[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, February 23rd, 2022. [ 16 → 22] What game is Francis playing with the priestly fraternity of St. Peter? [ 22 → 30] That is the title of our latest blog post, which you can find at NovosOrdoWatch.org. [ 30 → 34] Most of you listening now have probably heard about this already, [ 34 → 38] but according to reports from the fraternity of St. Peter, [ 38 → 42] not to be confused with the Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X, [ 43 → 47] Francis gave them a written decree in which he assures them [ 47 → 54] that they are not subject to the anti-traditional mass decree Traditiones Custodes [ 54 → 60] and will be permitted to continue to use the Roman Missal of 1962 [ 60 → 60] which is the Roman Missal of 1962. [ 60 → 64] And also administer the other sacraments in the traditional rite [ 64 → 69] in their own churches, of which there actually aren't all that many. [ 70 → 75] Although the FSSP is breathing a huge sigh of relief, [ 75 → 79] this rather unexpected development has a lot of people scratching their heads. [ 80 → 84] And a number of semi-trad commentators I've seen online so far [ 84 → 87] are not exactly in ecstasy over this, [ 88 → 90] simply because they've learned, [ 90 → 93] not to trust Jorge Bergoglio. [ 94 → 97] It is noteworthy, by the way, that so far, [ 97 → 102] the Vatican has not confirmed the existence of this decree, [ 102 → 105] nor has a scan of it been made available. [ 106 → 109] The only source affirming its existence so far [ 109 → 111] is the fraternity of St. Peter. [ 112 → 115] Now, of course, they're not going to lie about that. [ 115 → 118] Not only would that be uncharitable to suppose, [ 118 → 120] it also wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, [ 120 → 124] because lying about this would be of no benefit to them. [ 125 → 128] But then, who knows what the Frankster is up to? [ 129 → 133] Wouldn't surprise me if he ends up denying the authenticity of the decree. [ 134 → 137] Or, hey, maybe he wrote it in magic ink. [ 138 → 142] Or, perhaps, he will simply revoke it again in a few weeks. [ 143 → 146] Keep in mind that what Francis giveth, [ 147 → 149] Francis can also taketh away. [ 149 → 154] I'd say, trust Bergoglio at your own risk. [ 155 → 158] In any case, you can read all about that, [ 158 → 161] see various reactions, and our own analysis and commentary [ 161 → 166] at novosordowatch.org slash wire. [ 167 → 171] The blog post dated February 22nd, entitled [ 171 → 176] What Game Is Francis Playing With the Fraternity of St. Peter? [ 176 → 178] And, spoiler alert, [ 178 → 182] although we do not profess to know just what game he's playing, [ 183 → 186] what we do know is that he's cheating. [ 187 → 194] In other news, the website 1Peter5 published an article by Jeremiah Bannister [ 195 → 198] on January 15th of this year with the title [ 198 → 204] Re-Evangelizing Our Separated Brethren, the Sedevacantists. [ 204 → 207] Now, I have to say, I'm touched. [ 207 → 207] I'm touched. [ 207 → 213] You know, that finally someone would reach out to us lost souls [ 213 → 215] and try to... [ 215 → 215] Wait a minute. [ 216 → 217] What is Bannister doing? [ 218 → 219] Evangelization? [ 219 → 224] Does he not know that his own definitely valid pope [ 224 → 227] isn't really into that sort of thing? [ 227 → 232] And besides, just a few weeks ago, on February 2nd, [ 232 → 234] Francis stated during his general audience [ 234 → 237] that no one can exclude himself from the gospel. [ 237 → 238] From the church. [ 239 → 243] And that even apostates are part of the