[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 14] TrapCast Express, it's Thursday, June 2nd, 2022. [ 15 → 19] Boy, did Francis drop a few fancy buzzwords yesterday, [ 20 → 24] both in his Wednesday catechesis and especially in his address to participants [ 24 → 31] in the international conference Lines of Development of the Global Compact on Education. [ 32 → 37] He spoke about such profound ideas as the magisterium of frailty [ 37 → 45] and mentioned the usual jazz from Roots and Horizons to the museum piece of Dead Traditions. [ 46 → 51] Naturally, he also did not fail to include the imperative of moving forward, [ 51 → 53] lest we become a sect. [ 53 → 56] By going backwards. [ 56 → 62] Meanwhile, the Vatican's so-called Congregation for Catholic Education [ 62 → 65] released an endless document yesterday called [ 65 → 70] The Identity of the Catholic School for a Culture of Dialogue. [ 71 → 76] One of the things the text promotes is an education that goes forth. [ 77 → 80] And included under that profound concept, [ 80 → 83] we find education as movement. [ 83 → 84] Listen to this. [ 85 → 85] Quote, [ 86 → 90] Education consists in a polyphony of movements. [ 90 → 93] First of all, it starts with a team movement. [ 94 → 99] Everyone collaborates according to their personal talents and responsibilities, [ 99 → 103] contributing to the formation of the younger generations [ 103 → 105] and the construction of the common good. [ 105 → 111] At the same time, education unleashes an ecological movement [ 111 → 113] since it contributes to the recovery, [ 113 → 115] of different levels of balance. [ 116 → 118] Inner balance with oneself, [ 118 → 120] solidarity with others, [ 120 → 122] natural balance with all living beings, [ 123 → 125] spiritual balance with God. [ 125 → 129] It also gives rise to an important inclusive movement. [ 130 → 134] Inclusion, which is an integral part of the Christian salvific message, [ 135 → 137] is not only a property, [ 137 → 139] but also a method of education [ 139 → 143] that brings the excluded and vulnerable closer. [ 143 → 148] Through it, education nurtures a peacemaking movement [ 148 → 152] that generates harmony and peace. [ 152 → 153] Unquote. [ 154 → 156] Yeah, so, whatever. [ 157 → 163] Two days ago, May 31st, was World No Tobacco Day. [ 164 → 167] And you can guess who had something to say about that. [ 168 → 168] You got it. [ 169 → 169] The Frankster. [ 170 → 171] Now, don't worry. [ 171 → 173] We're not going to look at that. [ 173 → 173] It was just a fact. [ 173 → 177] A few brief words about the importance of physical health, [ 178 → 179] which is a gift from God. [ 180 → 182] And that is true, of course. [ 182 → 186] It's just really not something the supposed Pope [ 186 → 188] needs to concern himself with, right? [ 188 → 191] At least not while the entire world is drowning [ 191 → 195] in a cesspool of unbelief and grave immorality. [ 196 → 198] But then that's just Francis being Francis. [ 198 → 203] He is super concerned about bodily health and temporal well-being, [ 203 → 207] while at the same time giving very little to no consideration [ 207 → 211] to people's supernatural life of sanctifying grace. [ 212 → 215] And so, it's not surprising that in 2018, [ 216 → 220] Francis outlawed the sale of cigarettes throughout Vatican City, [ 221 → 224] while at the same time he has shown no concern [ 224 → 228] for the harm done to souls by the smoke of Satan. [ 229 → 233] Let us now turn to an article that popped up [ 233 → 236] on May 31st at 1 Peter 5. [ 236 → 237] It is entitled, [ 237 → 240] The Catholic Response to Corrupt Cardinals, [ 240 → 243] and was written by one Joshua Charles, [ 243 → 246] who, according to his biographical blurb, [ 246 → 248] is a former White House speechwriter [ 248 → 250] for Vice President Mike Pence, [ 250 → 253] a number one New York Times best-selling author, [ 253 → 256] historian, columnist, writer, public speaker, [ 256 → 257] and ghostwriter. [ 258 → 261] He is also a convert from Protestantism. [ 262 → 263] The controversy, [ 263 → 264] and the context in which this article appeared, [ 265 → 268] is Francis' appointment of 21 new bogus cardinals [ 268 → 269] just the other day, [ 270 → 273] among whom are such theologically unsavory characters [ 273 → 276] as Robert McElroy of San Diego [ 276 → 280] and Arthur Roche of the Vatican's Congregation [ 280 → 282] for Divine Worship. [ 282 → 