[ 0 → 4] TRATCAST EXPRESS [ 30 → 37] A Vatican expert on interreligious dialogue, a certain Monsignor François Bousquet. [ 38 → 41] And you won't find his answer terribly surprising. [ 42 → 42] Quote, [ 42 → 48] The proclamation of Christ can only be done in a spirit of dialogue. [ 49 → 59] Coming with a loudspeaker and proclaiming your truth without taking into account your interlocutor seems to me contradictory and even counterproductive. [ 60 → 66] Yet one of the temptations today is to believe that we own the truth. [ 66 → 76] In my opinion, one should rather place oneself under the truth, being aware that it is always greater than one perceives it to be. [ 76 → 77] Unquote. [ 78 → 82] Now, see, these people are still living in the 1960s. [ 83 → 85] We don't possess the truth. [ 85 → 87] The truth possesses us. [ 88 → 90] You know, with that kind of twaddle, you'll never get it. [ 90 → 91] You can't convince a Muslim of anything. [ 93 → 98] Of course, the Catholic Church owns the truth, so to speak. [ 98 → 99] You know why? [ 99 → 103] Because Jesus Christ, her divine founder, gave it to her. [ 104 → 108] He entrusted the deposit of faith to his church. [ 109 → 113] In John 16, 13, our blessed Lord says, [ 113 → 119] But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. [ 120 → 128] And in 1 Timothy 3.15, the church is called the pillar and ground of the truth. [ 129 → 136] It is because Catholics have the truth that we can and must proclaim it. [ 136 → 143] Not as though we owned it in the sense of being the makers of it or being lord over it, [ 143 → 150] but in the sense of being charged with guarding what God has revealed to us and given to us. [ 150 → 160] And in the sense of being sent to spread it so that as many people as possible will come in contact with it [ 160 → 164] and become disciples of Christ and members of his church. [ 164 → 167] You can't give what you don't have. [ 168 → 173] The church can teach people the truth because she has the truth. [ 174 → 176] This is not terribly difficult. [ 177 → 180] Now, look at what the Vatican II Church has done. [ 180 → 181] Look at what the Vatican II Church has done with that. [ 181 → 186] They've replaced true evangelization with useless dialogue [ 186 → 190] in which they constantly confirm others in their false religions. [ 191 → 195] Every time there is some kind of significant non-Christian occasion, [ 196 → 201] whether it be Vesak for Buddhists or Diwali for Hindus or Ramadan for Muslims, [ 202 → 207] the Vatican is right there wishing them joy, happiness, and abundant blessings [ 207 → 209] and even spiritual fruit. [ 209 → 216] And from the devout observance of their false religion, that is abominable. [ 217 → 223] It's abominable because it is an endorsement of the very religion [ 223 → 229] from which a Catholic must seek to draw the pagan, the Mohammedan, or the Jew. [ 230 → 236] There is no spiritual fruit to be had from observing the Hindu festival of lights [ 236 → 238] known as Diwali, for example. [ 238 → 243] Their lights are the false lights of the prince of darkness. [ 244 → 247] Now, that doesn't mean that you approach them by yelling at them [ 247 → 249] or being rude to them or anything. [ 250 → 251] That's understood. [ 252 → 258] But for heaven's sake, at least don't encourage them in the practice of idolatry. [ 260 → 263] And let me quote some more from this modernist Monsignor. [ 263 → 264] Quote, [ 264 → 265] Quote, [ 265 → 266] Quote, [ 266 → 267] Quote, [ 287 → 288] Quote, [ 288 → 290] Quote, [ 290 → 291] Quote, [ 291 → 296] First, seeking the conversion of Muslims has nothing to do in and of itself with the crusade. [ 297 → 300] Second, what's he mean Christ didn't proclaim himself? [ 301 → 303] Hello? Has he ever read the New Testament? [ 304 → 306] Of course Christ proclaimed himself. [ 306 → 318] You can find examples in Matthew 5.11, Luke 4.18, John 4.26, 6.35, 8.24, 13.19, 14.6. [ 318 → 322] The Gospels are filled with our Lord proclaiming himself. [ 323 → 325] And why wouldn't he? He's the Redeemer. [ 325 → 332] He told the Jews that he is the Messiah and that unless they accepted him, they would all perish. [ 333 → 338] He told them, I am the bread of life. I am the door. I am the vine. [ 339 → 340] What is wrong with these people? [ 342 → 349] Now, this