[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Friday, May 13th, 2022. [ 16 → 19] Francis has discovered a new sin. [ 20 → 22] Yes, another one. [ 22 → 25] This time, though, it's not proselytism, [ 25 → 28] which he said was a great sin against ecumenism, [ 28 → 32] nor is it not taking care of the climate, [ 32 → 36] which he recently said is a sin against God's gift of creation. [ 37 → 43] No, this time, it is the sin of going backwards. [ 44 → 48] Yep, Francis said that today in a lengthy address [ 48 → 52] to participants of a conference on moral theology [ 52 → 55] at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University. [ 55 → 58] And boy, did he let it. [ 58 → 62] Listen to these profound words [ 62 → 66] from the current successor of John XXIII. [ 67 → 68] Quote, [ 68 → 71] Going backwards is not Christian. [ 72 → 76] In fact, I think it is the author of the letter to the Hebrews [ 76 → 76] who says, [ 77 → 79] We are not people who go backward. [ 80 → 83] The Christian cannot go back. [ 83 → 88] To go back to the roots, yes, to take inspiration, to go on. [ 88 → 92] But to go backwards is to go back to have a defense, [ 92 → 97] a security that prevents us from the risk of going forward, [ 97 → 100] the Christian risk of carrying the faith, [ 100 → 105] the Christian risk of making the journey with Jesus Christ. [ 105 → 107] And that is a risk. [ 107 → 113] Today, this going backwards is seen in so many ecclesiastical figures, [ 113 → 116] non-ecclesiastical, ecclesiastical, [ 116 → 118] that spring up like mushrooms, [ 118 → 121] here, there, there, [ 121 → 125] and present themselves as proposals for Christian living. [ 126 → 129] In moral theology, there is also a turning back [ 129 → 132] with casuistic propositions. [ 132 → 136] And casuistry, which I thought was buried seven meters deep, [ 137 → 141] resurrects as a proposition somewhat disguised of [ 141 → 145] up to here you can, but not up to there. [ 145 → 146] This way, yes. [ 147 → 148] That way, no. [ 149 → 154] And to reduce moral theology to casuistry is the sin of going backwards. [ 155 → 157] Casuistry has been outmoded. [ 158 → 162] Casuistry has been the food for me and my generation [ 162 → 164] in the study of moral theology. [ 164 → 167] But it is proper to decadent Thomism. [ 168 → 172] The real Thomism is that of Amoris Laetitia, [ 172 → 174] the one that takes place there, [ 174 → 178] explained well in the Synod and accepted by all. [ 178 → 181] It is the doctrine of St. Thomas Alive [ 181 → 185] which makes us go forward, risking, but in obedience. [ 186 → 187] And this is not easy. [ 187 → 190] Please be careful of this going backwards [ 190 → 192] that is a current temptation, [ 192 → 196] even for you theologians in moral theology. [ 197 → 198] Unquote. [ 199 → 199] Wow. [ 200 → 203] The contempt this man has [ 203 → 207] for traditional Catholicism is unmistakable. [ 207 → 207] Unmistakable. [ 208 → 209] In these words. [ 209 → 211] Let's go through this slowly. [ 212 → 215] And by the way, I'm using a computer translation here [ 215 → 217] as the Vatican, as usual, [ 217 → 220] is delayed in putting up an official English translation. [ 221 → 222] So please keep that in mind. [ 223 → 224] So Francis says, [ 225 → 227] going backwards is not Christian. [ 228 → 230] Okay, well, most of the time [ 230 → 233] he doesn't have a problem with things that aren't Christian. [ 234 → 237] Especially not if they relate to some indigenous culture [ 237 → 238] that works in the Christian world. [ 238 → 239] Worships the environment. [ 240 → 242] Then it's an enrichment [ 242 → 245] that we need to value and respect [ 245 → 249] and incorporate into some dynamic