286] So, that's what occasioned Joshua Charles' write-up, [ 287 → 289] and we'll give it a critical review now. [ 291 → 292] Overall, we can say that [ 292 → 295] Charles follows the usual semi-trad blogger tactic [ 295 → 298] of making lots of confident assertions, [ 298 → 301] yet providing very little evidence for them. [ 302 → 304] Sure, some things stand to reason, [ 304 → 305] and when they're obvious, [ 305 → 307] they don't really need proof. [ 307 → 309] But when it comes to talking about [ 309 → 312] what is the authentic Catholic position [ 312 → 313] on a controversial matter, [ 313 → 315] you need to show evidence. [ 315 → 316] For what you're saying, [ 317 → 319] evidence from the Church's magisterium, [ 319 → 322] or at least her approved theologians. [ 322 → 324] Anyway, let's get going here. [ 324 → 327] Charles begins as follows. [ 327 → 327] Quote, [ 328 → 330] One of the most common objections [ 330 → 332] against the Catholic Church [ 332 → 333] is that it is corrupt [ 333 → 335] and full of wicked shepherds. [ 335 → 339] This supposedly justified the Protestant revolt [ 339 → 341] and people leaving the Church to this day. [ 342 → 343] Whether through immoral living [ 343 → 345] or teaching bad doctrine, [ 345 → 347] the Catholic Church may have been [ 347 → 348] the original Mother Church, [ 348 → 350] but it is now hopelessly corrupt, [ 350 → 352] and the only way to respond to this, [ 352 → 354] the problem is to separate from it. [ 355 → 356] But as I discovered [ 356 → 358] when I began studying the Church Fathers, [ 358 → 360] this is not a new objection. [ 361 → 363] In fact, it's a very old one [ 363 → 364] to which the Fathers offered [ 364 → 367] a unanimous and resounding answer. [ 367 → 368] Separation from the Church [ 368 → 370] is never justified. [ 370 → 371] Unquote. [ 372 → 375] What the author is doing here [ 375 → 377] is he is lumping together [ 377 → 378] different issues [ 378 → 380] that must be kept separate [ 380 → 382] because they are separate things, [ 382 → 385] and are governed by different principles. [ 386 → 386] For example, [ 387 → 388] he is lumping together [ 388 → 390] wicked shepherds in the Church [ 390 → 393] with the Church teaching bad doctrine. [ 394 → 396] Now, these are two very different things. [ 397 → 398] God never promised [ 399 → 401] that all of the legitimate bishops [ 401 → 402] in the Church would be saints, [ 403 → 404] but God did promise [ 404 → 406] that His Church would forever be [ 406 → 408] the Ark of Salvation, [ 409 → 411] that this Church would never [ 411 → 412] lead the sheep astray, [ 412 → 414] and never give them anything [ 414 → 416] that is harmful to their souls. [ 417 → 419] In fact, Christ founded His Church [ 419 → 422] as the pillar and ground of the truth, [ 422 → 426] as we read in 1 Timothy 3.15. [ 427 → 428] It goes without saying [ 428 → 431] that separation from that Church [ 431 → 432] founded by Jesus Christ [ 432 → 434] from that bulwark of truth [ 434 → 435] and Ark of Salvation [ 435 → 437] is never justified, [ 438 → 439] is never permitted [ 439 → 441] under any circumstance. [ 441 → 442] That is clear. [ 443 → 445] But the matter under dispute [ 445 → 447] is precisely whether [ 447 → 448] the Vatican II Church [ 448 → 450] is that infallible [ 450 → 452] and indefectible Catholic Church [ 452 → 454] founded by Christ. [ 455 → 457] Joshua Charles simply [ 457 → 458] assumes that it is, [ 458 → 460] and then concludes that you are therefore [ 460 → 462] not permitted to leave it. [ 462 → 464] Well, at least we agree in principle [ 464 → 466] one is never allowed to abandon [ 466 → 469] the true Roman Catholic Church. [ 470 → 470] However, [ 470 → 472] there are two sides [ 472 → 473] to every coin, [ 473 → 474] and there is a flip side [ 474 → 475] here as well. [ 476 → 478] Just as one is not allowed [ 478 → 479] to abandon the Church [ 479 → 480] founded by our blessed Lord [ 480 → 482] and Savior Jesus Christ, [ 483 → 484] neither is one allowed [ 484 → 485] to refuse submission [ 485 → 488] to the Vicar of Christ [ 488 → 490] or to reject His laws, [ 490 → 491] doctrines, [ 491 → 492] canonized saints, [ 492 → 494] or sacramental rites. [ 494 → 495] And you know what? [ 496 → 497] If the Catholic Church [ 497 → 499] really is the Church [ 499 → 500] founded by Christ, [ 500 → 501] and it is, [ 501 → 503] then this shouldn't be a problem, right? [ 504 → 505] I mean, why would you [ 505 → 508] want to reject the Magisterium [ 508 → 509] and other official acts [ 509 → 511] of the Supreme Pontiff [ 511 → 513] if He is the Vicar of Christ [ 513 → 515] and has the divine assistance, [ 515 → 517] and that not only concerning [ 517 → 519] those things that are infallible? [ 520 → 522] In an elocution to cardinals [ 522 → 524] given on June 2, 1944, [ 525 → 526] Pope Pius XII taught, [ 527 → 527] quote, [ 528 → 530] Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, [ 530 → 532] which has remained faithful [ 532 → 534] to the Constitution received [ 534 → 535] from her divine founder, [ 536 → 538] which still stands firm today [ 538 → 540] on the solidity of the rock [ 540 → 542] on which His will erected her, [ 542 → 545] possesses in the primacy of Peter [ 545 → 547] and of his legitimate successors [ 547 → 549] the assurance guaranteed [ 549 → 551] by the divine promises [ 551 → 553] of keeping and transmitting [ 553 → 557] inviolate and in all its integrity [ 557 → 559] through centuries and millennia [ 559 → 559] to the very end of the world. [ 559 → 559] And so, [ 559 → 561] to the very end of time, [ 562 → 565] the entire sum of truth and grace [ 565 → 568] contained in the redemptive mission [ 568 → 570] of Christ, unquote. [ 571 → 572] In the address [ 572 → 574] Ancora Una Volta [ 574 → 576] of February 20, 1949, [ 577 → 579] the same Pius XII taught, [ 579 → 579] quote, [ 580 → 582] The Pope has the divine promises. [ 582 → 584] Even in his human weaknesses, [ 585 → 587] he is invincible and unshakable. [ 587 → 589] He is the messenger of truth [ 589 → 589] and justice, [ 589 → 592] the principle of the unity of the Church. [ 592 → 594] His voice denounces errors, [ 594 → 596] idolatries, superstitions. [ 597 → 598] He condemns iniquities. [ 598 → 602] He makes charity and virtue loved, unquote. [ 603 → 607] That doesn't sound like Jorge Bergoglio, does it? [ 608 → 611] So, you can see how Joshua Charles [ 611 → 613] is not doing anyone a favor [ 613 → 614] by simply assuming [ 614 → 616] that the Vatican II Church [ 616 → 618] is the Catholic Church [ 618 → 619] and then declaring that [ 619 → 620] no one is ever justified [ 620 → 621] in abandoning it, [ 621 → 624] all the while holding, apparently, [ 624 → 626] that Catholics are justified [ 626 → 628] in rejecting the magisterium [ 628 → 629] of that Church. [ 631 → 632] I say apparently because [ 632 → 635] although Charles doesn't explicitly say that, [ 635 → 637] his article is published [ 637 → 638] at 1 Peter 5, [ 638 → 641] which does take that theological position. [ 641 → 643] So, I'm going to have to assume [ 643 → 645] that it is his position as well. [ 646 → 648] Let's continue with the article. [ 649 → 650] A little further on, Charles writes, [ 651 → 651] quote, [ 651 → 653] Like Israel in the wilderness, [ 654 → 656] the one true Church would remain itself [ 656 → 658] throughout all its tribulations, [ 658 → 660] none of which would change [ 660 → 661] its fundamental nature. [ 662 → 664] Amalek could not destroy it from without, [ 665 → 667] and Korah, Daphne, and Eberam [ 667 → 669] could not destroy it from within. [ 670 → 673] There was to be no refounding of Israel. [ 674 → 677] There was one and only one Israel [ 677 → 678] founded by God Himself [ 678 → 679] on a pilgrimage, [ 679 → 680] on a pilgrimage to the Promised Land. [ 681 → 683] Those who endured to the end [ 683 → 684] would see the promise. [ 685 → 685] Unquote. [ 686 → 688] Well, no one is arguing [ 688 → 691] that the Catholic Church needs to be refounded. [ 692 → 692] In fact, [ 693 → 695] we Serebakanis are the ones insisting [ 695 → 697] that the Catholic Church cannot change, [ 698 → 699] cannot suddenly proclaim [ 699 → 700] a different religion, [ 701 → 702] cannot defect. [ 703 → 705] That is why we reject [ 705 → 707] the Vatican II Church as a counterfeit [ 707 → 708] of the real Catholic Church. [ 708 → 712] It is the Vatican II Church [ 712 → 714] that has redefined the nature [ 714 → 716] of the Catholic Church [ 716 → 718] with its elements ecclesiology, [ 718 → 720] according to which the true Church [ 720 → 723] of Jesus Christ exists fully [ 723 → 724] in the Catholic Church, [ 724 → 727] but also exists in elements [ 727 → 729] in heretical sects, [ 729 → 731] such that even Lutherans [ 731 → 733] are part of the mystical body of Christ. [ 734 → 736] They're simply an imperfect communion [ 736 → 737] with