[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 30 → 39] January 27th. You can find part one of our critique in Tradcast Express 169, published on [ 39 → 46] February 7th. Probably the key takeaway from that episode is that Matt Gaspers has provided a few [ 46 → 53] Catholic quotes that could be read as saying that a pope does not have the authority to abolish the [ 53 → 60] traditional Roman rite of mass, but there are two ways to understand such a lack of authority [ 60 → 67] and Gaspers has not proven that the way he understands it is the correct way. Let me explain. [ 68 → 74] To say that a pope cannot abolish the traditional Roman rite of mass could be understood in the [ 74 → 82] sense that if he does issue a decree abolishing it, that decree is automatically null, void, [ 82 → 89] and worthless, and the cardinals, bishops, priests, and all the faithful are morally required to put [ 89 → 90] it through the schwein. [ 90 → 97] So to speak, and that's that. That is Gaspers' position and, in general, the position of the [ 97 → 105] recognize-and-resist traditionalists. The other way to understand that a pope cannot abolish the [ 105 → 113] traditional Roman rite of mass is to say that because he cannot do it, no true pope ever will [ 113 → 119] publish legislation abolishing the traditional mass. And only that position, [ 119 → 126] really makes sense because it alone harmonizes with the promised divine assistance to the papal [ 126 → 134] office. The Gaspers' position does not involve any protection of the papacy in that regard and [ 134 → 141] basically just means that the inferiors have to make sure that the pope won't get away with [ 141 → 148] legislating things he's not supposed to legislate. And that would mean that the papacy is not [ 148 → 149] distinguishable. [ 149 → 157] In that respect, from any merely human institution. Keeping all that in mind, we can now continue with [ 157 → 166] the next soundbite from that video, beginning at the 28 minute and two second mark. This is [ 166 → 171] Matt Gaspers speaking to Taylor Marshall. The other quote I want to share with you is from [ 171 → 178] Pope Pius IX in his profession of faith, January 6th, 1870, at the beginning of Vatican I, because [ 178 → 186] this is the pope who defined papal primacy and infallibility. So people often, the hyper-papalists [ 186 → 193] often point to him as saying, well, look, you know, he has supreme, he defined the pope as supreme [ 193 → 199] jurisdiction and everything. So obviously he can change whatever he wants, right? No, wrong. Very [ 199 → 207] wrong. This is what Pius IX said, January 6th, 1870. He's basically quoting from the Tridentine [ 207 → 208] profession of faith of, you know, the Pope. He's saying, well, look, he has supreme, he defined the [ 208 → 208] pope as supreme. So he's saying, well, look, he has supreme, he defined the pope as supreme. So [ 208 → 215] Pius IV, as you'll hear, apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and [ 215 → 223] constitutions of that same Catholic church, I most firmly accept and embrace. I profess also that [ 223 → 229] there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord [ 229 → 236] Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation. And here he says what Pius IV did. I likewise receive [ 236 → 238] and accept the rights of the Catholic church and the rights of the Catholic church and the rights [ 238 → 243] of the Catholic church, which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all [ 243 → 251] the aforesaid sacraments. So again, note this very well, everyone listening. The same pontiff [ 251 → 257] who defined papal infallibility and reaffirmed, quote, the full and supreme power of jurisdiction [ 257 → 264] over the whole church in pastor eternus, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, [ 264 → 268] but also those that pertain to the discipline and government of the church, the same pope, [ 268 → 275] who did that, also clearly recognized, as I just read to you, that he himself was bound to, quote, [ 275 → 283] firmly accept and embrace not only apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, including