[ 0 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021. [ 16 → 23] This podcast episode, number 146, continues the discussion of the fallout from the Responsa [ 23 → 29] ad Dubia, response to questions, that the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship [ 29 → 35] released on December 18th, which restrict the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass [ 35 → 36] even further. [ 37 → 42] So, if you haven't yet listened to the first installment of the series, which was episode [ 42 → 48] number 145, released just the other day, it is recommended that you listen to that first [ 48 → 49] so you get the full picture. [ 50 → 53] But let's go ahead now with today's episode. [ 54 → 59] When Francis published his motu proprio letter Tradiciones Custodes, [ 59 → 65] on July 16th of this year, which essentially revokes the Decree Summorum Pontificum of [ 65 → 74] Benedict XVI and phases out the traditional Latin Mass over time, he explained his motivation for [ 74 → 80] doing so in an accompanying letter. And here is what that letter says, quote, [ 81 → 87] Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my predecessors, who had intended to do everything [ 87 → 88] possible to ensure, [ 89 → 96] that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity, would find it possible to remain in this [ 96 → 105] unity, or to rediscover it anew, has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by [ 105 → 112] St. John Paul II, and with even greater magnanimity by Benedict XVI, intended to [ 112 → 119] recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited, [ 119 → 127] to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, [ 128 → 134] block her path, and expose her to the peril of division. And then further on he says, [ 134 → 142] I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of the Massale Romanum of 1962 is often [ 142 → 149] characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Second Vatican [ 149 → 156] Council itself, claiming with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the [ 156 → 164] tradition and the true Church. And further still, ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many [ 164 → 169] is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books [ 169 → 177] prior to Vatican Council II, and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of [ 177 → 179] what is called the true Church. And so, I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of [ 179 → 179] the Massale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, [ 179 → 184] but of the Church. One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and [ 184 → 192] nurtures the divisive tendency. In defense of the unity of the body of Christ, I am constrained to [ 192 → 198] revoke the faculty granted by my predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this [ 198 → 204] faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass [ 204 → 209] with the Massale Romanum of 1962. Because, like many of you, the Massale Romanum of 1962 is [ 209 → 214] liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, [ 214 → 220] which is the sacrament of unity, they must be carried out in communion with the Church." [ 221 → 227] That was Francis earlier this year in the accompanying letter to the [ 227 → 233] Motu Proprio Tradizionis Custodes. Now, as I explained in the last podcast episode, [ 233 → 238] from the perspective that the Vatican II Church is the true Roman Catholic Church, [ 239 → 245] that Vatican II was a valid Catholic ecumenical council, and that Francis and his five predecessors [ 245 → 251] are in fact genuine Catholic popes, from that perspective, what Francis writes here makes [ 251 → 259] perfect sense. He is revoking the generous permission for the use of the 1962 Missal [ 259 → 266] because the reason for allowing it to begin with, namely to better incorporate traditionalists [ 266 → 268] into the Vatican II Church for the sake of unity, [ 269 → 276] that goal is not being attained. In fact, a great many of the people who assist at these [ 276 → 283] traditional liturgies are not simply interested in this particular liturgical rite for the sake of [ 283 → 289] tradition, beauty, or diversity, or whatever, but because they also adhere to the religion that [ 289 → 298] rite of Mass expresses. Imagine that, right? The traditional Mass expresses traditional Catholicism, [ 299 → 306] and that is the one religion the Novus Ordo modernists cannot and will not tolerate. [ 307 → 314] Any other religion, fine. They're at least willing to talk about it. But Catholicism? Forget it. [ 316 → 323] Well, look, it has to be that way for them, because for as long as pre-Vatican II Catholicism [ 323 → 329] is still around, it will always be a witness against the Novus Ordo modernists. [ 329 → 337] It will always convict them of apostasy. It will always be a perpetual testimony [ 337 → 345] that Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium changed the pre-conciliar faith. [ 346 → 351] That's why they can't have it around. For as long as it's still there, [ 351 → 358] for as long as it's being practiced and taught, the whole world can see that that religion is [ 358 → 359] different from the religion that it was before. And that's why they can't have it around. [ 359 → 359] And that's why they can't have it around. And that's why they can't have it around. [ 359 → 366] From the religion practiced and taught in the Vatican today. And so the traditional mass is [ 366 → 373] like a token reminder of that. It is the quintessential representation of pre-Vatican II [ 373 → 380] Catholicism. And so there's actually a certain parallel between that and how our blessed Lord [ 380 → 387] was intolerable to the scribes and the Pharisees and the Sadducees because his teachings, his words [ 387 → 394] continually convicted them of their sins, of their unbelief, of their hypocrisy. [ 395 → 401] In fact, there's actually a beautiful messianic prophecy in the Old Testament book of Wisdom, [ 401 → 406] chapter 2, that describes exactly that. Let me quote from it. [ 407 → 415] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary [ 415 → 417] to our doings, and upbraideth us. [ 417 → 424] With transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [ 424 → 430] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the Son of God. [ 431 → 437] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. He is grievous unto us, even to behold, [ 437 → 444] for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. Unquote. [ 444 → 447] That's the book of Wisdom, chapter 2, verses 12-13. [ 447 → 457] 12-15. So that's why they wanted Christ put to death, away with him. They could not stand being [ 457 → 463] exposed before the common people, and being reminded that they were not, in fact, holy, [ 463 → 471] that it was all just outward show, that inside they were full of iniquity, white at sepulchers. [ 472 → 476] And so, likewise, today, the modernists cannot tolerate [ 476 → 477] the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, the traditional, [ 477 → 485] Catholic faith, because it exposes their religion as a fraud. It cries out that their [ 485 → 493] religion is not the Catholic faith. It calls their bluff. Because if the Vatican II religion [ 493 → 502] is Catholicism, then what is the pre-Vatican II religion? Oh, don't say they're both Catholicism, [ 502 → 507] because if they were, then there would be no cause for disagreement. [ 507 → 514] Then the modernists wouldn't care whether you attend the traditional Mass or the new Mass, [ 514 → 518] whether you use the old catechisms or the new catechism. [ 520 → 524] Now, with the Responsa ad Dubia document of December 18th, [ 525 → 530] the Vatican has really tightened the screws now against the traditionalists in their church, and [ 530 → 537] needless to say, those traditionalists, we call them semi-trads, they are furious [ 537 → 544] beyond belief. And not only that, of course, their resistance is now firing on all cylinders. [ 544 → 552] They are revving up to run at full throttle, because they know this is a battle for their [ 552 → 559] very lives. The reactions from their camp that have come in so far range from desperately trying [ 559 → 565] to find some legal technicality that will allow them to get around having to obey the directives, [ 565 → 572] all the way to outright disobedience and defiance, regardless of what the consequences [ 572 → 580] may be. In fact, the Reverend John Hunwick is on record calling for even a traditionalist [ 580 → 587] Episcopal consecration without papal mandate, if necessary. What he didn't mention is that [ 587 → 595] such an act would incur automatic excommunication per Novus Ordo canon law. But no worries, [ 595 → 601] they'll just wipe that away with a wave of the hand, because after all, they are right, [ 601 → 608] and Francis is wrong. And so they'll just declare their own excommunication utterly null and void, [ 608 → 617] because unjust. And then they'll go on their merry way. What they don't realize is that in 1873, [ 618 → 625] Pope Pius IX condemned that very line of argumentation in his encyclical Quartus Supra. [ 626 → 632] Here's what this very traditional pope wrote regarding certain schismatics in Armenia. [ 633 → 637] Listen up, semi-trads, you're not going to hear this from Peter Kwasniewski. [ 638 → 646] They, the schismatics, argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against [ 646 → 653] them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the apostolic delegate in Constantinople, was unjust and [ 653 → 655] consequently void of strength. [ 655 → 662] They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might [ 662 → 669] desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly [ 669 → 677] unknown and unheard of by the ancient fathers of the church. For the whole church throughout the [ 677 → 683] world knows that the see of the blessed apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any [ 683 → 690] pontiffs have bound, since this see possesses the right of judging the whole church and no one [ 690 → 697] may judge its judgment. The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an [ 697 → 704] excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. [ 705 → 712] Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. [ 713 → 721] Our predecessor of happy memory, Clement XI, in his Constitution Unigenitus against the errors [ 721 → 729] of Quesnel, forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any [ 729 → 734] way different from some of John Wycliffe's, which had been previously condemned by the Council of [ 734 → 743] Constance, and Martin V. Through human weakness, a person could be unjustly punished with censure by [ 743 → 743] him. He could be punished with a sentence of injustice, but he could not be punished with a [ 743 → 749] prelate. But it is still necessary, as our predecessor, St. Gregory the Great, warned, [ 750 → 757] for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the [ 757 → 763] bishop rashly, in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, [ 764 → 772] develops out of the pride of heated reproof. But if one should be afraid even of an unjust [ 772 → 773] condemnation, then he should be afraid of the judgment of the bishop rashly, in case the fault [ 773 → 773] which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust, since [ 773 → 773] the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust, since the condemnation was unjust, [ 773 → 780] what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop [ 780 → 787] and this apostolic see, and tearing to pieces, as they are now doing by a new schism, [ 788 → 791] the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church? [ 793 → 802] That was Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, paragraph 10. That's real traditional Catholicism. [ 802 → 809] Now, as I said, there have been various reactions from the semi-trads on this so far, [ 810 → 817] though they all basically agree on one thing. The suppression of the traditional mass is wrong, [ 817 → 823] and France's decree has to be resisted. They're all on the same page about that. What they're [ 823 → 830] not quite in agreement on yet is what actually justifies