the Catholics. [ 738 → 740] In fact, in 1977, [ 741 → 742] then Cardinal [ 742 → 744] Karol Wojtyla, [ 744 → 746] who would go on to become [ 746 → 748] Pope John Paul II, [ 749 → 750] wrote in his book [ 750 → 751] Sign of Contradiction, [ 752 → 752] quote, [ 753 → 756] the Church succeeded during the Second Vatican Council [ 756 → 758] in redefining [ 758 → 760] her own nature. [ 760 → 761] Unquote. [ 761 → 764] And that's on page 17 of the English edition [ 764 → 766] of Sign of Contradiction, [ 766 → 768] published in 1979. [ 768 → 771] So that's exactly what they did. [ 772 → 773] They had to redefine [ 773 → 775] the nature of the Catholic Church [ 775 → 777] in order to make it compatible [ 777 → 779] with ecumenism. [ 780 → 782] As Bishop Donald Sanborn [ 782 → 782] once pointed out, [ 783 → 785] you can't do ecumenism [ 785 → 786] with Protestants and Orthodox [ 786 → 788] if you're claiming to be [ 788 → 791] the one and only true Church of Christ [ 791 → 794] to which all non-Catholics [ 794 → 795] must convert. [ 795 → 797] If you take that position, [ 797 → 797] there can be no change. [ 798 → 799] There can be no ecumenism. [ 800 → 801] So they had to come up [ 801 → 803] with some kind of redefinition [ 803 → 804] of the Catholic Church [ 804 → 806] that would reduce [ 806 → 808] her claim to exclusivity [ 808 → 810] in order to provide an opening [ 810 → 811] for ecumenism. [ 812 → 813] And that's what they did [ 813 → 814] at Vatican II. [ 815 → 816] And they admit it, too. [ 817 → 819] We just heard Carol Wojtyla [ 819 → 821] about this writing in 1977. [ 822 → 823] Also, Joseph Ratzinger, [ 824 → 825] the future Benedict XVI, [ 825 → 827] wrote in 1969 [ 827 → 828] that, [ 828 → 830] the ecclesiological teaching [ 830 → 831] of Vatican II [ 831 → 832] amounts to [ 832 → 834] a reduction [ 834 → 835] in the claim [ 835 → 836] of exclusivity. [ 837 → 838] And that's a quote, [ 838 → 839] reduction [ 839 → 840] in the claim [ 840 → 841] of exclusivity. [ 841 → 842] That's from his book [ 842 → 844] The New People of God, [ 844 → 845] which may or may not [ 845 → 846] be available in English, [ 847 → 849] but in German, [ 849 → 849] the German edition [ 849 → 852] is Das neue Volk Gottes. [ 852 → 854] And that was published in 69, [ 855 → 856] and you can find that [ 856 → 858] on page 236. [ 858 → 862] Now, that was back in 1969, [ 862 → 864] but don't think that Ratzinger [ 864 → 866] reversed himself on that later. [ 866 → 867] He didn't. [ 867 → 869] In fact, in 2001, [ 869 → 871] Ratzinger wrote an article [ 871 → 872] for the Vatican newspaper [ 872 → 874] Osservatore Romano [ 874 → 874] entitled [ 874 → 877] The Ecclesiology of the Constitution [ 877 → 878] on the Church. [ 879 → 880] Now, before we can look [ 880 → 881] at what he wrote there, [ 882 → 883] let me first give you [ 883 → 884] a little bit of background. [ 885 → 887] The monumental change [ 887 → 888] about the Church [ 888 → 889] at Vatican II [ 889 → 890] was that the Council claimed [ 890 → 891] that the true Church [ 891 → 892] of Jesus Christ [ 892 → 896] subsists in the Catholic Church, [ 896 → 898] whereas the traditional teaching [ 898 → 901] insisted upon by Pope Pius XII [ 901 → 903] had been that the true Church [ 903 → 904] of Jesus Christ [ 904 → 906] is the Catholic Church, [ 907 → 908] that they are one [ 908 → 910] and the same thing, [ 910 → 912] as he wrote in the encyclical [ 912 → 914] Humani Generis in 1950. [ 915 → 917] Now, when you go from is [ 917 → 919] to subsists in, [ 920 → 921] you are inevitably [ 921 → 922] creating confusion, right? [ 922 → 924] You're muddying the waters. [ 924 → 925] Everyone understands [ 925 → 927] what it means to say [ 927 → 929] that the Church founded by Jesus [ 929 → 931] is the Catholic Church. [ 931 → 933] But when you change that [ 933 → 934] to say that that Church [ 934 → 937] subsists in the Catholic Church, [ 937 → 939] it is no longer clear [ 939 → 940] what exactly you mean. [ 941 → 942] Ask 10 different people [ 942 → 943] about what it means [ 943 → 945] and you'll get 11 different answers. [ 946 → 947] It is true [ 947 → 949] that subsistence [ 949 → 952] is a very precise mode of existing. [ 952 → 954] Something that subsists [ 954 → 956] exists as a substance, [ 956 → 958] not as an accident, for example. [ 958 → 961] But that doesn't save Vatican II at all [ 961 → 963] because it says that this Church [ 963 → 964] Christ founded [ 964 → 967] exists in the Catholic Church, [ 967 → 969] thereby drawing a distinction [ 969 → 970] between two churches, [ 970 → 972] the Church founded by Christ [ 972 → 974] and the Catholic Church. [ 975 → 977] And although the Council claims [ 977 → 977] that this Church, [ 977 → 979] has its proper existence [ 979 → 982] in the Roman Catholic Church, [ 982 → 983] it also claims [ 983 → 986] that it exists in elements [ 986 → 988] in other religious bodies. [ 989 → 990] All right, [ 990 → 991] now we can look at [ 991 → 993] what Ratzinger wrote in 2001 [ 993 → 995] in the Vatican newspaper. [ 996 → 996] Quote, [ 996 → 998] With this expression, [ 999 → 1001] and he means subsists in, [1002 → 1003] with this expression, [1003 → 1005] the Council differs [1005 → 1007] from the formula of Pius XII, [1007 → 1010] who said in his encyclical [1010 → 1011] Mystici Corporis Christi, [1012 → 1014] the Catholic Church is, [1014 → 1015] Latin est, [1016 → 1018] is the one mystical body of Christ. [1019 → 1020] The difference between [1020 → 1022] subsistit and est [1022 → 1025] conceals within itself [1025 → 1028] the whole ecumenical problem. [1028 → 1029] Unquote. [1029 → 1032] That is from the English edition [1032 → 1034] of Osservatore Romano [1034 → 1037] of September 19th, 2001, [1037 → 1037] page 3. [1037 → 1038] Page 5. [1039 → 1041] So, to return to Joshua Charles, [1042 → 1044] here's the problem he has. [1044 → 1046] He says, very correctly, [1046 → 1048] that the Catholic Church [1048 → 1049] cannot change her nature. [1050 → 1052] But he leaves out of account [1052 → 1054] that the institution he identifies [1054 → 1056] as that Catholic Church [1056 → 1058] defines itself as having [1058 → 1059] a different nature [1059 → 1061] from the Catholic Church [1061 → 1062] that was once ruled [1062 → 1064] by Pope Pius XII [1064 → 1065] and all his predecessors. [1067 → 1067] See, [1067 → 1068] this is why we're [1068 → 1069] Sedevacantists. [1070 → 1071] We believe [1071 → 1072] that the Catholic Church [1072 → 1074] cannot change. [1074 → 1076] It is the Vatican II Church [1076 → 1078] that doesn't believe that. [1079 → 1081] Now, Charles draws an analogy [1081 → 1083] with the people of Israel [1083 → 1084] in the Old Covenant, [1084 → 1085] and he points out [1085 → 1087] that they often became unfaithful. [1088 → 1088] Right? [1088 → 1089] They wandered off [1089 → 1091] into idolatry and apostasy, [1091 → 1093] but they still remained [1093 → 1095] the true people of God. [1095 → 1096] That's his argument. [1096 → 1099] And while that is true [1099 → 1100] for Israel, [1100 → 1102] the analogy is false [1102 → 1103] because who belonged [1103 → 1105] to the people of Israel [1105 → 1107] was determined by kinship [1107 → 1109] and not by public profession [1109 → 1110] of faith. [1111 → 1112] You were born into [1112 → 1114] the people of Israel [1114 → 1116] by being a descendant [1116 → 1117] of Abraham, right? [1117 → 1119] Or more properly, of Jacob. [1119 → 1121] That is what made you [1121 → 1122] an Israelite. [1123 → 1124] But in the New Covenant, [1124 → 1125] that is completely [1126 → 1127] different because the church [1127 → 1129] is a spiritual people. [1130 → 1131] The members of the church [1131 → 1132] founded by Christ [1132 → 1134] are not determined [1134 → 1135] by natural kinship, [1135 → 1136] but by faith. [1136 → 1138] That is, by the common [1138 → 1139] public profession [1139 → 1140] of that faith, [1140 → 1141] by baptism, [1141 → 1143] and by being subject [1143 → 1144] to the lawful hierarchy. [1145 → 1146] Remember, Christ said [1146 → 1148] to Nicodemus in John 3 [1148 → 1149] that a man had to be [1149 → 1152] born again spiritually. [1152 → 1154] And he told the Jews [1154 → 1155] in John 8 [1155 → 1156] that their descent [1156 → 1156] from Abraham [1156 → 1158] is of no value [1158 → 1160] if they do not believe in him. [1162 → 1163] In his letter to the Romans, [1164 → 1164] St. Paul writes, [1165 → 1167] Is God the God of the Jews only? [1168 → 1169] Is he not the God [1169 → 1170] of the Gentiles too? [1171 → 1172] Of the Gentiles too, [1172 → 1173] assuredly, [1173 → 1175] there is only one God [1175 → 1176] who will justify [1176 → 1177] the circumcised man [1177 → 1179] if he learns to believe [1179 → 1180] and the Gentile [1180 → 1182] because he believes. [1182 → 1185] That's Romans 3, 29, and 30. [1186 → 1187] And I'm using the Monsignor [1187 → 1189] Ronald Knox translation here [1189 → 1190] because the Douay-Rheims [1190 → 1191] is a bit obscure on this. [1192 → 1196] Likewise, in Galatians 3, 26-29, [1196 → 1197] St. Paul says, [1198 → 1199] Through faith in Christ Jesus [1199 → 1201] you are all now God's sons. [1202 → 1204] All you who have been baptized [1204 → 1205] in Christ's name [1205 → 1207] have put on the person of Christ. [1208 → 1209] No more Jew or Gentile, [1210 → 1211] no more slave and freeman, [1211 → 1213] no more male and female. [1213 → 1215] You are all one person [1215 → 1215] in Jesus Christ. [1216 → 1218] And if you belong to Christ, [1218 → 1219] then you are indeed [1219 → 1221] Abraham's children. [1222 → 1223] The promised inheritance [1223 → 1224] is yours. [1226 → 1226] Joshua Charles repeatedly [1227 → 1228] makes the point [1228 → 1229] that the church includes [1229 → 1230] saints and sinners, [1230 → 1231] sheep and goats, [1232 → 1232] wheat and chaff, [1232 → 1234] clean and unclean. [1235 → 1236] And yes, that's all very true. [1237 → 1238] But that is always in reference [1238 → 1240] to Catholics, [1240 → 1242] to the members of the church. [1242 → 1244] You have to be a Catholic [1244 → 1245] to be a member [1245 → 1246] of the Catholic Church. [1246 → 1248] Now, that stands to reason. [1249 → 1251] Yes, holy Catholics [1251 → 1253] and terribly sinful Catholics [1253 → 1256] both are members of the church. [1256 → 1258] But heretics are not members [1258 → 1259] of the church. [1260 → 1262] Again, what Charles is doing is [1262 → 1264] he's lumping all sins together, [1264 → 1265] sins against faith [1265 → 1267] and sins against morals. [1268 → 1270] And although he doesn't say it outright, [1270 → 1271] the implication is [1271 → 1274] that therefore it doesn't matter [1274 → 1276] if bishops or cardinals [1276 → 1277] profess the true faith or not, [1277 → 1279] or if the pope teaches heresy [1279 → 1281] in his magisterium, [1281 → 1283] or if he leads souls to hell [1283 → 1284] with evil laws [1284 → 1286] or invalid sacramental rites. [1287 → 1288] None of that matters [1288 → 1290] because it's still the true church. [1291 → 1292] That, at least, [1292 → 1293] is what I'm understanding [1293 → 1294] Charles to be saying. [1295 → 1297] What evidence does he give for that? [1298 → 1300] Well, none that actually says that. [1301 → 1302] On the contrary, [1303 → 1304] we have countless examples [1304 → 1305] from the papal magisterium [1306 → 1307] teaching the opposite [1307 → 1308] of what Charles is arguing. [1309 → 1310] For example, [1310 → 1312] remember what Pope Pius XII [1312 → 1313] taught about membership [1313 → 1315] in the church. [1315 → 1316] Quote, [1316 → 1318] Actually, only those [1318 → 1319] are to be included [1319 → 1320] as members of the church [1320 → 1321] who have been baptized [1321 → 1323] and profess the true faith [1323 → 1324] and who have not been [1324 → 1325] so unfortunate [1325 → 1327] as to separate themselves [1327 → 1328] from the unity of the body [1328 → 1329] or been excluded [1329 → 1331] by legitimate authority [1331 → 1333] for grave faults committed. [1334 → 1335] For in one spirit, [1336 → 1336] says Charles, [1336 → 1336] the apostle, [1337 → 1338] were we all baptized [1338 → 1339] into one body, [1339 → 1341] whether Jews or Gentiles, [1341 → 1342] whether bond or free. [1343 → 1344] As, therefore, [1344 → 1345] in the true Christian community [1345 → 1347] there is only one body, [1347 → 1348] one spirit, [1348 → 1349] one Lord, [1349 → 1350] and one baptism, [1351 → 1352] so there can be [1352 → 1354] only one faith. [1354 → 1355] And therefore, [1355 → 1356] if a man refused [1356 → 1357] to hear the church, [1357 → 1358] let him be considered, [1359 → 1360] so the Lord commands, [1360 → 1361] as a heathen [1361 → 1362] and a publican. [1362 → 1363] It follows that [1363 → 1364] those who are divided [1364 → 1366] in faith or government [1366 → 1367] cannot be living [1367 → 1369] in the unity of such a body, [1369 → 1370] nor can they be living [1370 → 1372] the life of its one [1372 → 1373] divine spirit. [1374 → 1375] Unquote. [1375 → 1376] That's from the encyclical [1376 → 1378] Mystici Corporis, [1378 → 1379] number 22. [1380 → 1381] So there you have it. [1381 → 1383] Whoever does not profess [1383 → 1385] the faith of the Catholic Church [1385 → 1386] cannot be a member of it. [1387 → 1389] So now we have to