[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express. [ 30 → 33] Entitled, Can the Pope Do No Wrong? [ 34 → 38] And of course, with that kind of a title, you already know where this is going. [ 38 → 45] After first mischaracterizing ultramontanism as a kind of the Pope is always infallible position, [ 45 → 46] he writes, quote, [ 47 → 50] Sedevacantism is the shadow side of ultramontanism. [ 51 → 57] Like ultramontanes, Sedevacantists refuse to admit that the Pope can do serious wrong. [ 57 → 60] They differ merely in the conclusions to which [ 60 → 60] the Seremonians are referring. [ 60 → 67] When presented with evidence that a Pope has acted badly, ultramontanes deny that what [ 67 → 69] the Pope did was wrong. [ 69 → 76] Sedevacantists, presented with the same evidence, deny that he who did wrong is the Pope, unquote. [ 76 → 82] You know, we don't mind if people think they have a strong argument against Sedevacantism, [ 82 → 83] then we can talk about it. [ 83 → 89] But this just shows that Schmitz hasn't spent any time actually researching the Sedevacantist [ 89 → 89] position. [ 90 → 97] Where has any Sedevacantist ever argued that if a man thought to be Pope acts badly, then [ 97 → 98] he is not the Pope? [ 100 → 104] Schmitz totally fails to make some fundamental and most necessary distinctions. [ 105 → 108] The phrase acting badly is totally vague. [ 109 → 115] It could mean being morally bad, being a public sinner, for example, or it could mean teaching [ 115 → 120] error or heresy, or it could mean making bad decisions for the church, for instance. [ 121 → 123] Which of these is Schmitz talking about? [ 124 → 125] He doesn't say, of course. [ 126 → 127] He continues, quote, [ 128 → 134] As history and scripture both show, Popes can and do make grave errors, though never [ 134 → 138] ones that controvert the church's own claims about papal infallibility. [ 139 → 143] One need only consider the career of the first Pope, St. Peter. [ 143 → 146] Christ himself rebuked Peter, get behind me, Satan. [ 146 → 149] And still Peter went on to deny him. [ 149 → 150] On a later occasion, St. Peter said, [ 150 → 156] Paul, who was subordinate to Peter, nonetheless opposed him to his face because he was clearly [ 156 → 157] in the wrong. [ 158 → 162] St. Thomas explained the fittingness of Paul's action, saying that Paul opposed Peter in [ 162 → 168] the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling, unquote. [ 169 → 170] Are you done yawning yet? [ 171 → 171] Goodness gracious. [ 172 → 173] The oldest arguments in the book. [ 174 → 176] Let's respond to them very briefly one more time. [ 176 → 180] First, St. Peter was not Pope. [ 180 → 186] When he denied Christ, as Vatican I teaches and as St. Robert Bellarmine taught. [ 187 → 192] Simon Peter didn't become Pope until after the resurrection when our Lord said to him, [ 193 → 195] feed my sheep, feed my lambs. [ 196 → 201] Second, when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter, he wasn't refusing submission to any teaching [ 201 → 202] of his. [ 202 → 208] He simply rebuked him for his action, his personal venial sin of imprudence, according [ 208 → 210] to St. Augustine. [ 210 → 211] What had happened? [ 212 → 217] St. Peter had scandalized the Gentile converts by withdrawing from their table and eating [ 217 → 223] with converts from Judaism separately, thereby giving them the impression through his behavior [ 223 → 228] that it was necessary for them to observe the law of Moses, like the Jews. [ 228 → 233] Now, the converts from Judaism were still keeping the dietary laws of Moses, which at [ 233 → 236] the time was permissible for them to do. [ 237 → 238] And that's all it was. [ 238 → 240] St. Peter made the wrong decision. [ 240 → 243] He made the wrong decision, and St. Paul rebuked him for it. [ 243 → 249] It has nothing to do with the papal magisterium or with refusing submission to the Pope. [ 250 → 254] The Pope sinned, and he was fraternally corrected by another apostle. [ 254 → 255] That's it. [ 256 → 258] Now, back to Schmitz. [ 258 → 266] Not surprisingly, he reduces the whole issue to infallibility, when the real issue is authority. [ 267 → 269] And this has to be repeated again and again. [ 269 → 277] The obligation of adhering to all papal teaching is not based on the inability to err, which [ 277 → 283] is not guaranteed except for dogmatic definitions, but is based on the divine commission to teach [ 283 → 284] the faithful. [ 285 → 291] The Pope, more than anyone else, exercises Christ's command to teach all nations. [ 292 → 297] And because of that, he has the right to be heard and followed in his teaching, and therefore [ 297 → 298] the