[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Monday, August 30th, 2021. [ 16 → 24] A week ago, on August 23rd, the semi-trad website The Remnant published an article by Robert Morrison entitled, [ 24 → 28] Making Sense of Francis, the Destroyer. [ 28 → 39] The author begins by noting that the dogma proclaimed by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 is a source of great consternation to Catholics today. [ 40 → 43] What is that dogma? Well, let's quote it. [ 43 → 46] In his bull Unam Sanctam, the Pope proclaimed, [ 46 → 58] We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the [ 58 → 59] Roman Pontiff. [ 59 → 60] Unquote. [ 61 → 67] Morrison says that in ordinary times, this truth presents no problem for Catholics. [ 68 → 74] You know, in those periods of church history when the Pope is actually a Catholic and not an apostate. [ 74 → 82] Yeah, well, apparently God, who is the ultimate author of all dogma, since dogma is divinely revealed, [ 82 → 88] apparently God didn't take that into account when he instituted the papacy and gave to St. [ 88 → 90] Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. [ 90 → 93] Anyway, Morrison says, quote, [ 93 → 104] Simple people understand that we have a non-Catholic Pope, and yet every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff if they wish to be saved. [ 104 → 110] How can we possibly reconcile these realities short of rejecting Francis as the Pope? [ 110 → 116] We know that God, in his loving providence, permits this, but what does it mean to the church? [ 117 → 118] Is Francis merely... [ 118 → 132] Now, these are legitimate questions. [ 132 → 136] The problem is in how Morrison goes about finding answers. [ 137 → 140] Because what would be the reasonable thing to do here? [ 141 → 147] How would a Catholic who is genuinely interested in solving these issues proceed to find the answers? [ 148 → 157] You would think that if there's a problem with Francis, and frankly with any of the apparent Popes since the time of Vatican II, roughly, [ 158 → 165] that you would want to find your answers in the genuine Catholic literature from before Vatican II, right? [ 165 → 167] From before the time the mess began. [ 168 → 169] That would be reasonable, right? [ 169 → 173] Because you'd want it to be objective and unbiased. [ 173 → 177] You would want to know what the church teaches about the papacy, [ 177 → 185] about bad popes, about what can and can't happen with the pope, how the faithful are to act, etc. [ 186 → 194] Now, the way to get reliable information on that would be to consult theological manuals and periodicals written by priests [ 194 → 198] to see if and how they address these questions. [ 199 → 204] Yes, this may actually require a trip to a Novus Ordo seminary library. [ 205 → 207] Not everything is available at your fingertips. [ 207 → 210] Within 60 seconds on Google, you know. [ 211 → 219] But considering how important the topic is, you may want to sacrifice a little bit of your time to get some sources together, [ 219 → 225] especially if you're writing an article about the topic that will be published in print and on the Internet. [ 226 → 228] But what does Morrison do instead? [ 229 → 230] He writes, quote, [ 230 → 237] As Father Matthias Godron describes in The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, [ 237 → 244] submission to the pope obviously does not imply an unlimited obedience, unquote. [ 245 → 252] So, Morrison is consulting a book first published in its original edition in 1997. [ 253 → 256] Not exactly a pre-Vatican II source, okay? [ 257 → 265] Besides, Father Matthias Godron is a priest with the Society of St. Pius X, SSPX, in Germany. [ 265 → 267] So, from the outset, [ 267 → 271] Morrison has already made