ask, [1389 → 1391] does Francis profess that faith? [1392 → 1394] Does Robert McElroy? [1394 → 1395] Does Blaise Cupich? [1396 → 1398] Does James Martin [1398 → 1400] or Richard Rohr? [1400 → 1401] Does Reinhard Marx [1401 → 1403] or Gerard Betzing? [1404 → 1405] But more importantly, [1405 → 1407] regardless of what [1407 → 1408] these individual clerics [1408 → 1409] do or don't profess, [1409 → 1411] the bigger question is, [1411 → 1413] does the official magisterium [1413 → 1414] of the Vatican II Church [1414 → 1416] teach Catholicism? [1417 → 1419] And if it does, [1419 → 1421] what is there to resist? [1422 → 1424] Why should anyone resist [1424 → 1425] the Catholic magisterium? [1427 → 1429] But if it does not teach Catholicism, [1429 → 1431] then it cannot be [1431 → 1432] the Catholic magisterium, [1433 → 1435] because unlike the people of Israel, [1436 → 1438] God founded the spiritual Israel, [1438 → 1439] the Catholic Church, [1439 → 1441] as the pillar and ground [1441 → 1442] of the truth. [1442 → 1444] The infallible Church, [1444 → 1446] which as Pope Pius IX taught, [1446 → 1447] quote, [1447 → 1449] can never totter and fall [1449 → 1452] while this chair remains intact. [1452 → 1454] The chair which rests on the rock [1454 → 1456] which the proud gates, [1456 → 1456] the gates of hell, [1456 → 1457] cannot overthrow [1457 → 1459] and in which there is [1459 → 1461] the whole and perfect solidity [1461 → 1463] of the Christian religion, [1463 → 1463] unquote. [1464 → 1466] And he's talking about [1466 → 1467] the papal chair, of course, [1468 → 1468] the Holy See, [1469 → 1470] the chair of St. Peter. [1470 → 1472] That's from the encyclical [1472 → 1473] Inter Multiplices, [1474 → 1475] number seven. [1477 → 1479] Returning now to Joshua Charles, [1479 → 1480] he writes, quote, [1480 → 1482] Scripture makes abundantly clear [1482 → 1485] there is only one body of Christ, [1485 → 1486] which is the Church, [1486 → 1487] and there is only one Church [1487 → 1489] preaching only one faith, [1490 → 1490] unquote. [1491 → 1492] Amen. [1493 → 1495] But then that's not [1495 → 1496] the Vatican II Church, is it? [1497 → 1498] I mean, the reason why [1498 → 1501] there is traditionalism at all [1501 → 1503] is precisely because [1503 → 1505] the Vatican II Church [1505 → 1507] does not teach or profess [1507 → 1510] the Roman Catholic faith [1510 → 1511] as it was known [1511 → 1514] until the death of Pope Pius XII. [1516 → 1518] Charles also writes, quote, [1518 → 1520] This is why the Church Fathers [1520 → 1521] everywhere taught [1521 → 1523] the necessity of unity [1523 → 1525] with the Church for salvation [1525 → 1527] and that the Catholic Church [1527 → 1530] was that one true Church, unquote. [1530 → 1532] Again, couldn't agree more. [1533 → 1535] But that is not the teaching [1535 → 1536] of the Vatican II Church, [1537 → 1538] which claims that [1538 → 1540] the mystical body of Christ [1540 → 1542] includes all the baptized [1542 → 1544] regardless of whether [1544 → 1546] they're Lutherans, Anglicans, [1546 → 1548] Orthodox, Presbyterians, [1548 → 1548] or whatever. [1550 → 1551] Charles goes on to denounce, quote, [1551 → 1554] a form of ecclesial utopianism [1554 → 1556] that in its quest [1556 → 1557] for a pure Church [1557 → 1560] has murdered countless souls [1560 → 1562] in the same way political utopianism [1562 → 1564] has murdered [1564 → 1566] countless bodies, unquote. [1568 → 1569] Well, you know, it would have been good [1569 → 1571] if he could have defined [1571 → 1573] what exactly he means by that [1573 → 1575] pure Church, he says, [1575 → 1576] as utopian. [1576 → 1578] If by that he means that the Church [1578 → 1581] only consists of exceptionally holy people, [1581 → 1583] then of course that is utopian [1583 → 1585] and is certainly not the Church [1585 → 1586] founded by Christ, [1586 → 1589] which exists precisely to make [1589 → 1591] sinners holy, and that is [1591 → 1593] typically a lifelong struggle. [1594 → 1595] However, [1595 → 1597] if by that pure Church [1597 → 1599] he means a Church that is the [1599 → 1600] Ark of Salvation, [1601 → 1603] that teaches only salutary doctrine, [1603 → 1605] offers to God the true, [1605 → 1606] and perfect worship, [1607 → 1609] makes holy laws, and sanctifies [1609 → 1611] its people by dispensing [1611 → 1612] the sacraments, [1612 → 1615] then not only is that not utopian, [1616 → 1617] it