communion of saints [ 243 → 245] on account of their baptism. [ 246 → 250] So, what's Bannister worried about, separated brethren? [ 251 → 256] Furthermore, in his 2019 so-called apostolic exhortation [ 256 → 260] Christus Vivit, paragraph number 154, [ 260 → 264] the false pope Bannister wants to convert us to, wrote, [ 264 → 265] quote, [ 265 → 266] quote, [ 267 → 273] He never leaves us, even though at times it appears that he keeps silent. [ 274 → 276] He never breaks his covenant. [ 276 → 279] He simply asks that we not abandon him. [ 279 → 283] But even if we stray from him, he remains faithful, [ 283 → 285] for he cannot deny himself. [ 286 → 287] Unquote. [ 288 → 289] Now, that final clause, [ 290 → 292] he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself, [ 292 → 297] that is a quote from 2 Timothy 2, verse 13, [ 297 → 302] it's too bad Francis didn't also quote the preceding verse, [ 302 → 305] verse 12, which says, [ 305 → 309] If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. [ 309 → 314] If we deny him, he will also deny us. [ 315 → 318] So much for our friendship with Christ being unbreakable. [ 319 → 322] Obviously, mortal sin will break it. [ 323 → 327] Yeah, I think I know why Francis didn't quote that part. [ 327 → 332] Now, the ever-so-solicitous Mr. Bannister writes in his article [ 332 → 336] that his intention is to lead Sedevacantists, quote, [ 336 → 341] back to that truly traditional posture of assent and obedience [ 341 → 346] that so fittingly becomes the faithful son and daughter of Rome [ 346 → 350] in full communion with the Catholic Church. [ 350 → 351] Unquote. [ 351 → 356] So, surely he would never himself deviate from Francis' teachings, right? [ 357 → 363] So then, what's this business of re-evangelizing Sedevacantists about? [ 365 → 371] Now, I have to say that Bannister's article is devoid of real substance. [ 371 → 376] It's basically a fluff piece that tries to impress, [ 377 → 379] but it runs pretty much on rhetoric, [ 380 → 383] patronizing and logically fallacious rhetoric at that. [ 384 → 387] The way it reads, you get the impression that the author [ 387 → 392] is leading up to some great slam-dunk refutation of Sedevacantism, [ 392 → 395] but then that refutation never comes. [ 396 → 399] He tries to paint Sedevacantists as Protestants [ 399 → 404] while ignoring the fact that the one openly pushing Protestant ideas [ 404 → 409] is the very Pope he's trying to convert us to. [ 410 → 414] It is Francis who had the Martin Luther statue in the Vatican. [ 415 → 417] It's Francis who said in one of his... [ 417 → 418] in one of his many airplane interviews [ 418 → 423] that he believes Luther was right on the doctrine of justification, [ 423 → 427] which was put under anathema by the Council of Trent, by the way. [ 428 → 431] It is Francis who said he likes the Lutherans [ 431 → 434] who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ. [ 434 → 439] It is Francis whose favorite exorcist is a Lutheran pseudo-bishop. [ 440 → 443] It's Francis who told Lutherans from Finland [ 443 → 446] that they are the faithful people of God. [ 447 → 447] It is Francis who said he likes the faithful people of God. [ 447 → 450] It is Francis who gave a gorgeous Eucharistic chalice [ 450 → 452] to a Lutheran pastor in Rome. [ 453 → 457] It is Francis who during Corpus Christi of 2019 [ 457 → 461] said that Jesus becomes bread in the Holy Eucharist, [ 461 → 464] that it's God contained in a piece of bread. [ 465 → 469] It's Francis who said that Catholics and Lutherans [ 469 → 472] possess a common justification in Christ [ 472 → 477] and