up his mind about what the answer cannot be. [ 272 → 275] The answer cannot be that Francis isn't the pope. [ 275 → 278] That's why he consults an SSPX source. [ 279 → 287] Remember, the SSPX is anti-Sedevacanus and believes that the correct answer is to say Francis is pope, but act like he isn't. [ 288 → 293] Okay, so I'm being a bit polemical here, but that's basically their position, right? [ 293 → 296] Accept Francis as pope, but resist him. [ 296 → 298] When you think he goes against the faith. [ 299 → 303] So, unfortunately, Morrison's research is already tainted. [ 304 → 306] He's not looking to find an objective answer. [ 306 → 311] He consults biased sources that frame the issue a certain way, [ 311 → 316] such that the undesirable position of Sedevacantism is excluded from the outset. [ 317 → 325] Now, Father Godron, in turn, quotes from Cardinal Cajetan's commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, [ 325 → 325] saying, [ 326 → 328] and this is Cardinal Cajetan speaking, [ 328 → 328] quote, [ 328 → 337] If someone for a reasonable motive holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, [ 338 → 342] he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, [ 343 → 347] provided that he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion. [ 348 → 354] It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. [ 355 → 355] In fact, [ 355 → 359] it may happen that the pope could govern tyrannically, [ 359 → 367] and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth. [ 367 → 368] Unquote. [ 369 → 376] Okay, so that was the theological contribution of Cardinal Thomas Cajetan in the 16th century. [ 376 → 383] It's not terribly specific, of course, to say that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and resist dangers. [ 384 → 385] Does that mean that the pope, [ 385 → 389] can teach heresy or some other pernicious error? [ 389 → 394] Does it mean that the pope can impose invalid sacraments, for example? [ 394 → 395] And so on. [ 395 → 398] Now, I don't know if Cardinal Cajetan spoke about that elsewhere, [ 398 → 400] but at least in that quote, [ 400 → 402] none of these things are spelled out. [ 402 → 405] It's way too vague, too ambiguous, [ 405 → 407] to come to any certain conclusion. [ 408 → 411] And the same with the comment on holding the pope in suspicion. [ 412 → 413] What does that mean? [ 414 → 414] Now, personally, [ 414 → 415] I think it means there's, [ 415 → 418] there's a suspicion that he's not actually the pope, [ 418 → 420] that he wasn't validly elected. [ 421 → 423] But that's not how Morrison understands it. [ 424 → 425] In any case, [ 425 → 430] we have to remember that even though Cardinal Cajetan certainly was a theologian of note, [ 431 → 434] and his opinion on a controverted point comes with some authority, [ 435 → 436] nevertheless, [ 437 → 440] Cajetan is neither a doctor of the church nor even a saint. [ 441 → 443] Yes, there is a Saint Cajetan, [ 443 → 445] but that's a different person. [ 445 → 445] That's not, [ 445 → 448] that's not this Cardinal Cajetan we're talking about. [ 449 → 452] So is that the best Morrison can come up with? [ 452 → 457] An SSPX priest using a Cajetan quote from the 16th century? [ 458 → 459] You know, [ 459 → 463] there's been a lot of magisterial teaching on the papacy since then, [ 463 → 466] especially in the latter half of the 19th century. [ 467 → 470] Vatican I was held in 1870, [ 470 → 473] and it was the council on the papacy. [ 473 → 475] So Morrison could, [ 475 → 481] quote at Pope Leo XIII in his official magisterium or the council itself. [ 481 → 482] Instead, [ 482 → 484] he quotes from Cardinal Cajetan. [ 485 → 486] Now, [ 486 → 488] I don't mean to detract from Cardinal Cajetan, [ 488 → 493] but his