dialogue [ 249 → 252] that consists of a reciprocal exchange of gifts [ 252 → 255] or whatever stuff they come up with. [ 256 → 259] Second, what is going backwards? [ 260 → 262] Obviously, he's not speaking literally. [ 263 → 265] He's using a figure of speech. [ 266 → 268] So can he define it? [ 268 → 270] Well, of course not, right? [ 271 → 273] Well, I'm sure he can, but he chooses not to. [ 274 → 276] But we all know what he means, ultimately. [ 277 → 280] He's talking about abandoning the new mass [ 280 → 282] and the novelties of Vatican II [ 282 → 285] and the post-conciliar magisterium. [ 285 → 288] That's what he means by going backwards. [ 288 → 291] But it's interesting that he will not define it. [ 292 → 293] Then he says, [ 293 → 297] I think it is the author of the letter to the Hebrews [ 297 → 298] who says, [ 298 → 300] we are not people who go backward. [ 301 → 302] Okay. [ 302 → 304] Well, first, the author of the letter to the Hebrews [ 304 → 306] is St. Paul the Apostle. [ 307 → 308] You're welcome. [ 309 → 312] And second, the verse he's talking about [ 312 → 314] is probably Hebrews 10.39, [ 315 → 318] which says in the Douay-Rheims translation, [ 318 → 323] but we are not the children of withdrawing unto perdition, [ 323 → 327] but of faith to the saving of the soul. [ 328 → 331] Which is explained in the HADOC commentary [ 331 → 333] to mean that, quote, [ 333 → 337] we are not such as withdraw ourselves in this manner [ 337 → 340] from the true faith to perdition, [ 340 → 345] but remain constant in the faith and law of Christ. [ 345 → 346] Unquote. [ 346 → 349] Yep, that is indeed a verse [ 349 → 352] Francis may wish to meditate on some time. [ 353 → 358] By the way, going forward is not always a good thing. [ 358 → 360] Especially not if you're standing on the edge of a cliff. [ 361 → 364] We can all be going forward, [ 364 → 366] but if we're on the wrong path, [ 366 → 370] moving further and further away from our true goal [ 370 → 372] doesn't do us any good. [ 373 → 376] Nor is it terribly desirable [ 376 → 378] to go forward towards hell, for example. [ 379 → 382] So moving forward by itself [ 382 → 384] doesn't mean anything. [ 385 → 387] And of course, it's just typical Francis [ 388 → 391] speak for moving ever farther away [ 391 → 392] from the true faith, [ 392 → 394] from Catholic tradition, [ 395 → 398] from what everyone knew to be the true Catholic doctrine [ 398 → 403] until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. [ 403 → 404] Don't believe it? [ 405 → 407] Well, here are two concrete examples [ 407 → 410] that I can think of off the top of my head [ 410 → 413] where Francis says move forward [ 413 → 416] and clearly means to imply a departure [ 416 → 417] from the true faith. [ 417 → 420] From traditional Catholic orthodoxy. [ 421 → 424] On November 15th, 2015, [ 424 → 428] Francis went to visit a Lutheran church in Rome [ 428 → 429] and during that visit, [ 430 → 432] a Lutheran woman married to a Novus Ordo [ 432 → 435] asked Francis if she could receive [ 435 → 436] Novus Ordo communion. [ 438 → 440] Francis gave a long-winded response [ 440 → 444] that can be simply summarized with one word [ 444 → 445] and that word is [ 445 → 447] whatever. [ 447 → 450] He ended his response [ 450 → 452] with the following words. [ 452 → 453] Quote, [ 454 → 457] It's a problem that each must answer for himself. [ 458 → 460] There are explanations, interpretations, [ 461 → 464] but life is bigger than explanations [ 464 → 465] and interpretations. [ 466 → 468] Always refer back to your baptism. [ 469 → 472] One faith, one baptism, one Lord. [ 473 → 474] This, Paul tells us. [ 474 → 477] The consequences come later. [ 