are members of one and the same mystical body of Christ. [ 477 → 482] And it is Francis who, as a young student in Scandinavia, [ 482 → 485] once filled in for a Lutheran pastor [ 485 → 488] to conduct a Lutheran worship service. [ 488 → 490] Folks, you can't make this stuff up. [ 491 → 495] But we are the Protestants who have to be evangelized? [ 496 → 497] Let me make a suggestion. [ 498 → 501] If Jeremiah Bannister wants to evangelize someone, [ 501 → 503] start with Jorge Bergoglio. [ 505 → 507] So, Bannister insists on evangelizing someone. [ 507 → 511] Bannister insists on the need for an ultimate living authority in the church. [ 512 → 513] Fair enough. Fair enough. [ 514 → 518] But he leaves out of account the inconvenient fact [ 518 → 521] that if Francis is that living authority, [ 521 → 525] then we don't need an ultimate living authority [ 525 → 530] because then that authority would only be a great hindrance, [ 530 → 532] not a help to our salvation. [ 533 → 536] See, Christ instituted an ultimate living authority [ 536 → 537] not for the church. [ 537 → 538] Not for its own sake, [ 538 → 541] but for the sake of the salvation of souls. [ 543 → 545] So, no thanks, Mr. Bannister. [ 546 → 547] We are Sedevacantists. [ 547 → 550] We reject your pseudo-popes [ 550 → 554] precisely because we don't care to be Protestants. [ 556 → 560] Next, let's turn to an article released over at The Remnant [ 560 → 562] on February 16th, [ 562 → 565] written by Dr. Robert Morrison. [ 565 → 566] It's entitled, [ 566 → 569] Francis may or may not be Pope. [ 569 → 571] What are we going to do about it? [ 572 → 575] In it, the author concedes that [ 575 → 578] Francis seems dedicated to destroying the papacy [ 578 → 581] and that he basically accepts every religion [ 581 → 582] other than Catholicism. [ 583 → 586] But for some reason, Morris then asserts [ 586 → 587] that Francis, quote, [ 588 → 591] may take the most pleasure in seeing scores [ 591 → 595] of faithful Catholics declare that he is not Pope. [ 596 → 597] Unquote. [ 597 → 599] I don't think so. [ 599 → 602] Although he certainly does enjoy creating chaos, [ 602 → 605] the one thing his whole charade runs on [ 605 → 610] is the idea that he is the Pope of the Catholic Church. [ 610 → 612] If you take that away from him, [ 612 → 613] everything collapses. [ 614 → 617] So, no, I don't think that he would take pleasure [ 617 → 619] in people concluding he's not the Pope. [ 619 → 622] Especially not his own security people [ 622 → 624] like the Vatican police and the Swiss guards [ 624 → 626] because they could just, [ 626 → 627] gently accompany him [ 627 → 629] off the Vatican premises. [ 630 → 632] Anyway, Morrison recommends [ 632 → 634] we let ourselves be guided by [ 634 → 636] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. [ 637 → 638] He doesn't say why. [ 639 → 641] Apparently, each Catholic can just choose [ 641 → 643] to follow a bishop he likes, [ 643 → 644] except the Pope, of course. [ 645 → 649] And Lefebvre said that he didn't consider himself [ 649 → 652] qualified to say whether Paul VI [ 652 → 653] was the Pope or not. [ 654 → 656] On the other hand, apparently, [ 656 → 658] he did consider himself qualified enough [ 658 → 661] to reject Paul VI's magisterium [ 661 → 663] and his liturgical reforms, [ 664 → 666] especially the new Mass and so on. [ 667 → 667] Isn't that interesting? [ 668 → 672] Look, folks, this is not a question of authority. [ 672 → 674] It's a question of logic. [ 675 → 679] If the apparent Pope imposes heresy on the Church [ 679 → 681] or other dangerous errors, [ 681 → 685] and