commentary on St. Thomas' Summa is not magisterial. [ 494 → 501] So please allow me to express the suspicion that Morrison probably chose this particular quote [ 501 → 504] because he agrees with what it says. [ 505 → 506] Look, [ 506 → 507] in church history, [ 507 → 511] you're going to find a lot of people expressing a lot of opinions [ 511 → 514] that were later either abandoned, [ 514 → 515] condemned, [ 515 → 517] or even declared heretical. [ 517 → 522] So the fact that you can find a theologian saying something hundreds of years ago, [ 522 → 524] that doesn't mean much. [ 525 → 526] Now, [ 526 → 531] here's a question I'd like to address to both Father Godron and Robert Morrison. [ 531 → 535] If the teaching of the Roman pontiff, [ 535 → 535] Papadopoulos, [ 535 → 536] past or present, [ 537 → 538] can be rejected, [ 538 → 539] resisted, [ 539 → 543] or simply be dismissed as not binding, [ 544 → 549] why not also the 500-year-old opinion of Cardinal Cajetan? [ 550 → 555] Why should I care about what one theologian thought hundreds of years ago [ 555 → 557] when, according to them, [ 557 → 560] what the Pope teaches or legislates today [ 560 → 563] can and ought to be resisted [ 563 → 565] under pain of endangering one's faith? [ 565 → 569] Does this make any sense? [ 571 → 572] Next, [ 573 → 576] Morrison considers how Catholics can shield themselves [ 576 → 577] from their, [ 577 → 578] you know, [ 578 → 579] destroyer Pope. [ 580 → 581] Morrison says, [ 581 → 581] quote, [ 581 → 586] Once we understand that Bergoglio is attempting to destroy the Church, [ 586 → 590] all of his words and deeds make much more sense. [ 591 → 591] Unquote. [ 592 → 593] No doubt that is true, [ 594 → 595] but you know, [ 595 → 598] how everything makes much more sense still? [ 599 → 603] Once we understand that Bergoglio isn't the Pope. [ 604 → 609] But then that was the conclusion that Morrison didn't want to arrive at. [ 610 → 613] Next, he quotes St. Robert Bellarmine, [ 613 → 614] you know, [ 614 → 618] about how it is licit to resist a Pope who destroys the Church. [ 618 → 620] That's from his work On the Roman Pontiff, [ 621 → 622] Book 2, Chapter 29. [ 624 → 625] That argument has long been used to say that the Pope is not the Pope. [ 625 → 628] That argument has long been shot down by the late Father Anthony Ciccata, [ 628 → 629] God rest his soul, [ 629 → 633] who pointed out that in context, [ 633 → 638] Bellarmine was justifying resistance by kings and prelates, [ 638 → 640] not by individual Catholics. [ 641 → 642] And in any case, [ 642 → 648] he wasn't talking about a Pope teaching heresy or imposing evil laws on the Church. [ 648 → 651] He was talking about a morally wicked Pope [ 651 → 654] who gives evil commands to his subjects. [ 655 → 658] As for a heretical Pope, [ 658 → 659] well, [ 659 → 663] Bellarmine talks about that in the next chapter of the same book, [ 663 → 664] where he says that, [ 665 → 665] quote, [ 665 → 668] it would be the most miserable condition of the Church [ 668 → 672] if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf [ 672 → 675] manifestly prowling for a shepherd. [ 676 → 676] Unquote. [ 678 → 680] Notice that he doesn't say [ 680 → 683] it would be miserable if the Church should be compelled [ 683 → 685] to submit to and obey a shepherd. [ 685 → 687] Who is a wolf? [ 687 → 689] He says that it would be miserable [ 689 → 693] if the Church should be required to recognize the wolf as a shepherd. [ 694 → 698] Maybe that's why Morrison chose to provide the other Bellarmine. [ 698 → 698] Quote, [ 698 → 699] Not this one. [ 701 → 703] Oh, and then there's yet another Bellarmine passage [ 703 → 706] that she didn't get from the remnant. [ 706 → 706] Quote, [ 706 → 711] The Pope is the