the rights of [ 283 → 288] the Catholic, the received and approved rights of the church, but also all other observances and [ 288 → 294] constitutions of the church. So the very pope who defined papal primacy and infallibility is [ 294 → 298] recognizing, I'm not an absolute monarch whose will, [ 298 → 306] is the law. I am underneath these other things. Okay, fine. For the sake of argument, let's say [ 306 → 313] that this proves that the pope cannot abolish the traditional Roman right of mass. But then [ 313 → 322] it means precisely that, that he cannot do it. Not that he can, and then everybody has to tell [ 322 → 328] him to go fly a kite. See, ironically, it is actually Matt Gaspers who believes, [ 328 → 336] that the pope can abolish the traditional mass. He's just not allowed to, and so then it doesn't [ 336 → 343] count. Now, I'm not conceding that what Gaspers just quoted there from Pope Pius IX necessarily [ 343 → 350] means or implies that no pope can validly abolish the traditional Roman right of mass [ 350 → 358] and replace it with another perfectly orthodox and sacred right. After all, the words speak [ 358 → 365] of the rights of the Catholic Church, which have been received and approved in the solemn [ 365 → 372] administration of all the sacraments. Well, obviously, if the pope revokes the approval [ 372 → 379] for a particular right, then it is no longer a right that has been received and approved. [ 380 → 386] Furthermore, as far as embracing and accepting all apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, [ 386 → 388] surely that requires [ 388 → 396] or at least admits of interpretation. For example, Holy Communion used to be given to [ 396 → 403] infants, and I believe in the Eastern Churches that is still done. However, in the Latin Church, [ 403 → 411] that was discontinued at some point. In his 1910 decree Qua Singulare, Pope St. Pius X [ 411 → 415] writes about this as follows, quote, [ 418 → 434] Qua Singulare says, [ 434 → 448] Qua Singulare says, [ 448 → 448] Qua Singulare says, [ 448 → 455] also frequently thereafter, were admitted to the sacred repast. In some churches, it was the custom [ 455 → 462] to give the Eucharist to the children immediately after the clergy. In others, the small fragments [ 462 → 468] which remained after the communion of the adults were given to the children. This practice later [ 468 → 474] died out in the Latin church, and children were not permitted to approach the holy table until [ 474 → 481] they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august sacrament. This [ 481 → 489] new practice, note well, new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly [ 489 → 499] confirmed by the fourth council of the Lateran in 1215. Unquote. So, yeah, I think all this is a bit [ 499 → 503] more complicated and nuanced than Gaspers thinks. [ 503 → 504] The bottom line is that the Eucharist is not a new practice. It is a new practice. [ 504 → 511] The bottom line is this. The papacy is of divine institution, and God has promised his assistance [ 511 → 518] not merely of infallibility for ex cathedra pronouncements, but of safe guidance for the [ 518 → 525] church generally, such that people can safely entrust themselves like little children to Holy [ 525 → 533] Mother Church, guided by Christ's very own vicar. It is then for the Pope to determine, legislate, [ 533 → 534] and judge. [ 534 → 542] After all, Christ's words, what you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, were to St. Peter, [ 543 → 546] and not to YouTubers from Texas or journalists from Colorado. [ 548 → 554] All right, next we'll see how Gaspers deals with the following words from Pope Pius XII, [ 555 → 561] from the encyclical Mediator Dei, paragraph 58. Quote, [ 561 → 568] It follows from this that the sovereign pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish [ 568 → 576] any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to [ 576 → 583] modify those he judges to require modification. Unquote. Again, that's Pope Pius XII, encyclical [ 583 → 588] Mediator Dei. Gaspers says this, [ 588 → 590] Pius XII did not say, [ 591 → 