faithful have an obligation. [ 299 → 310] The Pope has the power from God to bind your conscience by his teaching, infallible or [ 310 → 311] not. [ 311 → 316] This is taught again and again in the Church's magisterial documents before Vatican II. [ 317 → 322] You can find a large number of quotes on the Pope's authority and the faithful's duty [ 322 → 325] to submit at our website, [ 325 → 328] www.novosordowatch.org. [ 329 → 340] That's the-catholic-papacy. [ 341 → 348] So, if the Pope teaches something that isn't infallible and actually happens to be wrong, [ 348 → 354] let's just say, even just theoretically, does that mean we'd have to submit to it? [ 354 → 356] The short answer is, yes. [ 357 → 358] But, don't you worry. [ 358 → 365] Such an error, even though conceivable, is not only highly unlikely, it is also guaranteed [ 365 → 371] not to be any kind of error that could be a danger to your soul. [ 372 → 377] And we know that because otherwise God could not demand submission to all papal teaching [ 377 → 380] as a matter of eternal salvation. [ 381 → 383] It would be a contradiction. [ 384 → 388] So, no, the Pope could never teach heresy even in his non-infallible. [ 388 → 394] Magisterium, or any kind of error that would drive people to spiritual ruin. [ 395 → 401] And secondly, any possible error in a non-infallible papal document would not be the kind of error [ 401 → 405] that people like you and I would even be able to notice. [ 405 → 412] Because if it were, the Pope and his theologians would have noticed it long before it ever [ 412 → 412] got published. [ 413 → 418] So, although the Pope's non-infallible magisterium is not guaranteed to be always free, it is [ 418 → 423] always guaranteed to be safe to follow. [ 424 → 430] That, in a nutshell, is the Catholic teaching on the faithful's obligation to accept papal [ 430 → 433] teaching, even when it is not infallible. [ 433 → 438] And that's what you find in the Church's dogmatic theology books after Vatican I and [ 438 → 440] before Vatican II. [ 440 → 443] So, that's how things work in the Catholic Church. [ 443 → 448] But after six decades of the Vatican II sect, even well-meaning people who consider themselves [ 448 → 455] traditionalists have been so poisoned by the errors of the Novus Ordo religion and the [ 455 → 461] recognizing resistors, like the Society of St. Pius X, that they have no more faith in [ 461 → 461] the papacy. [ 462 → 468] They no longer really believe that the papacy is a divine institution that has all these [ 468 → 470] protections from God. [ 471 → 476] And how could they believe that, considering what apostates they accept as true popes? [ 478 → 482] It does make a difference whom you accept as a true pope and whom you don't. [ 483 → 486] One final quote from Schmitz, quote, [ 486 → 491] Perhaps our current controversies are a kind of jittery withdrawal from the Church's [ 491 → 493] ultramontane highs. [ 494 → 498] Since the latter part of the 19th century, the Church has been blessed with an unusually [ 498 → 500] holy and brilliant series of popes. [ 501 → 507] In this period, the Church may have come to expect too much of the successors of St. Peter. [ 507 → 513] Expectations are now so high that not even Peter could meet them, unquote. [ 514 → 514] Oh, really? [ 515 → 518] Yeah, or maybe Schmitz is simply clueless. [ 519 → 524] You know, God Almighty has known very well from all eternity about the frailty of fallen [ 524 → 532] man, and he fortified the papacy against that so that regardless of man's weakness, the [ 532 → 537] pope would still be the rock against which the gates of hell cannot proceed. [ 537 → 546] On February 20th, 1949, Pope Pius XII said, in an address to the people of Rome, quote, [ 546 → 549] The pope has the divine promises. [ 550 → 555] Even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable. [ 555 → 561] He is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church. [ 562 → 566] His voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions. [ 566 → 568] He condemns iniquities. [ 568 → 572] He makes charity and virtue loved, unquote. [ 573 → 579] And the name of that address by Pope Pius XII is Ancora Una Volta. [ 580 → 585] See, the Catholic Church truly is the Ark of Salvation. [ 585 → 588] That's not just some phrase, some slogan. [ 589 → 590] It is a reality. [ 590 → 596] You can safely throw yourself into the arms of Holy Mother Church. [ 596 → 601] And be nourished by her teaching without any fear of being led astray. [ 602 → 605] But of course, you cannot do that with the Vatican II Church, can you? [ 606 → 612] And so because people don't want to reject the Novus Ordo papal claimants as charlatans, [ 