[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 4 → 15] Tradcast Express, it's Tuesday, February 7th, 2023. [ 16 → 20] Can Francis ban the traditional Latin Mass? [ 20 → 26] That was the question discussed by Dr. Taylor Marshall and Mr. Matthew Gaspers [ 26 → 30] in a YouTube video on January 27th of this year. [ 31 → 34] Spoiler alert, their answer was no. [ 35 → 38] Now, of course we know that Francis isn't actually the Pope, [ 38 → 42] but Marshall and Gaspers believe that he is, [ 42 → 46] and they're asking the question under the supposition that he is, in fact, [ 47 → 53] the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Sovereign Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. [ 53 → 56] In this podcast and the next, [ 56 → 61] I'd like to go through their main arguments and provide a much-needed reality check [ 61 → 65] challenging their recognize-and-resist traditionalism. [ 66 → 70] Even if you're not Sedevacantist, you're going to find this podcast [ 70 → 74] insightful, thought-provoking, and worth your time. [ 75 → 80] Let's begin with our first audio clip from Taylor Marshall's YouTube video entitled [ 80 → 83] Can Pope Francis Ban the Latin Mass? [ 83 → 84] Can a Pope... [ 86 → 89] Cancel the Latin Mass? [ 89 → 90] The Roman Rite. [ 91 → 93] I'm with my friend Matt Gaspers. [ 93 → 95] He always does the great research, [ 95 → 98] and he's been looking into this topic of how previous popes, [ 98 → 99] the Council of Trent, [ 99 → 105] understood the relationship between the Pope and the liturgy. [ 105 → 107] Not just the Latin Mass, but all the liturgies, [ 107 → 108] all the rites of the Church. [ 108 → 110] So, real quick, Matt Gaspers, [ 110 → 112] can a Pope cancel the Latin Mass? [ 113 → 116] The short answer is no. [ 116 → 117] Definite no. [ 117 → 118] All right, there's the show right there. [ 118 → 119] And we'll get into all the details. [ 119 → 120] There's the show right there. [ 120 → 124] All right, let's stop right here already and ask ourselves, [ 124 → 128] out of all the people Taylor Marshall could have interviewed on this topic, [ 129 → 132] why do you think he picked Matt Gaspers? [ 133 → 138] Matt Gaspers used to be a catechist for a conservative Novoseldo parish in Colorado [ 138 → 141] before he became a semi-traditionalist. [ 141 → 145] And since 2017, he's been the managing editor of Catholic... [ 146 → 146] ...Family News, [ 147 → 150] which is a relatively small traditionalist publication, [ 151 → 154] mostly for the United States and Canada, I believe. [ 155 → 160] So, he's basically a writer and polemicist for the semi-traditionalists, right? [ 160 → 163] The recognize and resist tracts. [ 164 → 167] All right, so why do you think Marshall chose Gaspers? [ 168 → 175] Why, for example, didn't he choose some Novoseldo seminary professor for liturgy or church history [ 175 → 175] ... [ 175 → 181] who would have genuine and probably pretty deep academic knowledge of the subject, [ 181 → 188] as well as a mandate to teach from the supposedly lawful ecclesiastical authority, [ 188 → 194] and who could probably share a lot more pertinent information than Matt Gaspers. [ 195 → 197] And I'm not trying to knock Gaspers here. [ 197 → 202] I'm trying to challenge the very approach that Marshall is taking. [ 202 → 208] Why invite a semi-trat commentator to answer such an important question? [ 209 → 211] Well, I think the answer is obvious. [ 212 → 217] Marshall chose to interview Gaspers because he knows that Gaspers will tell him [ 217 → 222] that the Pope does not have the authority to suppress the traditional mass. [ 222 → 226] And that's what Marshall also believes and wants to have confirmed, right? [ 226 → 231] He knows what answer he's going to get from Gaspers because, theologically, [ 231 → 233] they're on the same team. [ 234 → 240] In other words, Marshall is choosing a semi-trat writer to confirm his own semi-trat position. [ 240 → 242] That's what's going on here. [ 242 → 248] It's kind of like a Mormon YouTuber inviting on another Mormon and asking him if Mormonism is true. [ 249 → 253] Well, surprise, he's going to tell you, yes, it is. [ 253 → 258] And you know that if