477 → 480] I would never dare to give permission to do this [ 480 → 482] because it's not my competence. [ 483 → 486] One baptism, one Lord, one faith. [ 487 → 490] Talk to the Lord and go forward. [ 491 → 493] And I wouldn't dare, [ 493 → 496] I don't dare say anything more. [ 496 → 496] Unquote. [ 497 → 499] Well, he definitely said enough. [ 500 → 501] On that question, [ 501 → 504] there is nothing to move forward on [ 504 → 506] except to move forward and become a Catholic. [ 506 → 507] Unquote. [ 507 → 508] Unquote. [ 508 → 510] Non-Catholic past. [ 510 → 514] Non-Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion. [ 515 → 516] It's as simple as that. [ 517 → 520] So, while Bergoglio gave a long answer [ 520 → 521] without saying much, [ 521 → 524] there's only one permissible answer, [ 524 → 526] and that answer is no. [ 528 → 532] Anyway, if you want to read the full answer Francis gave, [ 532 → 532] go to [ 532 → 535] www.novosordowatch.org [ 535 → 535] slash [ 535 → 536] wire [ 536 → 537] and [ 537 → 538] put [ 538 → 538] life [ 538 → 539] is bigger [ 539 → 539] than [ 539 → 540] explanations [ 540 → 542] into the search box [ 542 → 544] and it'll come right up. [ 545 → 548] The other example that comes to mind is [ 548 → 551] what Francis said on June 6th, 2013 [ 551 → 556] to representatives of the Latin American Conference of Religious. [ 556 → 557] He told them [ 557 → 561] that if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [ 561 → 563] ever were to investigate or reprimand them, [ 564 → 565] not to worry too much [ 565 → 567] and simply [ 567 → 567] keep going. [ 568 → 570] As reported by the so-called [ 570 → 572] National Catholic Reporter [ 572 → 574] on June 12th, 2013, [ 575 → 577] Francis' exact words were, [ 577 → 577] quote, [ 578 → 581] perhaps even a letter of the Congregation [ 581 → 583] for the Doctrine of the Faith [ 583 → 584] will arrive for you [ 584 → 586] telling you that you said [ 586 → 587] such or such a thing. [ 588 → 589] But do not worry. [ 590 → 592] Explain whatever you have to explain, [ 592 → 594] but move forward. [ 595 → 596] Unquote. [ 597 → 598] So there we have it. [ 599 → 601] It's all about moving forward. [ 602 → 603] Now, as quoted earlier, [ 604 → 605] Francis also said, [ 605 → 608] the Christian cannot go back. [ 608 → 609] To go back to the roots? [ 610 → 610] Yes. [ 610 → 612] To take inspiration. [ 612 → 612] To go on. [ 614 → 617] Ah, so the only time you are allowed to go back [ 617 → 619] is in order to go forward. [ 620 → 620] Hmm. [ 621 → 622] So, like, for example, [ 622 → 624] when in the 1960s [ 624 → 626] they reduced the altar to a mere table, [ 627 → 628] and said, [ 628 → 630] well, that's how it was in the early church. [ 631 → 633] See, that kind of going backwards [ 633 → 634] is totally fine [ 634 → 637] because it helps the modernist revolution. [ 638 → 640] And that means moving forward. [ 641 → 641] Got it? [ 642 → 644] But to go backwards [ 644 → 647] is to go back to have a defense, [ 647 → 649] a security that prevents us [ 649 → 651] from the risk of going forward, [ 651 → 653] the Christian risk of carrying the faith, [ 654 → 656] the Christian risk of making the journey [ 656 → 658] with Jesus Christ. [ 658 → 659] And that is a risk, [ 660 → 661] Francis says. [ 662 → 663] And, of course, [ 663 → 665] that is just rhetoric. [ 665 → 667] As is typical for him [ 667 → 668] and others who think like him, [ 669 → 671] the departure from sacred tradition, [ 671 → 672] from the true doctrine, [ 673 → 676] is cast as being the courageous thing, [ 677 → 678] the risky thing, [ 679 → 680] the magnanimous thing, [ 681 → 682] which, of course, [ 682 → 685] implies that if