597] that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or even the Pope himself, has the right to abolish the received [ 597 → 603] and approved rites of the Catholic Church. He said that the sovereign pontiff alone enjoys the right [ 603 → 610] to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to guard and preserve what [ 610 → 617] he's received, to introduce and approve new rites, which doesn't necessarily mean an entirely new [ 617 → 621] liturgical rite for the whole mass. In the Council of Trinity, he said, that the sovereign pontiff [ 621 → 627] that word rite referred to things like mystical blessings, candles, incense, lesser things. [ 627 → 635] Okay, so in other words, it's not clear what Pius XII meant, but then it doesn't exclude the idea [ 635 → 642] of a whole new rite of mass either. Mr. Gaspers, you're only giving opinions here. You're not [ 642 → 648] proving anything. And he said also to modify those he judges to require modification. He is not [ 648 → 651] saying, I have a wholesale right to get rid of the rite of mass. I have a wholesale right to get rid of the rite of mass. [ 651 → 654] I have a wholesale right to get rid of the traditional Latin mass. That's simply not what [ 654 → 662] he's saying at all. Okay, but remember, Paul VI wasn't claiming to be getting rid of the entire [ 662 → 668] Roman rite either. He claimed to be merely introducing revisions to the rite, albeit [ 668 → 674] considerable ones. So that would be in line with Pius XII's teaching that the Roman pontiff can [ 674 → 681] modify rites he judges to require modification. In reality, [ 681 → 688] you can say, yes, Paul VI did introduce a new rite. But my point is that that's not what was [ 688 → 695] said officially. If you look at the Vatican's documents, they always speak about the reform [ 695 → 700] of the Roman rite, not about the creation of the new rite. [ 700 → 703] And he goes on in the very next paragraph, actually, he says, [ 711 → 720] provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. And as we know from the Ottaviani [ 720 → 726] intervention, the brief critical study of the mass, of the new mass, rather, that's precisely [ 726 → 731] what's at stake here is the integrity of her doctrine in the new liturgical rite. [ 731 → 740] Exactly. Now, of course, a true pope could never crank out such impious junk as the Novus Ordo rite [ 740 → 741] of mass. We're in the middle of a period of time where we're in the middle of a period of time where [ 741 → 744] we're in the middle of a period of time where we're in agreement on that. But the point is that [ 744 → 752] the only possible explanation for why Paul VI was nonetheless able to promulgate this evil rite [ 752 → 762] is that he wasn't a true pope. That is crucial. The idea that the Roman pontiff could promulgate [ 762 → 769] to the universal church a rite of mass that attacks or undermines Catholic dogma or doctrine [ 769 → 778] is absurd. So it's impossible that Paul VI was a true pope. And in fact, Taylor Marshall now [ 778 → 785] throws that objection at Gaspers for the sake of argument and asks if that doesn't mean that we [ 785 → 791] need to be Sedevacantists now. But unfortunately, Marshall doesn't quite phrase the question [ 791 → 798] correctly. He doesn't ask how it would be possible for a true pope to produce a heretical, [ 798 → 806] bad, evil, sacrilegious, harmful rite of mass. I would love to hear Gaspers' response to that. [ 807 → 814] Instead, he asks him how a true pope could abolish the ancient Roman mass and reset it. [ 814 → 822] And Gaspers conveniently answers that, well, he didn't really do that. Take a listen. [ 822 → 824] It's very important to understand [ 824 → 834] that as Benedict XVI finally acknowledged in the year 2007 that the 1962 Missal, in his words, [ 834 → 840] quote, was never juridically abrogated and consequently, in principle, was always permitted. [ 841 → 848] So even if it was Paul VI's will that all of us get on board with the Novus Ordo and leave [ 848 → 854] the traditional mass behind, he technically never abrogated it. That's simply a historical fact. [ 854 → 861] Which is awesome. Which means if you were