Gaspers believed that the Pope has the authority [ 258 → 260] to get rid of the traditional Latin mass, [ 260 → 261] so that everyone now, [ 261 → 263] has to attend the Novels Ordo, [ 264 → 267] then Taylor Marshall would have never invited him on his show. [ 268 → 273] So, I think it's important to give this Marshall-Gaspers video some perspective. [ 274 → 276] Because I fear that a lot of people will think [ 277 → 282] what Marshall and Gaspers are presenting is the result of an objective fact-finding mission. [ 282 → 284] And that's clearly not the case. [ 284 → 287] It's a propaganda video for the semi-trat position. [ 288 → 289] And they can do that. [ 289 → 291] They can produce a video that gives [ 291 → 293] arguments for their position. [ 293 → 295] But let's just be clear up front about it, [ 295 → 297] that that's what it is. [ 298 → 301] See, if Marshall were really trying to determine, [ 301 → 303] objectively and without bias, [ 303 → 307] if Francis has the authority to ban the traditional mass, [ 307 → 309] at the very least, [ 309 → 314] he would also have someone else on who would give him the opposite view of Gaspers, [ 314 → 318] so that people can weigh the arguments of both sides. [ 318 → 321] Better yet, he would have chosen someone to intervene, [ 321 → 325] who actually has proper credentials to be discussing the subject in the first place, [ 325 → 328] like a diocesan seminary professor, [ 328 → 329] or a canon lawyer, [ 329 → 332] or some other genuine liturgical expert. [ 333 → 334] Now, you might say, [ 334 → 337] but those would all be Novus Ordo people. [ 337 → 339] Yes, they would. [ 339 → 342] But that shouldn't be a problem for Taylor Marshall, [ 342 → 344] if Francis is the Pope, [ 344 → 348] and the institution he directs is truly the Roman Catholic Church. [ 349 → 350] I mean, at some point, [ 350 → 354] you're going to have to understand that there are consequences [ 354 → 358] to saying that Francis is the head of the Catholic Church. [ 358 → 361] You can't have a do-it-yourself church [ 361 → 363] where Francis is just good enough to be Pope, [ 363 → 365] so you don't have to be a Sedevacantist, [ 365 → 369] but he's not good enough for what being Pope entails. [ 369 → 372] In other words, you can't have all of the benefits [ 372 → 374] of having Francis as Pope, [ 374 → 376] but then none of the drawbacks. [ 376 → 379] Intellectually, it's just not right. [ 379 → 381] So then, let's pose the question, [ 381 → 384] does a Pope, a true Pope, [ 384 → 387] have the authority to completely abolish [ 387 → 390] the ancient Roman rite of Mass [ 390 → 393] and replace it with a different rite, [ 393 → 397] one that is still orthodox and reverent, but new? [ 397 → 401] My very own personal, non-infallible answer to that is, [ 401 → 405] probably, but I do not know. [ 405 → 407] I simply do not know. [ 407 → 408] What I do know, [ 408 → 413] is that if a Pope does not have that authority, [ 413 → 415] and this is the crux, [ 415 → 421] then he would not be able to issue a decree legislating it. [ 421 → 424] That is where the Semitrads disagree. [ 424 → 428] When they say that the Pope cannot ban the traditional Mass, [ 428 → 432] what they really mean is that when he does do it, [ 432 → 434] it doesn't count. [ 434 → 436] Then his decree isn't valid, [ 436 → 439] and all the truly faithful have to resist it, [ 439 → 441] even, some would argue, [ 441 → 443] to the point of excommunication, [ 443 → 446] like the Society of St. Pius X. [ 446 → 450] And of course, then they would say that the excommunication isn't valid either, [ 450 → 452] and on and on it goes. [ 452 → 455] So, this is really ironic, [ 455 → 458] because it turns out that the Semitraditionalists, [ 458 → 463] who scream the loudest that the Pope cannot suppress the traditional Mass, [ 463 → 465] actually believe that he can. [ 465 → 469] It's just that when he does, it's invalid. [ 469 → 471] And who makes that judgment? [ 471 → 473] Why, they do, of course. [ 473 → 478] Each individual believer as he reads Catholic Family News or The Remnant. [ 478 → 479] You see? [ 479 → 480] So much for, [ 480 → 484] whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. [ 