[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Tuesday, March 15th, 2022. [ 16 → 22] What do you know? Just as you're trying to get a podcast recorded, news breaks in Rome. [ 22 → 31] The Vatican announced today that on March 25th of this year, Francis will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [ 32 → 35] And not only Russia, but also the Ukraine. [ 36 → 41] Matteo Bruni, the head honcho there at the Vatican press office, released the following statement. [ 41 → 50] On Friday, March 25th, during the celebration of Penance, at which he will preside at 5pm in St. Peter's Basilica, [ 50 → 55] Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [ 56 → 62] The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski, [ 63 → 66] Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father. [ 67 → 68] Unquote. [ 69 → 72] Ladies and gentlemen, don't get too excited here. [ 72 → 80] This is simply the latest act in The Francis Show, and it will make exactly zero difference to anything. [ 80 → 82] How do I know that? [ 82 → 86] Well, for one thing, because Francis isn't the Pope. [ 87 → 91] For that reason alone, he cannot fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima. [ 92 → 96] Secondly, even some of the Semitrans are skeptical here, [ 96 → 101] because there is no mention of this being done in union with the bishops of the world, [ 102 → 105] which seems to be one of the requirements of Our Lady of Fatima. [ 106 → 110] Others have suggested that it must be Russia alone that is consequential, [ 110 → 115] not Russia and some other country, though I'm not so sure that that's true. [ 116 → 119] Our Lady didn't say only Russia. She said Russia. [ 120 → 123] But folks, let's get real. [ 123 → 125] Francis isn't the Pope. [ 125 → 129] He's on record as being a blaspheming Pachamama worshiper [ 129 → 137] who teaches that the differences between religions reflect the richness of different ways of coming to God [ 137 → 140] and are positively willed by God. [ 140 → 145] And that fraternity is the anchor of salvation for humanity. [ 146 → 150] And the only conversion he cares about is the ecological kind. [ 151 → 156] Now, that's not to say that heaven won't respond to his impious lips [ 156 → 158] reciting a prayer to the Blessed Virgin. [ 159 → 163] I just fear that the response is going to be one of fire and brimstone [ 163 → 165] rather than peace and prosperity. [ 165 → 170] But now let's finally get to how I was originally convinced [ 170 → 172] to be going to start out this podcast. [ 173 → 177] The Archlaemon of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, [ 178 → 181] offered the Novus Ordo worship service this past Sunday [ 181 → 186] for the Munich queer community to mark the group's 20th anniversary. [ 187 → 192] This was reported on Monday by LifeSite, the so-called Catholic news agency, [ 192 → 198] and, without even a hint of displeasure, by the German edition of Vatican News. [ 199 → 200] In his homily, [ 200 → 201] for the occasion, [ 202 → 204] the false shepherd Marx let it rip. [ 204 → 204] Quote, [ 205 → 214] Unquote. [ 214 → 217] Well, considering that the group he was addressing [ 217 → 221] is one that promotes the practice of sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, [ 221 → 226] I'd say there aren't too many there interested in walking the way of the cross. [ 227 → 230] Marx claimed that Christ taught the primacy [ 230 → 233] of love, which, of course, is true, [ 233 → 237] except that Marx twists that into an acceptance of perversion, [ 238 → 241] as long as it's loving perversion. [ 242 → 246] The singing was provided by members of the Rainbow Choir, by the way, [ 246 → 253] and that was very fitting since the apostate archdiocese has a so-called Rainbow Ministry, [ 254 → 254] which, quote, [ 255 → 259] sees itself as a service to the reconciliation of the Church [ 259 → 260] with the LGBT, [ 260 → 262] the