a priest in 1974 and you're like, I don't want to do the [ 861 → 867] Novus Ordo, I'm using the old one. Technically, he was right. The old mass was not abrogated. [ 868 → 868] Correct. [ 870 → 880] Wrong. I'm sorry, but that's actually not correct. Now, it is true, of course, that Benedict XVI said [ 880 → 884] that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated. [ 884 → 893] Meaning that Paul VI never actually abolished it. But that was a lie. And that's quite easy [ 893 → 902] to prove, actually, simply by looking at what Paul VI actually wrote. In his so-called apostolic [ 902 → 912] constitution, Missale Romanum of April 3rd, 1969, Paul VI notes in various places that what he's [ 912 → 914] publishing is a revision. [ 914 → 914] Right. [ 914 → 922] Of the Missal of St. Pius V. An adaptation, not a new separate rite of mass that can be used [ 922 → 931] as an alternative, but rather a recomposed Roman Missal. Then he outlines some of the changes and [ 931 → 935] ends by saying these solemn words, quote, [ 935 → 943] We order that the prescriptions of this constitution go into effect November 30th of [ 943 → 951] this year, the first Sunday of Advent. We wish that these our decrees and prescriptions may be firm [ 951 → 959] and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions [ 959 → 967] and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving [ 967 → 971] particular mention and derogation. Unquote. [ 972 → 973] Unquote. [ 973 → 976] That is a formula for abrogation. [ 977 → 986] The canonist Archbishop Amleto Siconiani states very clearly in his 1935 book on the Code of [ 986 → 995] Canon Law that the Pope doesn't have to say, we hereby abrogate. He can say that, of course, [ 995 → 1002] but a more typical way for a law to be revoked by the legislator is by him, quote, inserting [1002 → 1024] abrogatory or derogatory clauses as is common in decrees, re-scripts, and other pontifical acts, such as notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention. Unquote. [1024 → 1029] That's from page 629, and I've got this linked in the show notes. [1029 → 1031] Unquote. [1031 → 1032] Unquote. [1032 → 1045] This means that Paul VI was making it abundantly clear that what he had just decreed concerning the Roman Missal superseded anything and everything that had come before it. [1045 → 1059] In other words, if Paul VI was a true Pope, then the Roman rite as found in Pope Pius V's Quo Primum, which we typically call the traditional Latin Mass, is history, [1059 → 1069] as it has been authoritatively revised in such a way that it is now what we typically call the New Mass, or the Novus Ordo Mass. [1070 → 1075] If Paul VI was a true Pope, that's what you would have to conclude. [1075 → 1084] The rite as it was prior to the Novus Ordo revisions, basically the 1962 Missal, was no longer permitted, [1084 → 1088] which, by the way, is the reason why priests who still... [1089 → 1094] wanted to use it, needed an indult to do so. [1095 → 1102] An indult is a special permission granted by the lawgiver for something that would not otherwise be permitted. [1103 → 1107] Archbishop Siconiani defines indult as, quote, [1107 → 1118] faculties and favors which the legislator benevolently grants for a time either outside the law or contrary to the same. [1119 → 1119] Unquote. [1119 → 1122] It's on page 477. [1124 → 1131] An indult for the traditional Mass was needed between 1969 and 2007 [1131 → 1135] because the traditional Mass had been forbidden. [1136 → 1141] It had been abolished by the modernist Vatican. [1141 → 1144] Such are the historical facts. [1145 → 1149] Benedict XVI's claim, then, that the traditional... [1149 → 1154] Latin Mass wasn't really abolished by Paul VI, was a lie. [1155 → 1156] It's simply not true. [1157 → 1161] But it was a lie that worked in the Semitrads' favor. [1161 → 1168] And perhaps that is the reason why they never noticed, or simply didn't care, that it was historically false. [1169 → 1172] Okay, now, let's return to Matt Gaspers. [1173 → 1177] Maybe I was a little too quick in my refutation here because... [1177 → 1179] Listen to what else he says. [1179 → 1183] About