if he imposes invalid or otherwise sacrilegious [ 686 → 689] liturgical rites that in themselves [ 689 → 690] are harmful to souls [ 690 → 692] and lead the faithful astray, [ 693 → 695] and if the Church teaches [ 695 → 698] that a true Pope cannot do such a thing, [ 699 → 701] then it is not only permitted [ 701 → 704] but necessary for you to conclude [ 704 → 706] that the apparent Pope [ 706 → 709] is not a true Pope but a false one. [ 710 → 711] That's all it is. [ 712 → 715] So Morrison is entirely on the wrong track [ 715 → 716] when he says that the Pope is not a true Pope, [ 716 → 716] and he asks, [ 717 → 737] Dr. Morrison, [ 738 → 740] you're not supposed to base your decision [ 740 → 742] that Francis isn't the Pope [ 742 → 744] on someone's authority. [ 745 → 746] You're supposed to, [ 746 → 747] logically infer it [ 747 → 751] from the fact that Francis continually does things [ 751 → 755] a true Pope is divinely prevented from doing. [ 756 → 759] Now, we can talk about exactly what those facts are, [ 759 → 762] but that is the fundamental reality [ 762 → 764] that you have to deal with [ 764 → 767] and that you've apparently completely misunderstood. [ 769 → 770] In any case, [ 770 → 773] we might as well throw the question back at Morrison. [ 773 → 775] If recognize and resist [ 775 → 776] is the right answer, [ 777 → 779] how do you know how much resistance [ 779 → 781] and with regard to what is right? [ 782 → 783] Should you follow the remnant [ 783 → 784] or church militant [ 784 → 786] or the wanderer [ 786 → 788] or EWTN or what? [ 789 → 790] It's not like all those resistance outlets [ 790 → 792] are on the same page, not by far. [ 794 → 795] Issues among Sedevacanists [ 795 → 796] are easily explained. [ 797 → 799] We have no Pope to settle disputes, [ 800 → 801] but if we did, [ 801 → 802] we would submit. [ 802 → 803] That's Catholicism. [ 803 → 806] But you guys, Dr. Morrison, [ 806 → 808] resist the settling of disputes [ 808 → 810] by your highest authority [ 810 → 812] so you have no remedy, [ 813 → 814] even in principle. [ 814 → 816] Yours is the dead end, [ 816 → 818] not Sedevacantism. [ 819 → 821] Now, Morrison asks [ 821 → 824] if there is any net benefit [ 824 → 827] to rejecting Francis' claim to the papacy. [ 827 → 828] Well, yeah. [ 828 → 829] For one thing, [ 829 → 831] you no longer have to believe [ 831 → 832] in a defected church. [ 833 → 835] What Morrison himself calls [ 835 → 837] new church in a prior article. [ 837 → 840] A humanistic, man-made institution [ 840 → 841] with a modernist identity. [ 842 → 843] Okay, actually, [ 843 → 845] it takes more than just rejecting Francis [ 845 → 847] to escape a defected church. [ 847 → 848] You also have to reject [ 848 → 850] the other noble sort of popes [ 850 → 851] after Pius XII. [ 852 → 853] But, same idea. [ 854 → 856] Now, Morrison's question [ 856 → 857] is a little odd here [ 857 → 858] because it assumes [ 858 → 860] that we should only worry [ 860 → 861] about being Sedevacanists [ 861 → 863] if we can derive [ 863 → 865] some kind of practical benefit from it, [ 866 → 867] not because it's true. [ 867 → 868] He says, [ 868 → 868] quote, [ 869 → 870] the Sedevacanist position [ 870 → 872] simply exchanges [ 872 → 873] one set of problems [ 873 → 874] for another, [ 874 → 875] unquote. [ 875 → 877] Well, it's certainly true [ 877 → 878] that we are still left [ 878 → 880] with plenty of vexations [ 880 → 881] once we understand [ 881 → 882] that the papal claimants [ 882 → 883] after Pius XII [ 883 → 884] are antipopes. [ 885 → 886] But, you know, [ 886 → 888] some