news for you. [ 22 → 24] There's plenty of other stuff to talk about. [ 24 → 27] Like Pachapapa, for example. [ 28 → 31] You know, the public apostate who calls himself Pope Francis. [ 32 → 40] Yep, he's in the news once again, as Eugenio Scalfari, France's favorite former Catholic-turned-atheist journalist, [ 40 → 47] has published another bombshell in Tuesday's edition of the Italian left-wing newspaper La Repubblica. [ 47 → 49] What's the fuss this time? [ 49 → 54] According to Scalfari, Francis has told him that Jesus Christ, [ 54 → 57] did not physically rise from the dead. [ 57 → 63] Rather, his mere spirit returned from the grave and appeared to the women and the disciples. [ 64 → 71] Now, that, of course, would be just a little bit heretical and undermine the entire Catholic religion. [ 71 → 75] For, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, 17, [ 75 → 81] If Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. [ 82 → 84] Yesterday, the conservative Novosar, [ 84 → 88] a news site church militant, released a report on this with details. [ 89 → 91] Quoting Scalfari's paraphrasing of the fake pope, [ 91 → 93] Francis allegedly said, [ 93 → 93] Quote, [ 94 → 100] He, Jesus, was a man until he was put in the sepulcher by the women who restored his corpse. [ 101 → 107] That night, in the sepulcher, the man disappeared and from that cave came out in the form of a spirit [ 107 → 110] that met the women and the apostles, [ 110 → 114] still preserving the shadow of the person and then definitively, [ 114 → 117] disappeared, unquote. [ 118 → 121] Now, this was published not just in La Repubblica, [ 122 → 125] but is also part of Scalfari's new book, [ 125 → 127] which was released on Tuesday, [ 127 → 129] whose title translates into English as [ 129 → 132] The One God and Modern Society, [ 132 → 136] Meetings with Pope Francis and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. [ 137 → 139] So, what do you think? [ 139 → 143] Did Francis really say that or did Scalfari just make it up? [ 144 → 144] Well, [ 144 → 149] for someone who makes stuff up and ends up calumniating the supposed vicar of Christ, [ 150 → 155] Francis sure does give Scalfari an awful lot of interviews again and again [ 155 → 158] and never corrects or abrades him. [ 158 → 163] Francis has never personally denied anything Scalfari has attributed to him [ 163 → 168] and the Vatican has always given responses that seem to deny, [ 168 → 171] but don't actually deny, what Scalfari says about Francis. [ 172 → 174] It's always an evasive kind of reply, [ 174 → 175] along the lines of, [ 176 → 179] oh, we can't know if Francis really said that [ 179 → 183] and Scalfari is old and doesn't take notes and yada yada. [ 184 → 187] Well, you know, they could just ask the guy [ 187 → 190] and have him make a statement to the press. [ 190 → 194] It's not like the guy is too shy to speak to journalists. [ 194 → 196] Have him make a statement to the press that, [ 196 → 199] of course, he didn't deny the divinity of Christ [ 199 → 200] or the resurrection or whatever. [ 201 → 204] And that to say otherwise is outrageous [ 204 → 204] and that's not a good thing. [ 204 → 206] Scalfari needs to stop lying about him [ 206 → 208] and that he will never get another interview. [ 209 → 211] That's what would normally happen. [ 211 → 213] You know, if Francis were innocent [ 213 → 217] and this is all just some wicked atheist trying to smear a pope. [ 217 → 221] But, of course, it is evident that that's not the case [ 221 → 225] and Francis actually wants this controversy and scandal. [ 226 → 230] So, while I wasn't there and technically don't know [ 230 → 232] what Francis said to Scalfari, [ 232 → 234] it's simply absurd. [ 234 → 236] I think that the apostate journalist [ 236 → 239] is simply making it all up [ 239 → 242] and that Francis said nothing of the sort. [ 243 → 244] So, what will happen now? [ 245 → 247] Well, we've seen this a few times already, [ 247 → 249] so it's not that hard to predict. [ 250 → 252] There will be the usual media firestorm [ 252 → 255] about Francis having allegedly denied a dogma. [ 255 → 257] The Vatican will issue a statement [ 257 → 260] saying they're not privy to Francis' private conversations [ 260 → 262] and that Scalfari is not reliable [ 262 → 263] because he doesn't take notes. [ 263 → 267] And then Novos Ordo apologists like Dave Armstrong [ 267 → 269] and Jimmy Akin will dig out all the times [ 269 → 272] Francis has clearly affirmed the