the traditional Mass never having been repealed. [1183 → 1186] And it wasn't because it can't be. [1186 → 1187] I mean, that's the point. [1187 → 1189] And that's the point that Benedict made in his... [1190 → 1194] That quote I just read is from his letter to bishops in reference to Samorum Pontificum, [1195 → 1196] the attachment to it, you might say. [1197 → 1198] He goes on in that same letter, [1198 → 1204] What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too. [1204 → 1209] And it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. [1209 → 1214] Ah, see, it wasn't abolished because it cannot be. [1215 → 1221] In other words, who cares what Paul VI actually said or decreed? [1221 → 1224] If we decide he cannot do it, then it means nothing. [1225 → 1234] So, I guess a Catholic can't go by the words of the Pope, even legislation, in an apostolic constitution. [1235 → 1238] Rather, he first needs to check with his favorite Semitrad official, [1239 → 1242] pseudo-authority, to see if it's any good. [1242 → 1249] But then it gets really messy if the Semitrad pundits disagree with one another. [1250 → 1256] Imagine if Athanasius Schneider says one thing and Carlo Maria Viganò says the opposite. [1256 → 1257] Then what? [1258 → 1263] Well, see, a Catholic would say that you simply turn to the Pope. [1264 → 1265] And that's the end of it. [1265 → 1268] But then that doesn't work for the recognize and resist people, [1268 → 1274] since they've already decided that the Pope is not the final authority, [1274 → 1276] at least not when they disagree with him. [1277 → 1278] It's a madhouse. [1279 → 1284] Now, I love how Benedict XVI is always quoted as saying that [1284 → 1289] what was sacred for the prior generations is still sacred for us today. [1290 → 1297] Well, that's very nice to say, but with regard to the liturgical revolution after Vatican II, [1297 → 1298] it simply is... [1298 → 1304] He's whitewashing the liturgical crimes after the Council. [1305 → 1306] That's all this is. [1306 → 1308] And when I say liturgical crimes, [1309 → 1312] I don't even mean any abuses that were taking place. [1312 → 1317] I'm just talking about the official legislation coming from the Vatican. [1318 → 1321] All right, let's go back to Matt Gaspers and Taylor Marshall. [1322 → 1325] Gaspers is still quoting Benedict XVI. [1325 → 1328] It behooves all of us to preserve the religious, [1328 → 1332] which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, [1332 → 1334] and to give them their proper place. [1335 → 1339] That is the traditional Catholic understanding of liturgy right there. [1339 → 1345] And that might be one of the most important legacies of Pope Benedict XVI, [1346 → 1350] to say what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too, [1350 → 1355] and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. [1355 → 1358] And there's apologists out there. [1358 → 1365] Who say that the traditional Latin mass that is harmful, [1365 → 1369] it's considered harmful, it's bad, it's leading people into schism. [1369 → 1371] It's being weaponized. [1372 → 1373] It's being weaponized. [1373 → 1379] And Benedict says, no, it cannot be considered harmful. [1379 → 1382] And it behooves all of us to preserve the riches, [1382 → 1385] which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer. [1386 → 1388] Well, but the traditional mass, [1388 → 1393] is harmful to the new religion of Vatican II. [1394 → 1396] That's why it had to go. [1397 → 1400] And that is why Francis is fighting it so much. [1401 → 1405] See, at first the idea was that the new mass would simply [1405 → 1408] replace the traditional mass more or less overnight. [1409 → 1410] And that will be that. [1411 → 1416] But then with all the stress being caused by the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, [1416 → 1418] the Society of St. Pius X, [1418 → 1422] John Paul II decided it might be a good idea [1422 → 1426] to still let people have the traditional mass [1426 → 1431] if that prevents them from attaching themselves to Lefebvre. [1432 → 1437] And so in 1984, he allowed a limited indult for the traditional mass. [1438 → 