is in fact [1617 → 1619] a dogma of the faith [1619 → 1621] that the Church is pure [1621 → 1623] and perfect in that way. [1624 → 1626] In the Creed, [1626 → 1627] we profess belief [1627 → 1629] in one holy [1629 → 1631] Catholic and Apostolic [1631 → 1632] Church. [1633 → 1635] In Ephesians 5.27, [1635 → 1637] St. Paul speaks of [1637 → 1639] a glorious Church not having [1639 → 1641] spot or wrinkle or any [1641 → 1643] such thing, but that it [1643 → 1645] should be holy and without [1645 → 1647] blemish. Sounds [1647 → 1648] like a pure Church to me. [1650 → 1651] In the [1651 → 1653] Encyclical Mystici Corporis, [1653 → 1654] paragraph 66, [1655 → 1656] Pope Pius XII writes, [1657 → 1659] certainly the loving Mother [1659 → 1661] he's talking about the Church, [1661 → 1663] certainly the loving Mother is [1663 → 1665] spotless in the sacraments, [1665 → 1667] by which she gives birth to and [1667 → 1668] nourishes her children. [1669 → 1671] In the faith which she has always [1671 → 1673] preserved in violet, in her [1673 → 1675] sacred laws imposed on all, [1675 → 1677] in the evangelical councils [1677 → 1679] which she recommends, in those [1679 → 1681] heavenly gifts and extraordinary [1681 → 1683] graces through which, with an [1683 → 1685] exhaustible fecundity, she generates [1685 → 1687] hosts of martyrs, virgins, [1687 → 1689] and confessors. But it cannot [1689 → 1691] be laid to her charge if some [1691 → 1693] members fall weak or [1693 → 1694] wounded. Unquote. [1695 → 1697] When it comes to the holiness [1697 → 1699] of the Church, Catholic theology [1699 → 1701] distinguishes ontological [1701 → 1703] holiness from moral holiness. [1704 → 1705] The Church's [1705 → 1707] doctrines of faith and morals, [1707 → 1709] her laws, her worship, [1709 → 1711] and her sacraments all pertain [1711 → 1713] to her ontological holiness, [1714 → 1715] and that is a necessary [1715 → 1717] property the Church [1717 → 1719] cannot lose. Yes, [1719 → 1721] the Church can have bad [1721 → 1723] popes, immoral, wicked [1723 → 1725] popes, but she cannot [1725 → 1727] have non-Catholic popes [1727 → 1729] that impose a false religion [1729 → 1731] on the faithful, corrupt [1731 → 1732] the Church's perfect worship, [1733 → 1735] taint the Catholic magisterium, [1735 → 1737] and make laws that lead souls [1737 → 1739] to hell, such as permitting those [1739 → 1741] in public mortal sin to receive [1741 → 1743] the sacrament of Holy Communion. [1744 → 1745] If those [1745 → 1746] things were possible, [1747 → 1749] how then would the Catholic Church be [1749 → 1751] distinguished from heretical [1751 → 1753] sects? What would be the [1753 → 1755] point of such a Church, [1755 → 1757] and how could we take [1757 → 1759] it seriously in its claim [1759 → 1761] to being the Ark of [1761 → 1761] Salvation? [1763 → 1765] To sum up, there are [1765 → 1767] two fundamental errors in [1767 → 1768] Joshua Charles' article, [1769 → 1770] The Catholic Response to Corrupt [1770 → 1772] Cardinals. One, [1773 → 1774] he fails to distinguish sins [1774 → 1777] against faith from sins against [1777 → 1779] morals, and two, he fails [1779 → 1781] to distinguish the personal holiness [1781 → 1783] or lack thereof of [1783 → 1785] clergy from the official [1785 → 1787] exercise of the magisterium [1787 → 1788] of the Church, which cannot [1788 → 1790] mislead souls, cannot preach [1790 → 1793] condemned doctrines, cannot teach [1793 → 1795] errors against the faith. [1795 → 1796] So these are [1796 → 1799] two enormous blunders the author [1799 → 1801] makes, which taint both [1801 → 1803] his analysis and his conclusion. [1804 → 1805] There [1805 → 1806] is no saving the [1806 → 1809] Vatican II Church. If you cannot [1809 → 1810] adhere to it because it teaches [1810 → 1813] modernism and other heresies [1813 → 1813] and errors, [1813 → 1813] then, [1813 → 1816] then it's not the pillar [1816 → 1818] and ground of the truth, [1818 → 1820] not the Ark of Salvation, [1820 → 1822] and not the Roman [1822 → 1824] Catholic Church. It [1824 → 1826] is a diabolical [1826 → 1827] counterfeit. [1829 → 1830] Tradcast Express is a production [1830 → 1832] of Novus Ordo Watch. [1832 → 1834] Check us out at tradcast.org, [1834 → 1836] and if you like what we're doing, please consider [1836 → 1838] making a tax-deductible contribution [1838 → 1841] at novusordowatch.org [1841 → 1842] slash donate. [1843 → 1844] Thank you.