484 → 487] There are things the Pope cannot do. [ 487 → 490] He cannot change the faith, for example. [ 490 → 494] He cannot make an ex cathedra pronouncement defining that God is not eternal. [ 494 → 500] But that means he truly cannot do it. [ 500 → 504] He would drop dead before he could define such a heresy. [ 504 → 507] And that is the key, I think, [ 507 → 510] to understanding all the evidence Gaspers is going to bring up [ 510 → 514] about the Pope not being able to do this or that. [ 514 → 519] He interprets it to mean that the Pope is not allowed to do those things, [ 519 → 522] but nevertheless quite capable of doing them. [ 522 → 524] And when he does them, [ 524 → 526] it's invalid and the faithful have to reject it [ 526 → 529] until the Pope relents and withdraws the bad decree. [ 529 → 532] That is the semi-trad understanding of things. [ 532 → 534] The funny thing is, [ 534 → 539] they can never point to any theology books that actually say that. [ 539 → 541] At least they never quote any. [ 541 → 542] All right. [ 542 → 547] Let's go ahead and listen some more to Taylor Marshall and Mad Gaspers. [ 547 → 549] Even from apostolic times, [ 549 → 551] liturgical stability has played a vital role. [ 551 → 556] In maintaining unity and integrity of faith for the universal church, [ 556 → 557] precisely because, [ 557 → 559] as the church has always taught, [ 559 → 561] lex orandi lex credendi, [ 561 → 563] the law of prayer is the law of belief. [ 563 → 564] In other words, [ 564 → 566] the church's liturgy, [ 566 → 568] her public worship and prayer, [ 568 → 572] shows forth and gives expression to the deposit of faith. [ 572 → 576] So you can't go tampering with the church's lex orandi [ 576 → 580] to such a degree that it starts to alter the lex credendi. [ 580 → 582] That's what's at stake here. [ 582 → 583] Okay. [ 583 → 587] So here Gaspers is actually going beyond the mere question [ 587 → 591] of whether a Pope can abolish the traditional mass. [ 591 → 594] The question Gaspers is introducing here [ 594 → 597] is whether a Pope can abolish the traditional rite of mass [ 597 → 602] and replace it with a new rite that is heretical, [ 602 → 608] erroneous, sacrilegious, impious, harmful, and so forth. [ 608 → 609] Well, now, [ 609 → 611] that's a different topic altogether [ 611 → 613] and should be asked separately. [ 613 → 616] But it's definitely one that has great relevance [ 616 → 622] because that's exactly what the false Pope Paul VI did in 1969 [ 622 → 625] and afterwards with the other sacraments. [ 625 → 629] Not only did he abolish the old liturgy, [ 629 → 632] the traditional mass and sacramental rites, [ 632 → 635] he replaced them with false rites, [ 635 → 638] that is, with rites that do not express [ 638 → 641] the same traditional Catholic faith. [ 641 → 642] And of course, [ 642 → 646] that was the whole point of the liturgical reform, [ 646 → 648] well, revolution really, [ 648 → 649] to begin with, right? [ 649 → 652] It was about changing the faith. [ 652 → 656] They needed to make changes to all the liturgical rites [ 656 → 661] in order to bring them in line with the new conciliar teachings. [ 661 → 663] They needed them to be updated [ 663 → 667] to reflect the new religion of Vatican II. [ 667 → 671] That the Catholic Church cannot possibly introduce [ 671 → 675] a rite of mass for the entire Church that is sacrilegious [ 675 → 678] or teaches heresy is obvious. [ 678 → 683] But again, that means the Church truly cannot do it, [ 683 → 687] not that she can and then everybody has to protest. [ 687 → 691] We can see this, for example, in the Council of Trent. [ 691 → 692] Quote, [ 692 → 696] If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, [ 696 → 700] and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses [ 700 → 705] in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety [ 705 → 710] rather than the services of piety, let him be anathema. [ 710 → 711] Unquote. [ 711 → 716] That's the Council of Trent Session 22, Canon 7, [ 716 → 720] and you can find that in Denzinger 954. [ 720 → 725] Likewise, Pope Pius VI, writing in his 1794, [ 725 → 731] Apostolic