B-B-T-I community. [ 263 → 263] Unquote. [ 264 → 267] That's according to diocesan official Ruth Huber, [ 267 → 271] who is head of the Department of Generations and Ages. [ 272 → 274] Well, maybe they meant D-generations. [ 275 → 277] But, anyway, according to LifeSite, [ 278 → 285] one of the activities the Munich Archdiocese offers in support of the perverted alphabet ideology [ 285 → 289] is weekends for gay, bi, and trans men [ 289 → 290] that exploit the LGBT community. [ 290 → 294] Or the special male friendship among such people. [ 295 → 295] Okay? [ 296 → 300] So, this group, this Munich queer community, [ 301 → 304] has held its own special Sunday Masses [ 304 → 308] every week since March of 2002. [ 309 → 312] And so this year, for the 20th anniversary, [ 313 → 314] the Archlaemon of Munich, [ 314 → 319] who is also a close advisor to Pope Francis, by the way, [ 319 → 320] wanted to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Archdiocese of Munich. [ 320 → 320] And so this year, for the 20th anniversary, [ 320 → 323] he wanted to celebrate the Homo-Mess himself. [ 324 → 326] Well, hey, look on the bright side. [ 326 → 328] At least he didn't do it facing east. [ 329 → 335] In other news, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is not a happy camper these days. [ 336 → 337] In an article entitled, [ 337 → 341] Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ or CEO of Vatican Inc., [ 342 → 346] published on the website of Catholic Family News on Monday, [ 346 → 349] Kwasniewski accuses Francis of [ 349 → 350] abusing papal authority, [ 350 → 355] because he basically fired a bishop he didn't approve of. [ 356 → 359] Kwasniewski insists that the Pope cannot do that. [ 360 → 361] Except, of course, he can. [ 362 → 364] Just as he can appoint bishops at will, [ 364 → 368] so he can fire them if he deems it appropriate. [ 369 → 371] Now, never mind that Francis' reasons [ 371 → 374] for firing Daniel Fernandez Torres, [ 374 → 377] the ordinary of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, [ 377 → 379] are ridiculous and mostly unjust, [ 380 → 385] but if the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, [ 386 → 389] then he has every right to remove a bishop [ 389 → 391] he deems not to be a good fit. [ 391 → 394] That is not, as Kwasniewski thinks, [ 394 → 397] a simplistic hyper-papalist ecclesiology [ 397 → 398] that is Catholicism. [ 399 → 403] The Canon Lawyer journalists who run the new blog The Pillar [ 403 → 405] examined this question in detail [ 405 → 408] and, of course, concluded that, yes, [ 408 → 410] a Pope has the right to do so. [ 410 → 413] Kwasniewski is uncensed, [ 413 → 417] but how does he imagine the Church should work? [ 417 → 420] That the Pope orders the removal of a bishop, [ 420 → 422] but the bishop can just veto that decision [ 422 → 425] and overrule the Pope, so to speak? [ 426 → 429] Or that the Pope can be sued in ecclesiastical court [ 429 → 432] and one of his inferiors then pronounces judgment [ 432 → 434] that is binding on both? [ 435 → 439] Peter Kwasniewski seems not to have the faintest idea [ 439 → 440] how the papacy works. [ 440 → 445] The first C is judged by no one. [ 446 → 447] That is not just Canon Law. [ 447 → 449] That is infallible dogma. [ 450 → 453] As Kwasniewski himself concedes in the article, [ 453 → 455] Vatican I teaches dogmatically [ 455 → 459] that the Pope has supreme, full, immediate, [ 460 → 463] and universal ordinary jurisdiction. [ 464 → 468] And that is so not only over every bishop and priest, [ 468 → 469] but also over every saint, [ 469 → 470] but also over every priest, [ 470 → 471] but also over every single Catholic. [ 472 → 473] But, says Kwasniewski, [ 474 → 477] that doesn't mean that the Pope can just fire a bishop at will. [ 478 → 479] The problem is, [ 479 → 482] Kwasniewski provides no concrete evidence [ 482 → 484] for his claim in his article. [ 