teacher and shepherd of the whole Church. [ 712 → 714] Thus, the whole Church is so bound [ 714 → 716] to hear and follow him [ 716 → 718] that if he would err, [ 719 → 721] the whole Church would err. [ 721 → 722] Unquote. [ 722 → 725] That's from On the Roman Pontiff, [ 725 → 727] Book 4, Chapter 3. [ 729 → 733] Next, Morrison quotes Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, [ 733 → 735] the founder of the SSPX. [ 735 → 737] So that's a recognize and resist source [ 737 → 739] and therefore not usable [ 739 → 741] without begging the question. [ 742 → 743] So we'll just skip over that. [ 744 → 746] Then, Morrison tells us [ 746 → 750] that he believes that outside of the strict conditions [ 750 → 753] for papal infallibility given at Vatican I, [ 754 → 756] a Pope can teach anything whatsoever. [ 757 → 758] And Bergoglio, he believes, [ 759 → 760] is taking advantage of that. [ 761 → 762] Morrison says, [ 762 → 763] Quote, [ 763 → 765] As many of us go about insisting [ 765 → 767] that he might actually be the Pope [ 767 → 771] because he has not tried to invoke infallibility, [ 771 → 773] he congratulates himself [ 773 → 776] on being able to destroy the Church [ 776 → 778] because he is clever enough [ 778 → 781] to avoid invoking papal infallibility. [ 782 → 783] Unquote. [ 784 → 787] Now, this is just so much nonsense. [ 788 → 790] Morrison is basically saying [ 790 → 793] that Bergoglio out-clevered God, right? [ 793 → 794] That he outsmarted God. [ 795 → 797] Apparently, the people at the Remnant [ 797 → 799] seriously believe [ 799 → 801] that God establishes a Church, [ 801 → 803] which is his mystical body, [ 803 → 803] as a church, [ 803 → 805] which is the Ark of Salvation, [ 805 → 807] that he endows this Church [ 807 → 809] with an office of Supreme Shepherd [ 809 → 812] who acts in his very stead, [ 812 → 813] the Vicar of Christ, [ 814 → 816] teaching, legislating, and sanctifying [ 817 → 818] in his name, [ 818 → 821] and possessing even the power of the keys, [ 822 → 825] so that what he binds and looses on earth [ 825 → 827] will also be bound and loosed in heaven. [ 828 → 830] And then, according to the Remnant, [ 830 → 833] God abandons all that to the vicissitudes, [ 833 → 835] of human life, [ 835 → 836] and to the whims and caprices [ 836 → 838] of fallen human nature, [ 839 → 841] allowing the perversions of evil men [ 841 → 842] to thwart it all, [ 843 → 846] except under the very narrow [ 846 → 849] and rarely exercised circumstances [ 849 → 851] of infallible ex cathedra statements, [ 852 → 854] which a Pope can simply choose [ 854 → 855] to avoid altogether. [ 856 → 859] That is how the Remnant thinks [ 859 → 861] God protects his Church [ 861 → 863] and keeps the gates of hell [ 863 → 863] from closing. [ 863 → 867] You really wonder [ 867 → 868] whether these people ever actually [ 868 → 870] think about what they're saying [ 870 → 872] before they hit the publish button. [ 874 → 876] You know, that actually, [ 876 → 877] that would effectively [ 877 → 879] make Vatican I [ 879 → 881] into a blueprint [ 881 → 883] for how to wreck the Church [ 883 → 885] and send souls to hell. [ 885 → 888] Get an apostate elected Pope [ 888 → 889] and have him teach [ 889 → 891] the craziest heresies and blasphemies, [ 892 → 893] have him impose the law, [ 893 → 895] have him impose invalid sacraments, [ 895 → 895] and so on. [ 896 → 898] Just make sure he's smart enough [ 898 → 900] not to try to use [ 900 → 901] an ex cathedra statement, [ 901 → 903] because that God wouldn't permit. [ 905 → 907] Because a Church that teaches [ 907 → 908] trash all day [ 908 → 909] and sends souls to hell [ 909 → 911] with inter-religious dialogue, [ 912 → 913] religious liberty, [ 913 → 914] invalid sacraments, [ 