612 → 617] they would rather tinker with the Catholic doctrines and dogmas on the papacy. [ 617 → 619] What absurdity. [ 619 → 626] What dangerous folly to sacrifice Catholicism so you can have Bergoglio. [ 626 → 632] You know, a lot of bad ideas and flawed reasoning could be prevented [ 632 → 636] if people who blog about Catholic theology actually thought about [ 636 → 639] what they're saying before they publish it to the whole world. [ 640 → 646] Case in point, the blog Catholic Monitor, with a post of November 15th entitled [ 646 → 650] American Spectator Editor Neumeier and Scholar T. Marshall [ 650 → 655] call for Catholic cardinals to judge if Francis is manifest heretic [ 655 → 658] who has self-vacated the papacy. [ 659 → 663] Here's what the blogger Fred Martinez writes in that post. [ 663 → 663] Quote, [ 663 → 667] The contributing editor of the American Spectator, George Neumeier, [ 668 → 672] who is a best-selling author and former editor of the Catholic World Report, [ 672 → 677] and Thomas scholar Dr. Taylor Marshall called on the non-heretical Catholic cardinals [ 677 → 682] to convene in order to judge if Francis is a manifest heretic, [ 683 → 685] which could mean he self-vacated the chair of St. Francis. [ 685 → 693] Now, I don't know if that is an accurate summary of what Marshall and Neumeier [ 693 → 697] actually said in that video, but let's just take the claim at face value. [ 698 → 702] So, the non-heretical cardinals should get together and determine [ 702 → 707] if Francis is a manifest heretic, and if he is, well, then he is no longer pope, [ 707 → 708] and they declare that. [ 709 → 710] Now, I know this sounds great, right? [ 710 → 714] We mere laymen cannot judge this, so it's going to need to be the cardinals. [ 714 → 716] They can determine that. [ 717 → 718] And yet, this is all wrong. [ 719 → 721] Not to be quoting Greta Thunberg here. [ 721 → 722] How dare you? [ 723 → 727] They probably got this from John Salza, because I think that's his position. [ 727 → 729] So, what's wrong with this? [ 729 → 733] Well, first, it makes no sense to say that they need someone to determine [ 733 → 735] if Francis is a manifest heretic. [ 736 → 742] If he's a manifest heretic, then this doesn't need to be determined by any authority, [ 742 → 744] because that's what manifests. [ 744 → 750] It means it's open, it's evident, it's undeniable, it's obvious. [ 751 → 754] Now, I have yet to come across a Catholic theology book in which [ 754 → 759] some authority was needed to determine that something is manifest. [ 759 → 761] It just makes no sense. [ 761 → 763] If it's manifest, it doesn't need to be determined. [ 764 → 769] Another thing that doesn't make sense is the implicit idea that Francis doesn't become [ 769 → 773] a manifest heretic until some select cardinals agree he is one. [ 774 → 779] If he is one, then he is one before their judgment, which then merely recognizes what [ 779 → 781] is already the case. [ 781 → 785] But if he isn't one before their judgment, then there's nothing for them to judge. [ 786 → 789] They can't judge something to be the case that isn't. [ 790 → 791] It would be a false judgment. [ 792 → 796] The next thing that doesn't make any sense is the idea that their judgment would be binding [ 796 → 797] on the whole church. [ 798 → 803] I mean, these people, you know, Taylor Marshall and all the other recognizing resistors, these [ 803 → 804] people resist one thing. [ 804 → 809] They can suppose that papal judgment after another, including even a purported ecumenical [ 809 → 810] council. [ 811 → 816] So why should all of a sudden the judgment of a select group of cardinals be authoritative? [ 817 → 818] Why should it be binding? [ 818 → 819] Why? [ 819 → 822] Because they agree with the judgment? [ 823 → 827] Well, then they're really just going by their own judgment and not by that of what they [ 827 → 829] call the proper authority. [ 830 → 832] Lastly, and this is really hilarious. [ 833 → 834] What doesn't make sense? [ 834 → 840] This is the demand that this judgment against Francis be rendered by non-heretical cardinals. [ 841 → 847] Now, pardon me for asking, but how are they going to determine which cardinal is a heretic [ 847 → 851] so that those that aren't heretics can then determine if Francis is one? [ 853 → 859] Are they going to use their own non-authoritative and private judgment for that? [ 859 → 863] Or will they argue that it's manifest? [ 864 → 867] Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo Watch. [ 867 → 871] Check us out at Tradcast.org, and if you like what we're doing, please consider making [ 871 → 876] a tax-deductible contribution at NovosOrdoWatch.org.