484 → 487] He just makes arguments for why he considers that absurd. [ 488 → 491] But he provides no real positive evidence, [ 492 → 494] except, and this is hilarious, [ 495 → 495] at the very end, [ 495 → 499] he cites Karl Rahner in his defense. [ 499 → 501] Karl Rahner. [ 502 → 504] Perhaps the most influential modernist [ 504 → 506] of the post-conciliar epoch. [ 506 → 510] Rahner did not believe in the perpetual virginity [ 510 → 512] of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by the way. [ 512 → 515] And I'm pretty sure he also denied transubstantiation. [ 517 → 520] Anyway, why does Kwasniewski cite Rahner? [ 520 → 521] Very simple. [ 521 → 524] Because on that particular point, [ 524 → 525] Rahner agrees with him. [ 528 → 529] See, the way this article is written, [ 529 → 531] the way this works in Semi-Trad Apologetics [ 531 → 534] is that you don't look at what the pertinent authorities say [ 534 → 536] and then you go by that, [ 536 → 537] or at least let them influence you, [ 538 → 539] your position. [ 539 → 542] Rather, you first see who agrees with you [ 542 → 545] and then tout them as authorities. [ 545 → 548] It doesn't occur to Kwasniewski, apparently, [ 548 → 550] that perhaps Rahner's modernism [ 550 → 552] also tainted his view of the papacy. [ 553 → 553] Right? [ 553 → 556] Or, if it does occur to him, [ 556 → 557] he simply ignores it, [ 557 → 559] because in this particular, [ 559 → 562] case, Rahner comes in handy for him. [ 563 → 566] Now, of course, it's quite conceivable [ 566 → 567] that a pope might be sinning [ 567 → 569] in a specific case [ 569 → 572] if he fires a bishop from his diocese, [ 572 → 576] but that doesn't mean the bishop isn't fired. [ 576 → 579] The pope is judged by no one on earth. [ 579 → 582] He is only judged by God after death. [ 582 → 584] That is Catholicism, [ 584 → 586] and there is no problem with that. [ 586 → 589] The reason Kwasniewski has a problem with it, [ 589 → 591] is that he stubbornly recognizes [ 591 → 593] a public apostate [ 593 → 595] as the pope of the Catholic Church, [ 595 → 597] and now he's got to face [ 597 → 598] the unpleasant consequences [ 598 → 600] of his error. [ 601 → 603] Now, while we're on the topic [ 603 → 605] of Peter Kwasniewski [ 605 → 607] and him cobbling together [ 607 → 608] his own theology, [ 608 → 611] he just published a short new book [ 611 → 613] called True Obedience [ 613 → 614] in the Church. [ 614 → 616] And wouldn't you know it, [ 616 → 618] it just so happens that he's discovered [ 618 → 620] that the Church teaches [ 620 → 621] that papal documents [ 621 → 624] like Francis' Traditiones Custodes, [ 624 → 626] which basically phases out [ 626 → 627] the traditional Mass, [ 627 → 630] need not and should not be obeyed. [ 631 → 633] How lucky Kwasniewski is [ 633 → 635] that at least that much [ 635 → 637] Church teaching needs to be obeyed. [ 638 → 640] Kwasniewski arrives [ 640 → 641] at his convenient conclusion [ 641 → 642] on the grounds that [ 642 → 644] forbidding the traditional Catholic Mass [ 644 → 647] is contrary to the common good, [ 647 → 648] and if a law is [ 648 → 650] contrary to the common good, [ 650 → 652] then, as the Church teaches, [ 652 → 654] it is not a valid law. [ 655 → 658] Well, he is certainly right [ 658 → 660] that substituting the new Mass [ 660 → 660] of Paul VI [ 660 → 663] for the traditional Roman Mass [ 663 → 665] is contrary to the common good. [ 665 → 666] That's clear. [ 667 → 668] But the real question [ 668 → 669] that must be asked [ 669 → 672] is what in the world [ 672 → 674] makes Peter Kwasniewski think [ 674 → 676] that it is even possible [ 676 → 677] for the Supreme Pontiff [ 677 → 678] to release [ 678 → 679] a decree [ 679 → 681] that establishes [ 681 → 682] a liturgical law [ 682 → 684] for the universal Church [ 684 → 685] that is contrary [ 685 → 686] to the common good [ 686 → 687] and therefore [ 687 → 689] a danger to souls. [ 690 → 691] That idea [ 691 → 693] is utterly impossible [ 693 → 694] and absurd. [ 695 → 697] Now, in his book, [ 697 → 699] Kwasniewski brings up [ 699 → 700] various quotes [ 700 → 701] from all kinds of [ 701 → 702] real and imagined [ 702 → 703] Church authorities, [ 704 → 706] but he interprets them [ 706 → 708] in a way favorable [ 708 → 708] to his, [ 708 → 711] when it is not at all clear [ 711 → 712] that such interpretation [ 712 → 714] is necessary [ 714 → 716] or even warranted. [ 716 → 718] So, for example, [ 718 → 719] he brings up the following [ 719 → 721] from the Council of Constance. [ 722 → 722] Quote, [ 722 → 725] Since the Roman Pontiff [ 725 → 727] exercises such great power [ 727 → 728] among mortals, [ 728 → 729] it is right [ 729 → 730] that he be bound [ 730 → 731] all the more [ 731 → 733] by the incontrovertible bonds [ 733 → 734] of the faith [ 734 → 735] and by the rights [ 735 → 737] that are to be observed [ 737 → 738] regarding the Church. [ 738 → 740] The Church's sacraments. [ 740 → 741] Unquote. [ 742 → 743] That statement [ 743 → 745] is far from having [ 745 → 746] obvious meaning. [ 747 → 748] We, Sedevacantists, [ 748 → 749] agree, of course, [ 749 → 750] that the Pope [ 750 → 751] is bound by the faith, [ 752 → 753] but that does not mean [ 753 → 755] that he is capable [ 755 → 756] of teaching heresy [ 756 → 757] to the whole Church. [ 758 → 759] What it means is [ 759 → 761] that what the Pope teaches [ 761 → 762] to the whole Church [ 762 → 763] will necessarily [ 763 → 765] be in conformity [ 765 → 766] with the true faith, [ 766 → 768] and if it should be possible, [ 768 → 770] for the Pope to deviate [ 770 → 770] from the faith [ 770 → 772] as a private individual, [ 772 → 773] not in the exercise [ 773 → 774] of his office, [ 774 → 776] but only in his capacity [ 776 → 777] as a private man, [ 778 → 780] then he would no longer [ 780 → 781] be Pope automatically. [ 783 → 784] It is Kwasniewski [ 784 → 786] who gratuitously assumes [ 786 → 787] that this statement [ 787 → 789] from the Council of Constance [ 789 → 791] means that the Pope [ 791 → 792] can overstep [ 792 → 794] the bounds of orthodoxy [ 794 → 795] in what he teaches [ 795 → 796] to the Church. [ 796 → 798] He just isn't allowed to. [ 798 → 799] And so when he does, [ 800 → 800] then the bishops [ 800 → 801] and the faithful [ 801 → 802] basically have to [ 802 → 804] rise up in protest [ 804 → 805] until the Pope [ 805 → 806] gets his act together [ 806 → 807] and withdraws [ 807 → 808] the false teaching. [ 808 → 810] What an utterly [ 810 → 811] ludicrous idea. [ 813 → 814] Of course, [ 814 → 814] that is not [ 814 → 815] what we see [ 815 → 817] in the rich magisterial [ 817 → 818] teaching on the papacy [ 818 → 819] of the 19th [ 819 → 820] and 20th centuries, [ 821 → 822] which Kwasniewski decries [ 822 → 824] as ultramontanism, [ 824 → 825] as if that were [ 825 → 826] a bad thing, [ 826 → 828] or as hyper-papalism [ 828 → 829] and whatnot. [ 829 → 830] It is outrageous. [ 832 → 834] Then another example [ 834 → 835] from his new book. [ 835 → 836] Kwasniewski quotes [ 836 → 838] the 17th century theologian [ 838 → 840] Fr. Francisco Suarez, [ 840 → 842] who says the following, [ 843 → 843] quote, [ 843 → 845] If the Pope lays down [ 845 → 846] an order contrary [ 846 → 847] to right customs, [ 847 → 849] one does not have [ 849 → 850] to obey him. [ 850 → 851] If he tries to do something [ 851 → 853] manifestly opposed [ 853 → 853] to justice [ 853 → 855] and to the common good, [ 855 → 856] it would be licit [ 856 → 857] to resist him. [ 857 → 859] If he attacks by force, [ 859 → 860] he could be repelled [ 860 → 861] by force, [ 861 → 862] with the moderation [ 862 → 863] characteristic [ 863 → 865] of a good defense, [ 865 → 865] unquote. [ 867 → 868] Now, for a short podcast [ 868 → 869] like this, [ 869 → 870] I'm