Constitution, auctorum fide, number 78, [ 731 → 735] rejects a particular error the robber synod of Pistoia put forth [ 735 → 737] and concludes, quote, [ 737 → 741] As if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, [ 741 → 745] could have established discipline which is not only useless [ 745 → 748] and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, [ 748 → 751] but which is even dangerous and harmful [ 751 → 754] and leading to superstition and materialism. [ 754 → 756] Unquote. [ 756 → 759] Such an idea, the Pope says, is, quote, [ 759 → 765] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, [ 765 → 768] injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God [ 768 → 772] by whom it is guided, at least erroneous. [ 772 → 773] Unquote. [ 773 → 777] You can look that up in Denzinger 1578. [ 777 → 778] All right. [ 778 → 782] So, going back to Mad Gaspers, he brings up Canon 13 [ 782 → 785] of the Council of Trent, Session 7. [ 785 → 786] Quote, [ 786 → 789] If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites [ 789 → 792] of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used [ 792 → 795] in the solemn administration of the sacraments, [ 795 → 799] may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin [ 799 → 803] and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the Churches [ 803 → 807] to other new ones, let him be anathema. [ 807 → 809] Unquote. [ 809 → 812] So, now, here the debate is always whether or not [ 812 → 817] any pastor of the Churches includes the Pope or not. [ 817 → 820] Personally, I'm sure it doesn't include the Pope, [ 820 → 824] but for right now, without researching this in depth, [ 824 → 827] the point is that if Gaspers and Marshall think [ 827 → 830] it does include the Pope, fine. [ 830 → 832] But then they have to prove that, [ 832 → 834] and they definitely haven't done that. [ 834 → 836] So, let's move on. [ 836 → 838] So, now what we're going to see, [ 838 → 841] after we've seen what the Council of Trent taught, [ 841 → 844] what were the Pope's understanding of these teachings? [ 844 → 847] And I think we have a very clear indication of that [ 847 → 849] in a couple of quotes I'm going to read now. [ 849 → 851] Wait, are you saying that Popes other than Francis [ 851 → 853] have a say in this? [ 853 → 855] Yes. [ 855 → 857] Now, aren't we Francis alone? [ 857 → 859] Isn't that the new way? [ 859 → 862] We just listen to Francis? [ 862 → 865] Or do other Popes, do they get a say on these things? [ 865 → 868] I'm sure there are some people who are Francis alone. [ 868 → 869] I think we know who they are. [ 869 → 870] Right. Yeah. [ 870 → 873] We definitely need to be listening to the magisterium of all time [ 873 → 878] and not just the magisterium of the current pontiff. [ 878 → 880] Ah, listen to that. [ 880 → 883] The magisterium of all time. [ 883 → 888] Now, I would love to know where Matt Gaspers got that concept, [ 888 → 891] other than from some Lefebvris piece of literature. [ 891 → 895] I have never seen in any pre-Vatican II theology book [ 895 → 899] or church document any kind of distinction between [ 899 → 904] a magisterium of all time, that we always have to follow, [ 904 → 907] and then a magisterium of the present, [ 907 → 912] that we only follow if it agrees with that magisterium of all time. [ 912 → 916] I mean, that is simply an invention of the Lefebvrists, basically, right? [ 916 → 920] Society of St. Pius X people. [ 920 → 926] So, first, let's ask ourselves if what Gaspers says here even makes any sense. [ 926 → 929] His position is that, on the one hand, [ 929 → 934] a liturgical decree from a pope of four or five centuries ago [ 934 → 937] was binding on the entire church, [ 937 → 942] not only then, but even now, and forever into the future. [ 942 → 949] And yet, a liturgical decree of the present pope can and must be rejected. [ 949 → 955] But why should a document from 500 years ago be binding today [ 955 → 958] if a document from today isn't binding today? [ 959 → 963] The way things actually work in the Catholic Church [ 963 → 968] is that by adhering loyally to the papal magisterium of the present, [ 968 → 974] you are automatically