1444] And then four years later, in 88, after Lefebvre went into schism, [1444 → 1448] John Paul stepped it up and made the indult much more generous. [1448 → 1456] But the idea was always to keep people from leaving the new church, [1456 → 1460] from abandoning the Vatican II religion. [1460 → 1465] In fact, the indult was never given for theological reasons. [1466 → 1471] As if the Vatican ever conceded that the new mass was deficient theologically. [1471 → 1478] It was always given only for pastoral reasons having to do with nostalgia, [1478 → 1483] and an emotional attachment to the traditional liturgy, [1483 → 1485] or some spiritual need. [1486 → 1492] It was always on the basis of the subjective preference or needs [1492 → 1494] of a few traditionalists, [1495 → 1500] whom John Paul II and later Benedict XVI didn't want to defect to the Lefebvres. [1502 → 1507] With some more in Pontificum in 2007 then, [1507 → 1508] Benedict XVI, [1508 → 1516] introduced this nonsense of the one Roman rite having an ordinary and an extraordinary form. [1516 → 1518] Which was another lie, of course, [1519 → 1523] but it too helped the Semitrads so they didn't mind too much. [1524 → 1531] But it too was done to try to keep traditionalists from leaving the Vatican II church. [1531 → 1537] The idea was always to eventually lead the traditionalists [1537 → 1538] into the new church, [1538 → 1540] into the new religion and the new worship. [1540 → 1545] Perhaps with a little more incense and a little more Latin, [1545 → 1546] a little more reverence. [1546 → 1553] But this idea of a restoration of the church back to pre-Vatican II times [1553 → 1559] was always out of the question for both Benedict and John Paul. [1559 → 1565] And so, 14 years after Summorum Pontificum, [1565 → 1567] the false Pope Francis, [1567 → 1569] Jorge Bergoglio, [1569 → 1571] saw the need to act. [1572 → 1576] See, he noticed that a great number of these traditionalists in his church [1576 → 1579] are not merely attached to the traditional mass [1579 → 1583] for reasons of nostalgia or personal preference, [1583 → 1586] but for theological, doctrinal reasons. [1587 → 1593] They have no interest in eventually coming around on Vatican II [1593 → 1595] and the new orientation with ecumenism, [1596 → 1597] interreligious dialogue, [1597 → 1598] and all that stuff. [1599 → 1602] And in fact, they have been telling themselves [1602 → 1606] that there will eventually be a glorious restoration of tradition [1606 → 1611] and all the Vatican II junk will one day be rescinded. [1611 → 1614] That's because they were reading the Remnant [1614 → 1616] and Catholic Family News [1616 → 1617] and Christopher Ferrara [1617 → 1619] and Peter Kwasniewski. [1620 → 1622] And that's why Francis has now said, [1623 → 1625] enough, enough already. [1625 → 1627] If you guys aren't going to go to the Vatican, [1627 → 1630] to get with the Vatican II program here, [1630 → 1631] you're done. [1632 → 1634] I'm taking away your traditional mass. [1636 → 1639] Instead of bringing those who've been dragging their feet [1639 → 1641] gradually around to the new religion, [1642 → 1644] it actually accomplished the opposite. [1645 → 1649] It's made people think that it was just the first step [1649 → 1651] in turning everything back around [1651 → 1654] to how it was before the council. [1654 → 1656] And from his perspective, [1656 → 1657] from Bergoglio's, [1657 → 1661] his reaction makes perfect sense. [1661 → 1665] Why continue to put out a decoy [1665 → 1667] if you're finding out [1667 → 1671] that not only is it not having its intended effect, [1671 → 1674] it's actually making the problem worse? [1675 → 1678] So, of course he's going to put a damper on this. [1679 → 1682] It was the traditionalists, [1682 → 1684] the recognize and resist trads, [1684 → 1686] who, because of bad theology [1686 → 1687] and an unreasonable, [1687 → 1690] a priori rejection of Sedevacantism, [1691 → 1692] had convinced themselves [1692 → 1695] that they could get the post-Catholic Vatican [1695 → 1697] to change course, [1697 → 1700] and that Benedict XVI's concession [1700 → 1701] of the traditional