their resistance. Is it a legal [ 830 → 832] technicality the document missed? Is it a legal technicality the document missed? Is it a legal [ 832 → 840] that somehow invalidates the whole thing? Is it perhaps not in the proper form? Is it addressed to [ 840 → 847] the wrong people? Does it claim to do something that this Vatican congregation has no power to do? [ 848 → 852] And so forth. So those are the kinds of questions they're currently working through. [ 853 → 859] Or should they take the Chris Ferreira approach, for example, and simply declare the whole thing [ 859 → 862] effectively invalid because, in their judgment, they're not going to be able to do it? [ 862 → 868] In their judgment, it's harmful to souls. Well, whatever most of them will ultimately settle on, [ 869 → 874] two things are certain. Number one, they will not comply. That will be out of the question. [ 875 → 882] And number two, they will still insist that you cannot say that Francis isn't the Pope. [ 883 → 891] Yep, and to that end, Christopher Ferreira is not embarrassed to crank out inanities like this one. [ 892 → 892] Quote, [ 892 → 902] And so, while Bergoglio holds the office of the papacy, he is not a Pope, but a destroyer. Unquote. [ 904 → 913] Look, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. The only reason Ferreira can [ 913 → 922] affirm something so idiotic is because he doesn't believe in the papacy. He doesn't actually believe [ 922 → 930] that which the Church teaches about the papacy. To him, the word Pope is just a label. And in that [ 930 → 938] sense, he's actually a nominalist. But then, for some strange reason, he is absolutely adamant [ 938 → 945] that Francis be given that label. Look, I don't know what guides this man's position, [ 945 → 952] but it's definitely not traditional Catholic doctrine. You want traditional Catholic [ 952 → 952] doctrine? You want traditional Catholic doctrine? You want traditional Catholic doctrine? You want [ 952 → 957] traditional Catholic doctrine? Here's traditional Catholic doctrine. Pope Pius XII, Encyclical [ 957 → 960] Mystici Corporis, paragraph 40. Quote, [ 960 → 968] Peter, in virtue of his primacy, is only Christ's vicar, so that there is only one chief head of [ 968 → 976] this body, namely Christ, who never ceases himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same [ 976 → 985] time he rules it visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious [ 985 → 990] ascension into heaven, this Church rested not on him alone. [ 990 → 998] But on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his vicar constitute one only head [ 998 → 1005] is the solemn teaching of our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the apostolic [1005 → 1014] letter Unam Sanctam. And his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Unquote. [1014 → 1019] Did you get that? Christ and his vicar, the Pope, constitute [1019 → 1028] one only head. Christ rules the Church in and through the Pope. [1029 → 1038] Do you see now what a disaster will result if a diabolical public apostate like Jorge Bergoglio [1038 → 1044] is recognized as the vicar of Christ? Do you see how serious of an error that is? [1045 → 1048] You can't wipe that away by saying that, [1048 → 1049] oh, you're just going to be a vicar of Christ. You're just going to be a vicar of Christ. [1049 → 1054] You're just going to resist him when he teaches heresy or legislates harmful things. [1055 → 1063] That totally torpedoes the Catholic doctrine on the papacy on multiple fronts. It legitimizes [1063 → 1069] what is essentially schism, the breaking of the bond of unity, on the one hand, and it's also [1069 → 1077] saying that Christ, the good shepherd, can mislead his Church to the point where faithfully clinging [1077 → 1079] to his vicar, you will be led to hell. You will be led to hell. You will be led to hell. [1079 → 1083] Hell. This is serious stuff. [1086 → 1092] The bottom line is, you can't say Francis is Pope and then essentially do your own thing. [1093 → 1096] Right? Like the Society of St. Pius X, most of all. [1098 → 1104] Now, I know a lot of people in the Recognize and Resist camp think that by nevertheless [1104 → 1109] recognizing Francis as Pope, they're on the safe side, right? They're just covering all their [1109 → 1116] faces, so to speak. But that is a grave mistake. Because if you're not submitting to him and [1116 → 1123] nevertheless recognizing him as Pope, what you're doing is heaping condemnation on yourself [1123 → 1130] because you're essentially admitting that you're consciously in defiance of the vicar of Christ. [1132 → 1139] See, the truth is that Sedevacantism is a lot safer than the Recognize and Resist position. [1139 → 1147] Because even if, for the sake of argument, it turned out that Francis was a real Pope, [1148 → 1156] well, guess what? Then we were simply mistaken. We did the best we could in this mess to act in [1156 → 1163] accordance with the Catholic faith, and we mistakenly reached the wrong conclusion about [1163 → 1169] Francis. But everything we did was consistent with our belief that this man couldn't possibly [1169 → 1169] be the Pope. So, we're going to have to do something. We're going to have to do something. [1169 → 1179] We didn't defy anyone we believe to be Pope, right? So, there's nothing safe, as the Semitrads [1179 → 1185] would have you believe, about accepting Francis as Pope and then not following him. All it does [1185 → 1192] is put you in the subjective state of defying the Pope, and thereby the rule of Christ. [1194 → 1199] As the doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, wrote in his work On the Roman Pontiff, [1199 → 1203] Book 2, Chapter 30, quote, [1204 → 1226] Now, which of these do you think Francis is? A wolf or a shepherd? It's really not that difficult. [1226 → 1229] We'll continue in the next podcast. [1229 → 1237] Tradcast Express is a production of Novos Ordo Watch. Check us out at tradcast.org, [1237 → 1241] and if you like what we're doing, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution [1241 → 1245] at novosordowatch.org slash donate.