problems are genuine [ 888 → 890] and others are impossible. [ 891 → 892] The idea is not [ 892 → 894] to escape all problems [ 894 → 896] or as many as possible, [ 896 → 898] but to assess the situation [ 898 → 900] in accordance with reality. [ 901 → 902] We're not Sedevacanists [ 902 → 903] because we enjoy [ 903 → 905] being Sedevacanists. [ 905 → 906] Heavens, no. [ 907 → 908] We're Sedevacanists [ 908 → 909] because we're convinced [ 909 → 911] that this is the only position [ 911 → 913] a Catholic can take [ 913 → 915] given Catholic teaching [ 915 → 917] and given what has transpired [ 917 → 918] since the death [ 918 → 920] of Pope Pius XII. [ 921 → 922] Our position isn't based on, [ 922 → 924] what kind of problems [ 924 → 925] we'd rather be dealing with. [ 925 → 927] It's based on truth. [ 929 → 931] Next, Morrison brings up [ 931 → 932] private revelation [ 932 → 934] in an attempt to discredit [ 934 → 935] Sedevacantism. [ 935 → 936] And, you know, [ 936 → 938] I'm not even going to bother [ 938 → 939] discussing that [ 939 → 940] because Sedevacantism [ 940 → 942] is about Catholic theology [ 942 → 944] and private revelation [ 944 → 947] is not a locus theologicus, [ 947 → 948] a data source [ 948 → 950] for sacred theology. [ 950 → 952] So, any argument [ 952 → 952] from private, [ 952 → 953] private revelation [ 953 → 955] for or against Sedevacantism [ 955 → 958] is dead on arrival. [ 959 → 961] Then the author opines [ 961 → 963] that, quote, [ 963 → 965] regardless of whether Francis is Pope, [ 965 → 967] we need fully Catholic bishops [ 967 → 969] to guide us, unquote. [ 970 → 972] But that's just begging the question [ 972 → 973] because a bishop [ 973 → 975] can only be fully Catholic [ 975 → 977] if he is subject to the Pope [ 977 → 978] and in communion with him. [ 979 → 981] See, you can't escape that problem. [ 982 → 984] There is no Catholicism [ 984 → 986] apart from the papacy. [ 987 → 988] Now, don't misunderstand. [ 988 → 989] I'm not saying [ 989 → 990] that there must always be a Pope [ 990 → 992] or that you cannot be a Catholic [ 992 → 994] when there is no Pope reigning. [ 994 → 995] I'm saying that you cannot [ 995 → 997] have Catholicism [ 997 → 999] and leave the Pope question aside [ 999 → 1001] as if it didn't really matter, [1001 → 1004] as if it were some optional add-on, [1004 → 1007] as if you could just cut the papacy [1007 → 1008] out of Catholicism [1008 → 1010] and go on your merry way without it. [1010 → 1011] It's not possible. [1012 → 1014] Next, Morrison trots out [1014 → 1016] that old resistance quote [1016 → 1018] from St. Robert Bellarmine again, [1019 → 1019] which, by the way, [1019 → 1022] has nothing to do with resisting [1022 → 1024] a Pope's magisterium [1024 → 1025] or anything like that. [1025 → 1028] But the Semitrats keep using it anyway, [1028 → 1030] you know, as if they were actually [1030 → 1031] interested in following [1031 → 1033] St. Robert Bellarmine on the papacy. [1034 → 1036] And then Morrison concludes [1036 → 1038] by noting that [1038 → 1040] until God shows us the way [1040 → 1041] out of this mess, [1041 → 1042] we have to follow, [1042 → 1045] and defend the immutable Catholic faith. [1046 → 1048] You know, that is a great idea. [1048 → 1051] Defend the immutable Catholic faith. [1052 → 1053] Maybe he can start [1053 → 1055] by defending the Catholic dogmas [1055 → 1058] and doctrines on the papacy. [1059 → 1062] And last but not least, [1062 → 1064] Chris Jackson has published [1064 → 1067] another theologically irresponsible piece, [1067 → 1069] also at The Remnant. [1069 → 1071] It is