mass [1701 → 1704] was only the first of many victories [1704 → 1706] in that great battle [1706 → 1708] for the restoration of tradition. [1710 → 1712] They thought they could fight from within, [1713 → 1714] as the saying goes, [1714 → 1716] as if it were possible [1716 → 1717] to turn an opposition, [1717 → 1719] apostate institution, [1719 → 1721] into the Catholic Church. [1722 → 1725] So, any traditionalist [1725 → 1727] who believes Francis is the Pope [1727 → 1730] and is surprised at his suppression [1730 → 1731] of the traditional mass [1731 → 1733] has not understood [1733 → 1734] what is really going on. [1735 → 1737] The Vatican hierarchs [1737 → 1738] have no intention [1738 → 1741] of returning to Catholicism. [1741 → 1743] The traditional mass [1743 → 1744] was only given [1744 → 1746] as a temporary concession [1746 → 1747] for a group of people [1747 → 1750] they didn't want to lose entirely. [1751 → 1752] They figured that [1752 → 1754] if they could attach people [1754 → 1755] to the new religion [1755 → 1757] by giving them the externals [1757 → 1759] of the traditional liturgy, [1759 → 1762] then that was a price worth paying. [1763 → 1765] They figured that eventually [1765 → 1767] the people who liked the old mass [1767 → 1768] would die out, [1768 → 1771] and then this would no longer be an issue. [1772 → 1774] But the strategy backfired, [1774 → 1776] and now they're adjusting course. [1777 → 1778] Therefore, [1778 → 1781] as evil as Francis' hatred [1781 → 1783] of the traditional mass is, [1783 → 1785] it is not surprising. [1785 → 1787] It is only surprising [1787 → 1789] if you think he is a Catholic [1789 → 1791] and the Pope of the Catholic Church [1791 → 1793] trying to lead souls [1793 → 1794] to eternal happiness [1794 → 1797] through faith, hope, and charity. [1798 → 1800] Back to Taylor Marshall [1800 → 1801] and Matt Gaspers. [1802 → 1803] That right there [1803 → 1805] might be the most important [1805 → 1807] legacy of Pope Benedict XVI, [1807 → 1809] because if Francis does try [1809 → 1810] to cancel and delete [1810 → 1812] the traditional Latin mass, [1812 → 1814] all we have to do [1814 → 1815] is show that quote. [1815 → 1816] Oh, really? [1816 → 1818] You're going to defeat Francis [1818 → 1820] by showing a quote, huh? [1821 → 1823] What's that going to do? [1823 → 1825] If you can dismiss Francis [1825 → 1827] by quoting Benedict XVI, [1827 → 1829] then by the same token, [1829 → 1831] you can dismiss St. Pius V [1831 → 1833] by quoting Benedict XVI. [1834 → 1836] Or you could dismiss Pius V [1836 → 1836] by quoting St. Benedict XVI. [1836 → 1836] Or you could dismiss St. Pius V [1836 → 1836] by quoting St. Benedict XVI. [1836 → 1837] Or you could dismiss St. Pius V [1837 → 1837] by quoting St. Benedict XVI. [1837 → 1839] And so on. [1840 → 1843] All popes have the same authority. [1844 → 1846] If Francis is the pope, [1846 → 1848] what he decrees and legislates [1848 → 1850] is what matters. [1850 → 1852] As Pope Leo XIII said, [1853 → 1854] those who, faced with [1854 → 1856] two differing directives, [1856 → 1858] reject the present one [1858 → 1859] to hold to the past [1859 → 1862] are not giving proof of obedience [1862 → 1863] to the authority [1863 → 1866] which has the right and duty [1866 → 1867] to guide them. [1867 → 1869] That's from the apostolic letter [1869 → 1870] Epistola Tua. [1873 → 1873] Next, [1874 → 1875] Gaspers quotes from [1875 → 1876] Francis' letter [1876 → 1879] Desiderio Desideravi [1879 → 1881] of June 29, 2022 [1881 → 1883] on liturgical formation. [1884 → 1885] Paragraph 31. [1886 → 1887] Listen closely. [1887 → 1888] Quote, [1888 → 1890] It would be trivial to read the tensions [1890 → 1893] unfortunately present around [1893 → 1894] the celebration [1894 → 1897] as a simple divergence between [1897 → 1898] different tastes [1898 → 1900] concerning a particular ritual form. [1900 → 1903] The problematic, Francis says, [1903 → 1906] is primarily ecclesiological. [1907 → 1908] That is huge [1908 → 1910] because what he is saying [1910 → 1912] is that the tensions [1912 → 1914] which exist between Catholics [1914 → 1916] who embrace