guaranteed to be adhering to the prior magisterium [ 974 → 976] and to the deposit of faith. [ 976 → 980] That is the beautiful miracle of the papacy. [ 980 → 985] Remember, the papacy is God's work, not man's. [ 985 → 988] God created the papacy, not man. [ 989 → 993] Distinguishing a pristine magisterium of the past [ 993 → 997] from a soiled magisterium of the present makes no sense, [ 997 → 1000] and it's certainly not a Catholic concept. [1000 → 1004] The magisterium stands and falls as a whole. [1004 → 1008] If the magisterium of the present could be a theological junkyard, [1008 → 1013] which is precisely what we see with the false popes since Vatican II, [1013 → 1015] especially Francis, [1015 → 1018] then there's no reason why the magisterium of the past [1018 → 1021] should have a guarantee of orthodoxy. [1021 → 1023] It's all or nothing, [1023 → 1028] because the same authority that stands behind one pope's magisterium, [1028 → 1030] namely Jesus Christ, [1030 → 1035] also stands behind the magisterium of all other popes. [1035 → 1040] Each individual pope is the vicar of Christ. [1040 → 1045] In 1885, Pope Leo XIII addressed that, [1045 → 1047] because I'm not entirely sure [1047 → 1050] about the historical situation now, [1050 → 1053] but I think some Catholics had been arguing [1053 → 1057] that because Pope Leo's directives to the Catholics in France, [1057 → 1060] with regard to their secularist government, [1060 → 1064] differed from the directives of Pope Pius IX, [1064 → 1069] therefore they could simply dismiss Pope Leo's instructions [1069 → 1073] and revert back to what Pius IX had said. [1073 → 1076] And Leo XIII shot that down. [1076 → 1079] On June 17, 1885, [1079 → 1083] he wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Paris and said, [1083 → 1084] quote, [1084 → 1088] It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere [1088 → 1093] to set up some kind of opposition between one pontiff and another. [1093 → 1097] Those who, faced with two differing directives, [1097 → 1100] reject the present one to hold to the past [1100 → 1104] are not giving proof of obedience to the authority [1104 → 1107] which has the right and duty to guide them. [1107 → 1110] And in some ways they resemble those who, [1110 → 1112] on receiving a condemnation, [1112 → 1115] would wish to appeal to a future council [1115 → 1117] or to a pope who is better informed. [1117 → 1120] On this point, what must be remembered [1120 → 1122] is that in the government of the Church, [1122 → 1126] except for the essential duties imposed on all pontiffs [1126 → 1128] by their apostolic office, [1128 → 1132] each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best [1132 → 1135] according to times and circumstances. [1135 → 1139] Of this, he alone is the judge. [1139 → 1143] It is true that for this he has not only special lights, [1143 → 1147] but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions [1147 → 1149] of the whole of Christendom, [1149 → 1154] for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. [1154 → 1159] He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, [1159 → 1162] to which is subordinate any particular need, [1162 → 1165] and all others who are subject to this order [1165 → 1168] must second the action of the supreme director [1168 → 1172] and serve the end which he has in view. [1172 → 1175] Since the Church is one, and her head is one, [1175 → 1178] so too her government is one, [1178 → 1183] and all must conform to this." [1183 → 1188] That's from the letter Epistolatua of Pope Leo XIII, [1188 → 1191] and we've got it linked in the show notes. [1191 → 1195] Similarly, Pope St. Pius X stated that [1195 → 1198] the first and greatest criterion of the faith, [1198 → 1202] the ultimate and unassailable test of Orthodoxy, [1202 → 1206] is obedience to the teaching authority of the Church, [1206 → 1209] which is ever-living and infallible, [1209 → 1211] since she was established by Christ [1211 → 1215] to be the columna et firmamentum veritatis, [1215 → 1220] the pillar and support of truth . [1221 → 1226] And the same Pope Pius X went on to say, [1226 → 1227] quote, [1227 → 1229] This is why St. Paul