Novus Ordo Monsignor does mention that a part of evangelization is proclamation, [ 349 → 351] which he says, quote, [ 351 → 355] consists in explicitly expressing the goodness, [ 355 → 358] the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, unquote. [ 359 → 364] Now, it's not clear to me how this fits in with this dialogue business [ 364 → 368] and this openness to the truth he says we must all have. [ 369 → 375] If he proclaims the good news as merely a subjective conviction that he has [ 375 → 377] and not as the objective truth, [ 377 → 383] or if he offers it merely as one option among many, [ 383 → 385] then that's not evangelization. [ 385 → 387] So, I don't know. Maybe that's what he means. [ 388 → 392] Let's look for a minute at the example of St. Francis. [ 393 → 393] Okay? [ 393 → 401] In a book on his life, it's related how the saint and his companions evangelized a Muslim sultan in Egypt. [ 402 → 410] And, spoiler alert, it wasn't by preaching a lowest common denominator message about human fraternity. [ 411 → 411] Quote, [ 412 → 414] The sultan Melodin asked him, [ 414 → 418] And for what purpose they came? [ 419 → 421] Francis answered with courageous firmness, [ 422 → 439] He immediately preached to him with great fervor [ 439 → 444] the dogma of one God in three persons and the Lord Jesus Christ, [ 444 → 447] the Savior of mankind. [ 447 → 447] Unquote. [ 448 → 451] That's from the book The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, [ 452 → 457] published in 1889, pages 197 through 198. [ 458 → 462] See, St. Francis wasn't rude to the sultan, right? [ 462 → 467] But he also didn't come to preach dialogue or human fraternity. [ 467 → 472] He had a supernatural message to proclaim, and that's what he did. [ 472 → 474] Would any of these values, [ 474 → 477] Vatican II inter-religious dialogue people do that nowadays? [ 478 → 480] Not in a million years. [ 480 → 480] Okay? [ 480 → 485] These people won't even keep Pachamama statues out of their own churches. [ 487 → 492] And now, of course, they're claiming that God wants there to be many different religions because diversity. [ 494 → 503] Now, of course, there can be legitimate disagreements over how best to approach Muslims in order to evangelize them fruitfully. [ 503 → 507] And that will probably vary from case to case, right? [ 507 → 510] Depending on all kinds of circumstances. [ 510 → 514] We're not saying there's a one-size-fits-all or that you should come with a, you know, [ 515 → 519] a big sledgehammer and just kind of lay down the law and this is how it is and you're going to hell. [ 520 → 522] That's not what we're saying, okay? [ 522 → 527] Of course, you have to be sensitive to the different circumstances. [ 527 → 532] But the point is that at the end of the day, there can only be one goal. [ 533 → 537] And that goal is the soul's conversion to Catholicism. [ 538 → 539] Not human fraternity. [ 540 → 541] Not unity and diversity. [ 542 → 544] Not soup kitchens unlimited. [ 545 → 558] Now, the conversion of Muslims and any non-Catholic to Catholicism is obviously not the goal of all these Vatican II sect ecumenical and inter-religious shenanigans. [ 560 → 562] Sure, I mean, they'll probably accept. [ 563 → 566] Conversions, you know, because liberty of conscience. [ 567 → 571] But these people don't believe that conversions are necessary. [ 572 → 574] Necessary for salvation. [ 574 → 579] And they sure don't make conversions the goal of their activities. [ 581 → 590] In other news, the twice-ordained layman, Reverend John Hunwick, loves to unleash all kinds of daring theological theses [ 590 → 593] on his blog, Father Hunwick's Mutual. [ 593 → 603] One of his more recent entries, dated April 22nd, proposes the idea that if your local Novus Ordo bishop accepts Francis as pope, [ 603 → 606] then it is safe for you to regard him as pope, too. [ 608 → 616] Now, of course, Hunwick would never want you to draw the logical inference that if, therefore, your local bishop accepts Francis' teachings, [ 617 → 618] then you should, too. [ 618 → 623] Or, if your local bishop accepts the clown mass, then so should you. [ 623 → 625] No, no, no, no, no, no, no. [ 625 → 628] See, that's not how it works in Hunwick land. [ 629 → 631] The argument he makes is ad hoc, you