not going to [ 870 → 871] investigate this in depth, [ 872 → 872] you know, [ 872 → 874] like examine the context, [ 874 → 875] see what others [ 875 → 876] have written about this [ 876 → 877] and so on. [ 877 → 878] But let me just [ 878 → 879] note a few things here [ 879 → 880] that show [ 880 → 881] what a weak argument [ 881 → 883] Kwasniewski is using here. [ 884 → 885] Number one, [ 886 → 887] Fr. Francisco Suarez [ 887 → 888] Suarez, yes, [ 888 → 889] was a great theologian, [ 889 → 890] but he's neither a saint [ 890 → 892] nor a doctor of the church. [ 893 → 894] Why not use [ 894 → 896] St. Robert Bellarmine instead? [ 897 → 898] Number two, [ 898 → 899] from what was quoted, [ 900 → 901] there is no indication [ 901 → 902] that Suarez agrees [ 902 → 903] that it is possible [ 903 → 905] for a pope to impose [ 905 → 906] either heresy [ 906 → 909] or a harmful liturgical right [ 909 → 910] on the universal church. [ 911 → 913] An order contrary [ 913 → 914] to right customs [ 914 → 914] is one thing, [ 915 → 916] a false right of mass [ 916 → 917] is something [ 917 → 918] else entirely. [ 919 → 920] Number three, [ 921 → 921] again, [ 922 → 922] just going by [ 922 → 924] what was actually quoted, [ 924 → 926] Suarez may actually [ 926 → 927] have been speaking [ 927 → 927] hypothetically, [ 928 → 929] in theory, [ 929 → 930] without meaning to imply [ 930 → 932] that all of this [ 932 → 933] was actually possible. [ 934 → 934] That is how [ 934 → 935] St. Robert Bellarmine, [ 935 → 936] for example, [ 936 → 938] discussed what would happen [ 938 → 938] if a pope [ 938 → 940] became a public heretic. [ 941 → 942] He laid it out, [ 942 → 943] but he didn't think [ 943 → 944] it was possible [ 944 → 945] in practice. [ 945 → 947] And number four, [ 948 → 949] even if Suarez [ 949 → 950] backed up [ 950 → 951] Kwasniewski's ideas [ 951 → 953] 100%, [ 953 → 955] guess what? [ 955 → 956] There's been a lot [ 956 → 958] of official papal teaching [ 958 → 960] since the 17th century [ 960 → 962] when Father Suarez [ 962 → 962] was writing, [ 963 → 965] and that papal teaching [ 965 → 967] overrules Suarez [ 967 → 969] wherever it contradicts [ 969 → 969] what he said. [ 970 → 972] So for Peter Kwasniewski [ 972 → 974] to bring up Francisco Suarez [ 974 → 974] and ignore him, [ 974 → 976] ignore the teachings [ 976 → 976] of the popes [ 976 → 977] on this matter [ 977 → 979] is indefensible. [ 980 → 982] But it certainly does [ 982 → 983] say a lot. [ 984 → 985] I challenge [ 985 → 986] Dr. Kwasniewski [ 986 → 989] to find one clear example [ 989 → 990] from the papal magisterium [ 990 → 993] since Pope St. Pius V's [ 993 → 994] Quo Primum [ 994 → 995] in the 16th century [ 995 → 998] that says that [ 998 → 999] when the pope issues [ 999 → 1000] liturgical laws [1000 → 1001] for the entire church, [1002 → 1002] then the bishops [1002 → 1003] and the faithful [1003 → 1004] have the obligation [1004 → 1006] to accept them [1006 → 1008] only if they judge them [1008 → 1009] to be in conformity [1009 → 1010] with faith, [1010 → 1011] reason, [1011 → 1012] and the common good. [1013 → 1015] Because that is simply absurd. [1016 → 1018] Kwasniewski lives [1018 → 1020] in theological la-la land [1020 → 1022] because his theology [1022 → 1023] is the result [1023 → 1024] of trying to reconcile [1024 → 1026] traditional Catholicism [1026 → 1028] with the false magisterium [1028 → 1029] of the Vatican II Church. [1030 → 1032] He's desperately trying [1032 → 1033] to make it fit, [1033 → 1034] and since that's [1034 → 1035] an impossibility, [1035 → 1037] he ends up with all kinds [1037 → 1038] of theological contortions, [1039 → 1040] which, however, [1040 → 1041] he persuades himself [1041 → 1042] are the gospel truth [1042 → 1043] because otherwise [1043 → 1044] he'd end up with [1044 → 1045] Sedevacantism, [1045 → 1047] and obviously [1047 → 1048] that can't be true, right? [1051 → 1052] So that's my challenge [1052 → 1054] to Peter Kwasniewski [1054 → 1056] because what I've found [1056 → 1057] is that papal teaching [1057 → 1058] is very consistent [1058 → 1060] and very clear. [1060 → 1062] The bishops and the faithful [1062 → 1063] must receive [1063 → 1064] the liturgical, [1064 → 1065] the liturgical directives [1065 → 1066] of the Holy See [1066 → 1068] and follow them, [1068 → 1069] period. [1070 → 1071] For example, [1071 → 1073] in his 1947 encyclical [1073 → 1074] Mediator Dei, [1075 → 1076] Pope Pius XII [1076 → 1078] told his bishops that, [1078 → 1078] quote, [1078 → 1080] you must strive [1080 → 1082] that with due reverence [1082 → 1082] and faith [1082 → 1084] all obey [1084 → 1085] the decrees [1085 → 1086] of the Council of Trent, [1086 → 1088] of the Roman pontiffs, [1088 → 1090] and the sacred congregation [1090 → 1091] of rites, [1091 → 1094] and what the liturgical books [1094 → 1095] ordain [1095 → 1096] concerning external [1096 → 1097] public worship, [1098 → 1098] unquote. [1099 → 1100] Again, Mediator Dei, [1101 → 1103] and that's paragraph number 187. [1104 → 1105] Now, how is that possible? [1106 → 1108] How could Pius XII say that? [1109 → 1110] Didn't he know about [1110 → 1112] how obedience has its limits? [1113 → 1114] Had he never read [1114 → 1114] Peter Kwasniewski, [1114 → 1115] I mean, [1115 → 1116] St. Thomas Aquinas? [1117 → 1119] Or could it be [1119 → 1120] that it is impossible [1120 → 1122] for a true pope [1122 → 1123] to approve [1123 → 1124] harmful liturgies? [1124 → 1127] Remember what the [1127 → 1128] Council of Trent defined [1128 → 1130] in Session 22, [1130 → 1131] Canon 7, [1131 → 1132] quote, [1132 → 1134] if anyone says [1134 → 1135] that the ceremonies, [1135 → 1136] vestments, [1136 → 1137] and outward signs [1137 → 1139] which the Catholic Church [1139 → 1140] uses in the celebration [1140 → 1141] of masses [1141 → 1142] are incentives [1142 → 1143] to impiety [1143 → 1144] rather than [1144 → 1146] the services of piety, [1146 → 1147] let him be [1147 → 1148] anathema, [1148 → 1149] unquote. [1149 → 1150] You can look that up [1150 → 1150] in Denzinger, [1151 → 1152] number 954. [1152 → 1155] And now you know [1155 → 1157] why Pope Pius IX, [1157 → 1158] writing to the president [1158 → 1161] of the Italian Catholic Youth Council [1161 → 1162] in a letter dated [1162 → 1165] January 21st, 1878, [1165 → 1166] said, quote, [1166 → 1168] we congratulate you, therefore, [1169 → 1169] on the fact that [1169 → 1171] although you suffer doubtless [1171 → 1173] at the defection of your brothers [1173 → 1175] separated from you [1175 → 1177] by the breath of perfidious teaching, [1177 → 1179] you are not troubled for all that [1179 → 1181] and are even being stimulated [1181 → 1182] by their aimless, [1182 → 1184] error to receive [1184 → 1186] with greater willingness [1186 → 1188] and to follow with more zeal [1188 → 1189] not only the orders [1189 → 1192] but even all the directives [1192 → 1193] of the apostolic see. [1194 → 1195] And by so doing, [1195 → 1196] you are certain [1196 → 1198] that you cannot be deceived [1198 → 1200] or betrayed, [1200 → 1201] unquote. [1203 → 1205] The reason you cannot apply [1205 → 1206] these words [1206 → 1207] to the apostolic see [1207 → 1208] under Francis [1208 → 1210] is not because [1210 → 1211] there's something wrong [1211 → 1212] with Catholic tradition, [1212 → 1215] but because Francis [1215 → 1217] isn't the Pope. [1218 → 1219] Good luck [1219 → 1220] with that consecration of Russia. [1222 → 1223] Tradcast Express [1223 → 1224] is a production of [1224 → 1225] Novos Ordo Watch. [1225 → 1226] Check us out at [1226 → 1227] tradcast.org [1227 → 1229] and if you like what we're doing, [1229 → 1230] please consider making [1230 → 1231] a tax-deductible contribution [1231 → 1232] at [1232 → 1234] novosordowatch.org [1234 → 1235] slash donate.