says, [1229 → 1232] Feed us ex auditu . [1232 → 1236] Faith comes not by sight, but by hearing, [1236 → 1238] from the living authority of the Church, [1238 → 1242] a visible society composed of masters and disciples, [1242 → 1244] of rulers and of governed, [1244 → 1247] of shepherds and sheep and lambs. [1247 → 1250] Jesus Christ himself has laid on his disciples [1250 → 1254] the duty of hearing the instructions of their masters, [1254 → 1258] on subjects of living in submission to the dictates of rulers, [1258 → 1260] on sheep and lambs, [1260 → 1265] following with docility in the footsteps of their shepherds. [1265 → 1266] Unquote. [1266 → 1272] That's from the address Convera Sodisfazione of May 10th, 1909, [1272 → 1275] and that's linked in the show notes as well. [1275 → 1280] So you can see here how important the Pope issue is. [1280 → 1281] Right? [1281 → 1285] The question whether the popes after Pius XII were true popes or not. [1285 → 1287] These things really matter. [1287 → 1290] Theology has consequences. [1290 → 1295] Gaspers and Marshall believe that Francis is that living authority, [1295 → 1300] and they refuse to follow him and let him guide them in the way of salvation. [1300 → 1305] Instead, they sit in judgment of him and decide what they will accept from him [1305 → 1306] and what they won't, [1306 → 1309] and they appeal to some supposed magisterium [1309 → 1313] of all time that can overrule the present one. [1313 → 1315] Nonsense. [1315 → 1318] The only way to get out of this conundrum [1318 → 1321] is to hold that Francis is not the pope [1321 → 1324] and that we haven't had a pope for decades. [1324 → 1327] And, of course, then people rightly ask, [1327 → 1331] so where is your living magisterial authority? [1331 → 1333] Where is your pope? [1333 → 1337] Well, that is the great mystery of our time. [1337 → 1339] What the heck happened? [1339 → 1342] Where is the magisterium? [1342 → 1344] I don't know. [1344 → 1347] But I do know where it's not. [1347 → 1352] And we're not going to solve this by changing the traditional teaching. [1352 → 1356] You cannot keep the faith by changing the faith. [1356 → 1361] Look, it's not our fault that we don't have all the answers. [1361 → 1367] But let's at least start by rejecting those things we know to be false. [1367 → 1369] As I've said in a prior podcast, [1369 → 1372] I don't know, without using a calculator, [1372 → 1376] what 251 divided by 7 is. [1376 → 1380] But I do know it's not 135. [1380 → 1383] So, just because you don't have all the answers [1383 → 1387] doesn't mean you can't know which answers are false. [1387 → 1392] Alright, next, Gaspers brings up the Tridentine profession of faith [1392 → 1396] promulgated by Pope Pius IV in 1564. [1396 → 1397] Quote, [1397 → 1401] I also admit and accept the rights received and approved [1401 → 1404] in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration [1404 → 1407] of all the sacraments mentioned above. [1407 → 1408] Unquote. [1408 → 1411] That's the translation used by Gaspers. [1411 → 1417] The one found in the traditional Denzinger number 996 reads as follows. [1417 → 1418] Quote, [1418 → 1422] I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rights [1422 → 1425] of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration [1425 → 1428] of all the aforesaid sacraments. [1428 → 1429] Unquote. [1429 → 1433] Well, I really don't know how that's supposed to be [1433 → 1436] some kind of slam-dunk proof text. [1436 → 1438] Gaspers comments as follows. [1438 → 1443] Clearly, this pope is recognizing I am not an absolute monarch, [1443 → 1446] to quote Benedict XVI and Cardinal Ratzinger, [1446 → 1449] whose will is just magically the law. [1449 → 1452] I am bound by things that are above me [1452 → 1455] and over which I don't have authority to change. [1455 → 1459] Oh, look how Joseph Ratzinger is suddenly to be followed [1459 → 1462] when he says something they agree with. [1462 → 1466] Well, no doubt there are things that the pope cannot change, [1466 → 1469] like the dogmas of the faith, for example, [1469 → 1472] but what the Tridentine profession of faith says [1472 → 1476] regarding the received and