bodily resurrection of Christ [ 272 → 275] and say Scalfari is an abominable liar [ 275 → 277] and then triumphantly conclude [ 277 → 280] that they've successfully defended the pope once again. [ 281 → 283] Now, I could grant that perhaps Scalfari [ 283 → 285] doesn't remember all of the details [ 285 → 287] and speaking from memory [ 287 → 290] therefore got some nuance wrong about what he heard, [ 290 → 293] but not such basic things [ 293 → 296] as whether Christ rose in his body or not [ 296 → 298] or whether he always has been [ 298 → 301] and has always remained divine. [ 302 → 305] Keep in mind that Francis is a Peronist [ 305 → 308] and that means that he is happy to tell different people [ 308 → 311] different things about the exact same issue [ 311 → 314] depending on what is most helpful to his agenda [ 314 → 316] at that point in time. [ 317 → 320] But regardless what Francis told Scalfari, [ 320 → 323] we know from what he has said in public [ 323 → 327] that Francis in any case undermines the truth [ 327 → 328] of the bodily resurrection of Christ [ 328 → 333] by claiming that it is not a historical fact [ 333 → 336] but only something we can know by faith. [ 336 → 339] On April 19th, 2017, [ 339 → 342] he said the following during the general audience [ 342 → 345] speaking about our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 345 → 345] Quote, [ 346 → 348] He died, but he is risen [ 348 → 352] because faith arises from the resurrection. [ 352 → 355] Accepting that Christ is dead [ 355 → 357] and that he died crucified [ 357 → 359] is not an act of faith. [ 359 → 361] It is a historical fact. [ 362 → 364] Believing he is risen, on the other hand, [ 364 → 366] is an act of faith. [ 366 → 369] Our faith begins on Easter morning. [ 370 → 370] Unquote. [ 371 → 374] So he makes it sound like [ 374 → 376] he teaches the truth of the resurrection, [ 376 → 377] but he's actually denying it. [ 378 → 381] Because if the resurrection didn't happen in fact, [ 381 → 383] as historical fact, [ 384 → 385] then it doesn't matter [ 385 → 387] whether it would have been bodily [ 387 → 389] or spiritual or whatever. [ 389 → 391] Because whatever didn't happen, [ 392 → 393] didn't happen. [ 394 → 396] And no, you can't salvage that [ 396 → 397] by saying that the resurrection [ 397 → 399] has to be accepted on faith. [ 400 → 402] Of course it is an article of faith as well [ 402 → 404] and must be believed [ 404 → 406] on the authority of God revealing, [ 406 → 408] but it is also known [ 408 → 409] in the natural order [ 409 → 410] as a fact of history. [ 411 → 413] And were it not so, [ 413 → 414] then the Catholic religion [ 414 → 416] would have no foundation [ 416 → 418] and faith would not be [ 418 → 419] a theological virtue, [ 419 → 421] but foolishness. [ 422 → 423] By the way, the Frankster [ 423 → 425] is not the only one [ 425 → 427] who denies the resurrection in some way. [ 428 → 429] Listen, for example, [ 430 → 432] to the words of the oh-so-celebrated [ 432 → 434] Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, [ 435 → 437] who produces the craziest [ 437 → 438] theological sophistry, [ 439 → 440] but semi-trads love him [ 440 → 441] because he speaks [ 441 → 443] against adultery and idolatry. [ 444 → 445] Here's what he wrote [ 445 → 447] on the resurrection of Christ. [ 448 → 448] Quote, [ 449 → 451] A running camera [ 451 → 453] would not have been able [ 453 → 455] to make an audio-visual recording [ 455 → 457] of either the Easter manifestations [ 457 → 459] of Jesus in front of his disciples, [ 459 → 461] nor of the resurrection event, [ 462 → 463] which at its core [ 463 → 465] is the consummation [ 465 → 467] of the personal relation [ 467 → 470] of the Father to the incarnate Son [ 470 → 471] in the Holy Ghost. [ 471 → 472] Unquote. [ 473 → 474] Got that? [ 474 → 475] And of course, [ 475 → 476] Father Joseph Ratzinger, [ 477 → 478] who, using the stage name [ 478 → 479] Benedict XVI, [ 479 → 481] still hangs around the Vatican [ 481 → 482] as a supporting actor, [ 483 → 484] also has his problems [ 484 → 485] with the physical resurrection, [ 486 → 488] claiming in his 1968 book [ 488 → 489] Introduction to Christianity [ 489 → 490] that St. Paul, quote, [ 491 → 492] teaches not the resurrection [ 492 → 494] of physical bodies, [ 494 → 496] but the resurrection of persons. [ 497 → 497] Unquote. [ 498 → 499] And that's a direct denial [ 499 → 500] of the creed [ 500 → 501] in which we preach. [ 501 → 503] Pray, I