914 → 915] bogus saints, [ 916 → 917] fake marriage annulments, [ 917 → 918] because such a Church [ 918 → 920] the people would accept [ 920 → 921] as infallible [ 921 → 921] when it issues [ 921 → 923] an ex cathedra statement, [ 923 → 923] right? [ 924 → 926] Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. [ 927 → 929] I mean, with that kind of a theology, [ 929 → 931] the ex cathedra statements [ 931 → 933] might as well not be infallible either. [ 934 → 934] Right? [ 934 → 936] What difference would that make? [ 936 → 939] If that's all that protects the papacy, [ 939 → 941] of what use is it? [ 941 → 942] Do we need it? [ 943 → 944] This kind of infallibility? [ 944 → 946] Or is it not rather [ 946 → 948] an instruction manual [ 948 → 949] for apostate Popes [ 949 → 952] as to what conditions to avoid [ 952 → 953] when making an infallibility? [ 953 → 954] When making a papal pronouncement [ 954 → 956] to ensure it goes through, [ 956 → 957] so to speak? [ 958 → 959] But hey, [ 959 → 960] that is recognize [ 960 → 962] and resist theology for you. [ 963 → 964] The Pope can teach [ 964 → 965] any kind of heresy. [ 965 → 968] He just cannot do it ex cathedra, [ 968 → 970] which he never has to do anyway. [ 971 → 972] Well, that would basically [ 972 → 973] make him like [ 973 → 974] the Anglican Archbishop [ 974 → 975] of Canterbury. [ 976 → 976] Right? [ 977 → 978] He also can teach [ 978 → 979] anything he wants to [ 979 → 981] and never does it ex cathedra. [ 982 → 983] Plus, [ 983 → 985] his underlings can reject [ 985 → 987] and resist his teachings too [ 987 → 989] when they think he's wrong. [ 990 → 990] Perfect. [ 991 → 993] So for the recognize and resistors, [ 994 → 995] I guess the Pope [ 995 → 996] is basically [ 996 → 998] the Archbishop of Canterbury [ 998 → 1000] plus ex cathedra pronouncements. [1001 → 1003] That is remnant theology [1003 → 1005] marketed as [1005 → 1006] traditional Catholicism. [1007 → 1009] It is utterly disgraceful. [1011 → 1013] Now, at the end of his article, [1013 → 1015] Morrison says this, [1015 → 1016] quote, [1016 → 1018] we may learn at some point [1018 → 1020] that Jorge Bergoglio [1020 → 1021] was never the Pope, [1022 → 1023] but even if we knew now [1023 → 1025] that he is not the Pope, [1025 → 1027] there would be little change [1027 → 1029] to how we must act, [1029 → 1030] unquote. [1031 → 1033] Now, that may be so, [1034 → 1037] but only if he is not the Pope [1037 → 1038] can you actually uphold [1038 → 1041] the Catholic teaching [1041 → 1042] on the papacy. [1042 → 1044] You know, the very teachings [1044 → 1046] that Morrison neglected to cite, [1047 → 1048] such as the following. [1050 → 1051] In his apostolic letter [1051 → 1052] in Terra Pax, [1053 → 1054] Pope St. Leo IX [1054 → 1056] speaks of, quote, [1056 → 1058] the faith of Peter, [1058 → 1060] which so far neither has failed [1060 → 1062] nor up to the end [1062 → 1064] will fail, unquote. [1064 → 1066] You can find that in Denzinger [1066 → 1067] number 351. [1068 → 1070] In his encyclical [1070 → 1072] Ubi Primum, paragraph 22, [1072 → 1074] Pope Leo XII teaches [1074 → 1075] that, quote, [1076 → 1078] Peter still maintains the concern [1078 → 1080] of all pastors in guarding their flocks [1080 → 1083] and his high rank [1083 → 1084] does not fail [1084 → 1087] even in an unworthy air, [1088 → 1088] unquote. [1089 → 1091] The First Vatican Council [1091 → 1093] under Pope Pius IX [1093 → 1094] teaches dogmatically [1094 → 1096] that, quote, [1096 → 1098] this see of St. Peter [1098 → 1100] always remains unblemished [1100 → 1102] by any error, [1102 → 1104] in accordance with the divine [1104 → 1106] promise of our Lord and Savior [1106 → 1108] to the Prince of His Disciples. [1109 → 1110] I