approved sacramental rights [1476 → 1480] does not support Gaspers' thesis that the pope can issue a decree [1480 → 1484] changing the rite of mass and then it's invalid [1484 → 1486] and everyone has to resist it. [1486 → 1491] That is obviously not what that profession of faith is saying. [1491 → 1494] Marshall and Gaspers continue. [1494 → 1496] So the pope is under tradition. [1496 → 1498] The pope is under tradition. [1498 → 1499] Yes. [1499 → 1501] This is the traditional argument here. [1501 → 1505] The pope is the guardian of tradition. [1505 → 1506] He's the servant of tradition. [1506 → 1508] He cannot create new traditions. [1508 → 1510] He cannot create new books of the Bible. [1510 → 1512] He cannot create anything. [1512 → 1513] Right. [1513 → 1517] He receives the apostolic deposit given by Jesus Christ [1517 → 1520] to the apostles and he preserves it over time. [1520 → 1523] Yeah, well, Francis sure doesn't. [1523 → 1526] If that's what the pope does, [1526 → 1529] then how can you say Francis is the pope [1529 → 1532] when he does the exact opposite? [1532 → 1536] So they say the pope is under tradition. [1536 → 1539] Again, that is true in a sense, [1539 → 1542] but not in the sense in which they mean it. [1542 → 1547] You cannot reject papal teaching by appealing to tradition. [1547 → 1552] In fact, it is part of tradition that you must accept papal teaching. [1552 → 1555] Let that sink in for a moment. [1555 → 1560] It's true that the pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith, [1560 → 1563] but that doesn't mean what Marshall and Gaspers think it means. [1563 → 1568] They think it means the pope can contradict the deposit of faith, [1568 → 1571] but when he does, his teaching or legislation has no value. [1571 → 1574] In fact, it is dangerous, then, [1574 → 1579] and requires all other authorities and people in the church to resist it [1579 → 1583] and basically admonish the pope and tell him to get his act together. [1583 → 1587] Funny, but they never quote a dogmatic theology manual [1587 → 1590] from before Vatican II that says that, [1590 → 1594] obviously because that's simply not what the church teaches. [1594 → 1599] Instead, the true teaching was expressed by St. Robert Bellarmine. [1599 → 1600] Quote, [1600 → 1604] The pope is the teacher and shepherd of the whole church. [1604 → 1608] Thus the whole church is so bound to hear and follow him [1608 → 1612] that if he would err, the whole church would err. [1612 → 1616] Now, our adversaries, and yes, he says adversaries, [1616 → 1623] respond that the church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly. [1623 → 1626] For God must be heard more than men. [1626 → 1628] On the other hand, [1628 → 1631] who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not. [1632 → 1636] For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, [1637 → 1640] not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. [1641 → 1648] Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. [1648 → 1652] As we showed above, from the whole church one can appeal to the Pope, [1652 → 1656] yet from him no one is able to appeal. [1657 → 1662] Therefore, necessarily, the whole church will err if the pontiff would err." [1663 → 1672] That's St. Robert Bellarmine from his book On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 3. [1673 → 1676] And that was the Ryan Grant translation. [1677 → 1680] There's also a translation out there by Father Kenneth Baker. [1681 → 1682] So, [1682 → 1687] nothing there about going by tradition when the Pope teaches nonsense. [1688 → 1692] And that's not because we don't want to go by tradition, [1692 → 1695] it's because the Pope cannot teach nonsense. [1696 → 1698] All right, ladies and gentlemen, [1698 → 1701] we're about halfway through the Marshall Gaspers video, [1702 → 1707] and we'll stop here for today and take care of the rest in the next podcast. [1708 → 1708] Stay tuned. [1709 → 1712] Tradcast Express is a production of Novus Ordo Watch. [1712 → 1715] Check us out at Tradcast.org. [1715 → 1716] And if you like what we're doing, [1717 → 1722] please consider making a tax-deductible contribution at NovusOrdoWatch.org.