dated February 22nd [1071 → 1072] and entitled [1072 → 1074] The Perfect Bishop's Response [1074 → 1076] to Tradizioni's Custodes. [1077 → 1078] In that article, [1078 → 1080] Jackson brings up the case [1080 → 1082] of Christophe de Beaumont, [1082 → 1084] who was Archbishop of Paris [1084 → 1086] in the 18th century. [1086 → 1087] And he props him up [1087 → 1089] as a model for Catholics [1089 → 1091] to follow in resisting [1091 → 1092] a papal decree. [1093 → 1095] Just as Archbishop Beaumont [1095 → 1097] resisted Pope Clement XIV's decree [1097 → 1099] abolishing the Jesuit order [1099 → 1101] in 1773, [1102 → 1103] so Catholics today [1103 → 1105] are called to resist [1105 → 1106] France's decree [1106 → 1108] Tradizioni's Custodes, [1108 → 1109] Jackson argues. [1109 → 1111] There's just one problem. [1112 → 1113] Jackson simply assumes [1113 → 1116] that Archbishop Beaumont's resistance [1116 → 1118] was praiseworthy and justified. [1119 → 1120] He doesn't prove it. [1121 → 1122] But that's crucial [1122 → 1124] because just because a bishop [1124 → 1125] resisted the Pope [1125 → 1127] doesn't mean it was [1127 → 1128] the right thing to do. [1129 → 1130] How many bishops can you find [1130 → 1131] in church history [1131 → 1133] who refuse to comply [1133 → 1134] with a papal decree [1134 → 1135] at some time or another? [1136 → 1137] Just because some bishops [1137 → 1138] were disobedient [1138 → 1140] doesn't mean that they were [1140 → 1141] allowed to be. [1141 → 1141] Come on. [1142 → 1144] Would Jackson also praise [1144 → 1145] a bishop who defied [1145 → 1147] Pope St. Pius X? [1147 → 1148] No? [1148 → 1149] Why not? [1149 → 1151] Why can Pope Clement XIV [1151 → 1152] be defied [1152 → 1154] but not Pius X? [1155 → 1157] So yes, it is clear [1157 → 1158] that Archbishop Beaumont [1158 → 1160] definitely did resist [1160 → 1161] Clement XIV's [1161 → 1164] brief Dominus Acredemptor [1164 → 1165] because he sent the Pope [1165 → 1167] a letter basically saying, [1167 → 1169] heck no, I'm not complying. [1169 → 1171] So he was in your face [1171 → 1172] about his resistance. [1173 → 1175] But this is serious stuff [1175 → 1177] because Pope Clement [1177 → 1179] had made clear in that decree [1179 → 1181] that anyone who resists it [1181 → 1183] would incur immediate [1183 → 1184] excommunication. [1185 → 1187] And Jackson even quotes that. [1188 → 1189] So what Jackson [1189 → 1191] is actually doing here is, [1191 → 1193] he's encouraging Catholics [1193 → 1194] to follow the precedent [1194 → 1196] of a disobedient [1196 → 1198] 18th century archbishop [1198 → 1200] who incurred automatic [1200 → 1201] excommunication [1201 → 1202] for defying the Pope's [1202 → 1204] suppression of the Jesuits. [1205 → 1206] So this is what I mean [1206 → 1207] when I say that Chris Jackson [1207 → 1209] is being irresponsible [1209 → 1210] with what he's publishing. [1211 → 1213] Now it is true [1213 → 1214] that Pope Clement's decision [1214 → 1216] to abolish the Jesuits [1216 → 1218] was very controversial [1218 → 1219] and it brought much harm [1219 → 1220] to the church. [1220 → 1221] However, [1221 → 1222] and this is what [1222 → 1223] the controversy is about, [1224 → 1225] the Pope was caught [1225 → 1227] between a rock and a hard place [1227 → 1228] because of pressures [1228 → 1229] from the secular powers. [1230 → 1231] And he feared [1231 → 1233] that not suppressing the Jesuits [1233 → 1235] would cause even greater harm [1235 → 1236] to the church. [1237 → 1238] See, people have to keep in mind [1238 → 1240] that we now, [1240 → 1241] we get to look