you're opposed to that, [ 685 → 686] why then, obviously, [ 686 → 688] you're a coward, [ 688 → 690] you're closed-minded, [ 690 → 691] you're timid, [ 691 → 693] you're not mature enough. [ 694 → 696] The truth, of course, [ 696 → 698] is that there is nothing mature, [ 698 → 699] magnanimous, [ 700 → 700] or courageous [ 700 → 703] about rushing to embrace [ 703 → 704] novelties or errors, [ 705 → 706] much less heresy. [ 707 → 709] Today, this going backwards [ 709 → 713] is seen in so many ecclesiastical figures [ 713 → 714] that spring up like mushrooms [ 714 → 716] here, there, [ 716 → 717] or there, [ 717 → 719] and present themselves [ 719 → 721] as proposals for Christian living. [ 722 → 723] Francis complains, [ 723 → 724] Oh, really? [ 724 → 727] There are so many figures [ 727 → 728] in the Vatican II Church [ 728 → 730] that are going backwards. [ 731 → 731] Really, now? [ 732 → 733] I hadn't noticed. [ 734 → 736] There are a few, I'm sure, [ 736 → 738] but it's not many. [ 739 → 742] Then Francis unloads his ire [ 742 → 744] on moral theology. [ 744 → 745] In moral theology, [ 746 → 746] there is always, [ 746 → 748] also, a turning back [ 748 → 750] with casuistic propositions. [ 750 → 751] And casuistry, [ 752 → 753] which I thought was [ 753 → 755] buried seven meters below, [ 755 → 757] resurrects as a proposition [ 757 → 759] somewhat disguised of [ 759 → 761] up to here you can, [ 761 → 762] but not up to there. [ 763 → 764] This way, yes. [ 764 → 765] That way, no. [ 766 → 767] And to reduce moral theology [ 767 → 768] to casuistry [ 768 → 771] is the sin of going backwards. [ 772 → 773] And there it is, [ 773 → 774] ladies and gentlemen, [ 774 → 776] the sin of going backwards. [ 776 → 779] So the man who wrote [ 779 → 782] in paragraph 303 [ 782 → 782] of his exhortation [ 783 → 784] Amoris Laetitia [ 784 → 787] that in your particular situation [ 787 → 789] God may actually want you [ 789 → 790] to commit adultery, [ 790 → 792] that man is getting [ 792 → 794] all bent out of shape [ 794 → 796] over the sin of going backwards. [ 798 → 799] Right. [ 800 → 802] Yeah, but wait a minute now. [ 802 → 805] On April 24th this year, [ 805 → 806] he told the world [ 806 → 808] that the Lord isn't looking [ 808 → 810] for perfect Christians. [ 810 → 812] So what's he stressed out about? [ 813 → 815] Anyway, you know who was guilty [ 815 → 817] of that sin, [ 817 → 818] the sin of going backwards [ 818 → 820] and not moving forward? [ 820 → 821] St. Paul. [ 821 → 823] Yep, St. Paul the Apostle. [ 823 → 824] In a second letter [ 824 → 826] to the Thessalonians, [ 826 → 828] chapter 2, verse 14, [ 828 → 829] he wrote, [ 829 → 830] Therefore, brethren, [ 831 → 833] stand fast and hold the traditions [ 833 → 834] which you have learned, [ 834 → 835] whether by word [ 835 → 838] or by our epistle. [ 839 → 841] Another bad one was [ 841 → 842] Pope Pius IX. [ 843 → 845] In his famous syllabus of errors, [ 846 → 848] he condemned the following proposition. [ 849 → 849] Quote, [ 849 → 851] The Roman pontiff can [ 851 → 854] and ought to reconcile himself [ 854 → 855] and come to terms with [ 855 → 858] progress, liberalism, [ 858 → 860] and modern civilization. [ 860 → 861] Unquote. [ 861 → 863] That's error number 80 [ 863 → 865] in the syllabus of 1880. [ 865 → 866] 1864. [ 867 → 870] So yeah, Pius IX was not [ 870 → 872] into moving forward much. [ 873 → 873] And then, of course, [ 874 → 877] we've got Pope St. Pius X, [ 877 → 880] who exclaimed in his encyclical, [ 880 → 881] Paschendi, [ 881 → 882] quote, [ 882 → 884] Far, far from the clergy [ 884 → 887] be the love of novelty. [ 887 → 888] Unquote. [ 888 → 890] That's paragraph number 49. [ 892 → 