have prayed for you [1110 → 1112] that your faith may not fail [1112 → 1114] and when you have turned again [1114 → 1117] strengthen your brethren. [1118 → 1120] That's Luke 22, 32. [1121 → 1122] And the Council continues, [1122 → 1124] This gift of truth [1124 → 1125] and never-failing faith [1125 → 1128] was therefore divinely conferred [1128 → 1130] on Peter and his successors [1130 → 1131] in the sea. [1132 → 1134] So that they might discharge [1134 → 1136] their exalted office [1136 → 1138] for the salvation of all [1138 → 1140] and so that the whole flock of Christ [1140 → 1143] might be kept away by them [1143 → 1145] from the poisonous food of error [1145 → 1146] and be nourished [1146 → 1148] with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. [1149 → 1151] Thus the tendency to schism [1151 → 1152] is removed [1152 → 1154] and the whole church is preserved in unity [1154 → 1157] and, resting on its foundation, [1157 → 1158] can stand firm [1158 → 1160] against the gates of hell. [1161 → 1161] Unquote. [1162 → 1164] That's Vatican I's [1164 → 1165] Dogmatic Constitution [1165 → 1168] Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4 [1168 → 1169] which is also found [1169 → 1171] in Denzinger. [1172 → 1172] And finally, [1173 → 1175] there's actually lots more [1175 → 1177] but I'm giving you just a few examples here. [1178 → 1179] Finally, the teaching of [1179 → 1181] Pope Leo XIII [1181 → 1183] in his magnificent encyclical [1183 → 1186] Satis Conitum, paragraph 12. [1187 → 1187] Quote, [1187 → 1190] It can never be that the church [1190 → 1192] committed to the care of Peter [1192 → 1193] shall succumb [1193 → 1195] or in any wise [1195 → 1196] fail. [1196 → 1197] Unquote. [1198 → 1199] Notice, [1199 → 1201] he says the church [1201 → 1203] committed to the care of Peter [1203 → 1205] cannot fail in any way. [1207 → 1208] The reason [1208 → 1210] why the church is in such shambles [1210 → 1211] today is because [1211 → 1214] there has been no Pope. [1214 → 1216] That is the only [1216 → 1218] possible explanation. [1218 → 1220] I understand that that brings with it [1220 → 1222] a lot of other questions [1222 → 1223] and difficulties [1223 → 1225] but until we accept [1225 → 1227] that fundamental reality [1227 → 1230] we will just be spinning our wheels. [1232 → 1233] Now there's one more quote [1233 → 1236] from Morrison's article on Francis the Destroyer [1236 → 1238] that I wanted to keep [1238 → 1239] for last [1239 → 1241] because it's kind of the icing on the cake. [1242 → 1244] Having bent over [1244 → 1245] backwards not to present [1245 → 1248] any pre-Vatican II magisterial [1248 → 1249] teaching on the papacy [1249 → 1251] that could answer his questions, [1252 → 1253] Morrison counsels his readers [1253 → 1254] as follows. [1255 → 1255] Quote, [1255 → 1257] Many conservative Catholics [1257 → 1259] complain of the abuses [1259 → 1261] of the spirit of Vatican II [1261 → 1263] but reject the best [1263 → 1265] antidotes available. [1266 → 1268] The teachings of the pre-Vatican II [1268 → 1269] popes, especially [1269 → 1271] St. Pius X. [1272 → 1274] Why would we expect God [1274 → 1276] to send us a truly Catholic [1276 → 1278] pope if we fail to [1278 → 1280] have recourse to the teachings [1280 → 1282] of the good popes he gave [1282 → 1283] us to warn against [1283 → 1285] the current evils? [1286 → 1286] Unquote. [1287 → 1289] Yes, Mr. Morrison, [1290 → 1291] why indeed. [1293 → 1294] Tradcast Express [1294 → 1296] is a production of Novos Ordo Watch. [1296 → 1297] Check us out at [1297 → 1300] tradcast.org and if you [1300 → 1301] like what we're doing, please consider making [1301 → 1303] a tax-deductible contribution [1303 → 1306] at novosordowatch.org [1306 → 1307] slash donate.