believe [ 503 → 504] in the resurrection [ 504 → 506] of the body. [ 507 → 509] And in his 1982 work [ 509 → 511] Principles of Catholic Theology, [ 512 → 512] Ratzinger writes [ 512 → 514] that the resurrection, quote, [ 514 → 517] cannot be a historical event [ 517 → 518] in the same sense [ 518 → 520] as the crucifixion is. [ 521 → 522] Unquote. [ 522 → 525] See, that's just not eschatological [ 525 → 526] enough for him. [ 527 → 528] Anyway, you can review [ 528 → 530] all of this in detail [ 530 → 532] in the blog post [ 532 → 535] we published on April 26th, 2018 [ 535 → 536] entitled [ 536 → 539] Did Christ Truly Rise from the Dead? [ 539 → 542] How Pope Francis Cleverly Denies [ 542 → 544] the Historicity of the Resurrection [ 544 → 548] at NovosOrdoWatch.org. [ 548 → 551] So, what's all this telling us? [ 552 → 553] It's telling us that there is [ 553 → 556] massive, massive apostasy [ 556 → 557] in the Vatican [ 557 → 559] and it is so obvious now. [ 559 → 561] For heaven's sake, [ 561 → 562] they're worshipping [ 562 → 564] Mother Earth there now. [ 564 → 564] Pachamama. [ 565 → 567] Even the Jesuit Mitch Pacwa [ 567 → 569] just condemned that on EWTN [ 570 → 571] on November 5th. [ 572 → 574] That's how in-your-face [ 574 → 574] it is now. [ 575 → 577] Which should make us think, [ 577 → 578] when it's that obvious, [ 579 → 580] where is the deception? [ 581 → 583] Anyone who takes Catholicism seriously [ 583 → 585] can see that there's a really big problem, [ 586 → 587] even if they don't yet conclude [ 587 → 589] that Francis cannot be the Pope. [ 589 → 591] Nevertheless, everyone can see [ 591 → 595] that something is very, very wrong. [ 595 → 597] In Matthew 24, 24, [ 597 → 598] our blessed Lord warned, [ 599 → 602] for there shall arise false Christs [ 602 → 603] and false prophets [ 603 → 605] and shall show great signs and wonders [ 605 → 607] insomuch as to deceive, [ 608 → 610] if possible, even the elect. [ 611 → 613] So, where's the deception [ 613 → 615] when it's so obvious now? [ 616 → 618] I'd say that's a fair question [ 618 → 619] and one that should make us think. [ 619 → 620] Make us think because it means [ 620 → 623] that the deception that is so powerful [ 623 → 625] that it could deceive even the elect, [ 625 → 625] if God allowed it, [ 626 → 627] will be found elsewhere. [ 627 → 629] And I submit that it is [ 629 → 630] or will be found [ 630 → 633] in the false opposition [ 633 → 634] that is emerging to Francis [ 634 → 637] and his modernist Pachamama religion. [ 638 → 640] Now, I won't elaborate on this now, [ 640 → 641] but when I say false opposition, [ 642 → 643] I mean people like [ 643 → 646] Athanasius Schneider, Raymond Burke, [ 646 → 647] Gerhard Ludwig Müller, [ 647 → 649] Robert Serra, Benedetto, [ 649 → 650] Benedict XVI, and so on. [ 651 → 654] For these are all Vatican II people. [ 654 → 656] And here it's completely irrelevant [ 656 → 657] whether they're in good faith or not, [ 658 → 659] whether they mean well or are malicious. [ 659 → 660] It doesn't matter [ 660 → 662] because the result is the same. [ 664 → 666] Bergoglio is way too obvious [ 666 → 667] of an apostate [ 667 → 669] to be very deceiving at this point. [ 670 → 672] The real deception, in my opinion, [ 672 → 673] is the emerging [ 673 → 675] intra-novus order resistance [ 675 → 677] that opposes him [ 677 → 678] but implicitly validates [ 679 → 681] and confirms Vatican II [ 681 → 682] and the post-conciliar [ 682 → 684] novus ordo magisterium [ 684 → 685] before Francis. [ 686 → 688] Because it is to those people [ 688 → 689] and their theological views [ 689 → 691] rather than to Sedevacantism [ 691 → 693] that so many people [ 693 → 695] who can see the evil in Francis [ 695 → 696] are now flocking. [ 697 → 699] And yet these characters, too, [ 699 → 700] will only give you more [ 700 → 702] of the Vatican II religion, [ 703 → 705] perhaps with a beautiful liturgy, [ 705 → 708] but never with the Roman Catholic religion [ 708 → 710] as it alone was known [ 710 → 713] until the death of Pope Pius XII [ 713 → 714] in 1958. [ 715 → 717] That religion you will find [ 717 → 719] untouched only [ 719 → 720] among Sedevacantists. [ 721 → 723] Tradcast Express is a production [ 723 → 724] of Novus Ordo Watch. [ 725 → 726] Check us out at tradcast.org [ 726 → 728] and if you like what we're doing, [ 728 → 729] please consider making [ 729 → 731] a tax-deductible contribution [ 731 → 733] at novusordowatch.org [ 733 → 734] slash donate.