see. [ 632 → 636] It is specifically created for only this one particular issue. [ 636 → 639] So please don't apply its logic to anything else. [ 640 → 646] You're supposed to use it only to feel comfortable about accepting Francis' claim to the papacy as valid. [ 646 → 653] You're not supposed to use it to draw any conclusions that would follow from Francis. [ 653 → 654] This is possession of the papacy. [ 655 → 660] To find out what you're supposed to do with regard to what Francis teaches in his magisterium, [ 661 → 666] you're supposed to read Hunwick's blog, or Mr. John Zoolstor's, etc. [ 666 → 667] You get the idea. [ 669 → 675] Now, Hunwick tries to draw this principle of accepting Francis as pope if your bishop accepts him. [ 675 → 681] He tries to extract that from the historical case of the Great Western Schism, [ 682 → 683] where, so he, [ 683 → 687] which of the two or three papal claimants you were in communion with [ 687 → 692] depended not on you or on your bishop, but on your monarch. [ 692 → 697] Another daring idea he, of course, provides absolutely no evidence for. [ 698 → 703] But no matter what the facts are with regard to that, the historical facts, [ 703 → 707] it was always a given that whomever you accepted as pope, [ 708 → 709] whoever you were in communion with, [ 709 → 713] that is the man whose teachings and laws you followed. [ 713 → 718] Hunwick, on the other hand, wants a pope without the papacy. [ 719 → 722] And for that, there is no historical precedent, [ 722 → 726] at least not within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. [ 728 → 734] And lastly, on May 10th, the popular Recognize and Resist blog, [ 734 → 741] Rorate Caeli, published the eighth installment in an ongoing series by Don Pietro Leone, [ 741 → 742] critiquing the errors, [ 743 → 744] of the Second Vatican Council, [ 745 → 748] a council which the author believes came from a true pope, by the way. [ 749 → 751] Towards the end of the post, he writes, [ 752 → 762] Now let's think about this for a minute. [ 763 → 766] Immutability means unchangeableness. [ 767 → 770] Leone maintains that Vatican II, [ 770 → 772] which he acknowledges to be a council promulgator, [ 773 → 779] denies the unchangeability of the Church's doctrine [ 779 → 782] by changing the Church's doctrine. [ 783 → 786] Does he not see a problem with that claim? [ 787 → 792] See, one way to know with certitude that Paul VI wasn't a true pope [ 792 → 795] is that he ratified Vatican II, [ 795 → 799] which changed Church doctrine in a substantial way, [ 799 → 800] which is impossible. [ 800 → 803] The only way you can explain that fact is that Vatican II is a true pope. [ 803 → 803] The only way you can explain that phenomenon [ 803 → 808] is to hold that Paul VI was not in fact the Roman pontiff. [ 809 → 813] Otherwise, you'd have to hold that Church teaching can change, [ 814 → 815] which you're not allowed to hold. [ 816 → 820] Now, somehow the semi-trads think that the way to uphold [ 820 → 822] the unchangeableness of Church teaching [ 822 → 827] is by maintaining that when this teaching does change, [ 827 → 828] somehow it doesn't count. [ 828 → 832] But that's not what the immutability of Catholic doctrine means. [ 833 → 839] It means that it cannot change, not that everyone has an obligation to resist it when it does. [ 841 → 847] Now, what makes otherwise quite learned and reasonable people such as Don Pietro Leone, [ 847 → 852] who is an academic, embrace such bizarre and harebrained positions? [ 853 → 861] Quite simply, it's the noble desire to reject modernism combined with the not-so-noble desire [ 861 → 864] to avoid Sedevacantism at all costs. [ 865 → 873] In my opinion, that's the reason why they adopt such weird ideas and are oblivious to any problems with them. [ 874 → 879] So, let me end here with a piece of advice to Rarate Chaley. [ 879 → 885] If you're going to criticize modernists for believing that church doctrine can change, [ 886 → 891] you may not want to do it in an article that argues that church doctrine changed. [ 892 → 895] Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo Watch. [ 896 → 899] Check us out at tradcast.org, and if you like what we're doing, [ 899 → 905] please consider making a tax-deductible contribution at novusortowatch.org.