at everything [1241 → 1242] with hindsight. [1243 → 1244] But Pope Clement [1244 → 1245] didn't have that privilege. [1246 → 1247] And regardless of whether [1247 → 1249] it was prudent or not, [1249 → 1250] the papal decree [1250 → 1251] was valid [1251 → 1253] and it had to be followed. [1253 → 1255] When the Pope says [1255 → 1256] that the Jesuit order [1256 → 1257] is no more, [1258 → 1259] then it is no more. [1259 → 1261] That's how the papacy works. [1261 → 1262] And just because [1262 → 1264] one bishop in France [1264 → 1265] didn't comply [1265 → 1266] doesn't mean squat. [1267 → 1268] Interestingly enough, [1269 → 1271] there is another bishop [1271 → 1273] Jackson could have quoted on this [1273 → 1274] but chose not to. [1275 → 1276] And that bishop [1276 → 1277] is Saint Alphonsus Liguori. [1278 → 1279] Saint Alphonsus, [1279 → 1280] who was bishop of [1280 → 1281] Saint-Denis, [1281 → 1282] Agata di Gotti, [1283 → 1284] a diocese near Naples, [1284 → 1285] Italy, [1285 → 1286] was not happy [1286 → 1287] about the suppression [1287 → 1288] of the Jesuits, [1289 → 1290] but he knew [1290 → 1291] that what the vicar of Christ [1291 → 1292] binds on earth [1292 → 1294] is bound in heaven. [1294 → 1295] And he also knew [1295 → 1297] how serious it is [1297 → 1299] to incur excommunication. [1299 → 1301] Now here's what [1301 → 1302] Saint Alphonsus said [1302 → 1303] about Pope Clement's [1303 → 1304] abolition of the Jesuits. [1305 → 1305] Quote, [1305 → 1307] Poor Pope, [1307 → 1309] what could he do [1309 → 1309] in the circumstances [1310 → 1311] in which he was placed? [1311 → 1313] With all the sovereigns [1313 → 1314] conspiring to demand [1314 → 1315] the suppression. [1316 → 1317] As for ourselves, [1318 → 1319] we much keep silence, [1320 → 1321] respect the secret judgment [1321 → 1322] of God, [1322 → 1324] and hold ourselves [1324 → 1325] in peace. [1325 → 1326] Unquote. [1327 → 1329] That quote is found [1329 → 1331] in the Catholic Encyclopedia [1331 → 1332] of 1912 [1332 → 1333] in the article [1333 → 1334] on the suppression [1334 → 1335] of the Jesuits. [1336 → 1337] So, let's recap. [1338 → 1339] Saint Alphonsus was grieved [1339 → 1340] by the papal decision [1340 → 1341] at the time of his death. [1341 → 1342] At the same time, [1342 → 1343] he defended the Pope. [1344 → 1345] That is, he sought [1345 → 1346] to excuse him, [1346 → 1348] recognizing the extremely [1348 → 1349] difficult circumstances [1349 → 1351] in which he found himself. [1352 → 1352] And, [1353 → 1354] Saint Alphonsus [1354 → 1355] did not resist [1355 → 1357] or speak against [1357 → 1357] this decision [1357 → 1359] because, [1360 → 1361] prudent or imprudent, [1361 → 1362] he understood [1362 → 1364] that the papal judgment [1364 → 1366] was God's judgment, [1366 → 1368] since what the Pope [1368 → 1368] binds on earth [1368 → 1370] is bound in heaven. [1371 → 1373] So, listen up, [1374 → 1374] Chris Jackson. [1375 → 1376] Unlike Archbishop [1376 → 1377] Beaumont of Paris, [1378 → 1379] Saint Alphonsus [1379 → 1380] is a canonized saint [1380 → 1382] and doctor of the church, [1382 → 1384] and as such, [1384 → 1385] is truly [1385 → 1387] a model to follow. [1388 → 1389] Tradcast Express [1389 → 1390] is a production [1390 → 1392] of Novus Ordo Watch. [1392 → 1393] Check us out [1393 → 1395] at tradcast.org [1395 → 1395] and if you like [1395 → 1396] what we're doing, [1396 → 1397] please consider [1397 → 1398] making a tax-deductible [1398 → 1399] contribution [1399 → 1400] at [1400 → 1401] novusordo.org. [1401 → 1402] NovusordoWatch.org [1402 → 1403] slash donate.