894] So Francis is clearly [ 894 → 894] still traumatized [ 895 → 897] from his traditional Catholic [ 897 → 899] upbringing and education [ 899 → 900] because he says, [ 901 → 903] Casuistry has been outmoded. [ 904 → 906] Casuistry has been the food [ 906 → 907] for me and my generation [ 907 → 909] in the study of moral theology, [ 909 → 910] but it is proper [ 910 → 912] to decadent Thomism. [ 914 → 916] Decadent Thomism. [ 917 → 918] At other times, [ 918 → 919] he's referred to that [ 919 → 921] as decadent scholasticism. [ 922 → 923] And it illustrates [ 923 → 924] just how much hatred [ 924 → 925] the man bears [ 925 → 928] towards that philosophical system, [ 928 → 931] which Pope St. Pius X [ 931 → 933] prescribed as normative [ 933 → 936] for Catholic theological [ 936 → 938] and philosophical education. [ 939 → 941] In his encyclical, Paschendi, [ 942 → 943] which we just mentioned, [ 944 → 945] St. Pius X [ 945 → 948] basically described Francis [ 948 → 949] to a T [ 949 → 951] when he wrote this, [ 951 → 952] quote, [ 952 → 954] Against scholastic philosophy [ 954 → 955] and theology, [ 955 → 957] they use the weapons [ 957 → 959] of ridicule and contempt, [ 960 → 961] whether it is ignorance [ 961 → 963] or fear or both [ 963 → 966] that inspires this conduct in them. [ 966 → 967] Certain it is [ 967 → 969] that the passion for novelty [ 969 → 972] is always united in them [ 972 → 974] with hatred of scholasticism. [ 975 → 977] And there is no surer sign [ 977 → 979] that a man is tending to modernism [ 979 → 982] than when he begins to show [ 982 → 985] his dislike for the scholastic method. [ 985 → 986] Unquote. [ 987 → 988] Paragraph 42. [ 990 → 992] Also, in 1864, [ 993 → 993] Pope Pius IX [ 993 → 996] had condemned the following idea, [ 997 → 997] quote, [ 997 → 999] the method and principles [ 999 → 1001] by which the old scholastic [1001 → 1003] doctors cultivated theology [1003 → 1005] are no longer suitable [1005 → 1007] to the demands of our times [1007 → 1009] and to the progress [1009 → 1010] of the sciences. [1012 → 1012] Unquote. [1013 → 1014] That's error number 13 [1015 → 1015] in the book, [1015 → 1017] In the Syllabus of Errors. [1018 → 1020] So, what's the deal [1020 → 1022] with casuistry? [1022 → 1025] What is that evil discipline [1025 → 1027] Bergoglio is fulminating against? [1028 → 1030] Well, casuistry is basically [1030 → 1032] the science of applied [1032 → 1033] moral theology. [1034 → 1036] It's of the utmost importance [1036 → 1038] because it takes the principles [1038 → 1040] of Catholic moral theology [1040 → 1041] and applies them [1041 → 1044] to concrete situations [1044 → 1045] so that Catholics can't [1045 → 1047] know how to act [1047 → 1049] in a way that is morally right. [1049 → 1051] It shows Catholics [1051 → 1052] how to avoid sin [1052 → 1054] in even the most complex [1054 → 1056] and difficult situations. [1057 → 1058] One of the greatest [1058 → 1060] casuists in church history, [1061 → 1062] perhaps the greatest, [1062 → 1064] was St. Alphonsus Liguori, [1064 → 1066] the church's doctor of moral [1066 → 1067] theology. [1068 → 1070] Now, of course, Bergoglio hates [1070 → 1072] casuistry because it is [1072 → 1074] rigorous, it is precise, [1074 → 1075] it is inflexible, [1075 → 1077] because it adheres faithfully [1077 → 1079] to true moral principles. [1080 → 1081] In other words, [1081 → 1082] you can't really use it [1082 → 1084] to muddle your way through [1084 → 1086] with things like encounter, [1087 → 1088] discernment, accompaniment. [1089 → 1090] That doesn't fly. [1091 → 1094] And casuistry does not allow [1094 → 1095] for amoris laetitia, [1096 → 1097] France's document that basically [1097 → 1099] allows communion for people [1099 → 1100] who are living in adultery. [1101 → 1103] And that's probably why [1103 → 1104] he brings it up [1104 → 1105] in the very next sentence. [1105 → 1106] Saying, [1106 → 1108] the real Thomism is that [1108 → 1110] of amoris laetitia, [1110 → 1111] the one that takes place there, [1112 → 1114] explained well in the synod [1114 → 1115] and accepted by all. [1115 → 1117] It is the doctrine of St. Thomas [1117 → 1120] alive, which makes us go forward [1120 → 1122] risking, but in obedience. [1122 → 1123] And that is not easy. [1125 → 1125] Mm-hmm. [1125 → 1126] Yeah, sure. [1127 → 1129] Francis the Thomist. [1129 → 1129] Oh. [1130 → 1133] The idea that amoris laetitia [1133 → 1134] is Thomistic [1134 → 1135] means that it's not. [1135 → 1136] Meaning that it follows [1136 → 1138] the system of St. Thomas Aquinas [1138 → 1140] was blown out of the water [1140 → 1143] even by a Novus Ordo theologian, [1143 → 1146] the Dominican Reverend Basil Cole. [1147 → 1148] It was published by the [1148 → 1150] so-called National Catholic Register [1150 → 1154] on December 16th, 2016 [1154 → 1155] under the title [1155 → 1159] Is Amoris Laetitia Really Thomistic? [1159 → 1162] So Francis ends his diatribe [1162 → 1163] telling his listeners, [1163 → 1165] please be careful [1165 → 1167] of this going backwards [1167 → 1169] that is a current temptation [1169 → 1171] even for you theologians [1171 → 1173] in moral theology. [1174 → 1175] Yeah, no doubt [1175 → 1177] that is a big temptation [1177 → 1179] for Novus Ordo theologians [1179 → 1180] in our day. [1181 → 1182] Aren't we just so lucky [1182 → 1184] to have Francis [1184 → 1185] watching out for the church, [1186 → 1187] keeping it from descending [1187 → 1188] into the abyss [1188 → 1190] of casuistry [1190 → 1191] and other concepts [1191 → 1193] that only tempt us. [1193 → 1195] To go backwards. [1200 → 1202] In an address given [1202 → 1205] on September 17th, 1946, [1206 → 1208] Pope Pius XII said the following [1208 → 1211] to Jesuits, no less. [1212 → 1212] Quote, [1213 → 1214] Much has been said, [1214 → 1215] but not enough [1215 → 1217] after due consideration, [1217 → 1219] about the nouvelle theologie, [1220 → 1221] the new theology, [1221 → 1223] which because of its characteristics, [1223 → 1225] of moving along [1225 → 1226] with everything [1226 → 1228] in a state of perpetual motion, [1229 → 1230] will always be on the road [1230 → 1231] to somewhere, [1231 → 1233] but will never arrive anywhere. [1234 → 1236] If one thought that one had to agree [1236 → 1238] with an idea like that, [1239 → 1240] what would become [1240 → 1241] of Catholic dogmas, [1242 → 1243] which must never change? [1243 → 1244] What would happen [1244 → 1245] to the unity [1245 → 1248] and stability of faith? [1248 → 1249] Unquote. [1250 → 1251] That's from the allocution [1251 → 1252] Quamvis Inquieti, [1252 → 1253] Quamvis Inquieti, [1253 → 1255] of Pope Pius XII, [1256 → 1258] and how right he was. [1258 → 1260] After roughly six decades [1260 → 1261] of the new theology, [1262 → 1263] what is left [1263 → 1265] of the Catholic faith [1265 → 1266] in the Vatican? [1266 → 1267] Nothing. [1268 → 1270] It was left behind [1270 → 1273] by the new modernist management, [1273 → 1274] which was only concerned [1274 → 1277] about moving forward. [1279 → 1280] Tradcast Express [1280 → 1281] is a production [1281 → 1282] of Novos Ordo Watch. [1282 → 1283] Check us out [1283 → 1285] at tradcast.org [1285 → 1286] and if you like what we're doing, [1286 → 1287] please consider making [1287 → 1289] a tax-deductible contribution [1289 → 1291] at novosordowatch.org [1292 → 1293] slash donate.