the liturgical form [1916 → 1918] and those who resisted [1918 → 1919] are based not on [1919 → 1921] what he calls different tastes [1921 → 1924] but on divergent ecclesiologies. [1925 → 1926] That is, on fundamental [1927 → 1929] different doctrinal positions [1929 → 1931] about the Church's very nature. [1932 → 1935] So when he's trying to get rid [1935 → 1936] of the traditional Mass, [1936 → 1937] what he's really trying to do [1937 → 1938] is get rid of the Church's [1938 → 1940] traditional ecclesiology. [1941 → 1942] That's what we have to understand. [1942 → 1943] Bingo! [1943 → 1945] And that is exactly [1945 → 1947] what I was talking about earlier. [1948 → 1950] It's about Vatican II, [1950 → 1952] about doctrine, [1952 → 1955] not about liturgical preference per se. [1956 → 1957] The tradition, [1957 → 1957] the traditional Mass [1957 → 1959] teaches Catholicism [1959 → 1963] and therefore a Catholic ecclesiology. [1963 → 1964] The new Mass [1964 → 1966] teaches a different religion, [1967 → 1969] a different idea of Church. [1971 → 1972] And that is further evidence [1972 → 1973] that the new Mass [1973 → 1975] could not have come [1975 → 1976] from a true Pope. [1976 → 1979] But that is a conclusion [1979 → 1980] Gaspers resists [1980 → 1983] with every fiber of his being. [1984 → 1986] He just does not want to go there. [1986 → 1990] Instead, he creates this new doctrine [1990 → 1992] according to which Popes can legislate [1992 → 1994] all sorts of impious [1994 → 1997] and heretical liturgical nonsense. [1998 → 1999] And then those Catholics [1999 → 2001] who are really enlightened [2001 → 2002] and really faithful [2002 → 2005] understand that they have the right [2005 → 2007] and duty to reject it. [2008 → 2009] Ultimately, even to the point [2009 → 2011] of schism and excommunication, [2012 → 2014] which of course they then get to overrule [2014 → 2016] as well, so to speak, [2016 → 2016] by taking the doctrine of Catholicism [2016 → 2017] and telling everyone [2017 → 2020] that that's not valid or binding either. [2020 → 2022] It is insane. [2023 → 2027] Now, listen to this from Taylor Marshall. [2027 → 2029] And you can't have sodomy [2030 → 2034] and same sex blessings. [2034 → 2037] And abortion is not always that bad [2037 → 2038] if you just follow your conscience [2038 → 2042] and contraception and all this nonsense, [2042 → 2044] women's ordination. [2044 → 2045] You can't have all that [2045 → 2046] in the old, real, Catholic tradition. [2046 → 2049] So you have to recreate [2049 → 2051] and ape it with something new. [2051 → 2052] Did you get that? [2052 → 2055] He just referred to the [2055 → 2058] old, real Catholic Church, [2058 → 2061] which implies that he admits [2061 → 2063] deep down that the current thing [2063 → 2066] isn't the old, real Catholic Church. [2067 → 2069] To hold that Francis [2069 → 2071] is nonetheless the real Pope [2071 → 2074] makes a complete mess of everything. [2074 → 2076] And so it's ironic, [2076 → 2079] that Taylor Marshall should complain [2079 → 2082] about a false ecclesiology, [2082 → 2084] while at the same time pushing the idea [2084 → 2087] that Francis can be a true Pope [2087 → 2089] leading a false church. [2090 → 2092] All right, next, [2092 → 2096] Gaspers once more recycles two famous quotes, [2096 → 2098] which actually have nothing to do [2098 → 2100] with the topic under discussion. [2100 → 2102] Let's start with the first one [2102 → 2104] from St. Thomas Aquinas. [2104 → 2106] So yeah, this, now we're gonna try, [2106 → 2109] transition into what should our response be as Catholics, [2109 → 2113] if the Pope tries to cancel the traditional Latin mass, [2113 → 2115] even though objectively speaking, [2115 → 2118] the papal, he doesn't have the authority to do that, [2118 → 2119] but what if he tries to do that? [2119 → 2120] Okay. [2121 → 2123] First we'll go with St. Thomas Aquinas [2123 → 2125] about fraternal correction. [2125 → 2126] This is in the part of the Summa [2126 → 2128] that deals with fraternal correction. [2128 → 2129] And St. Thomas says, [2129 → 2132] if the faith were endangered, [2132 → 2135] and indeed it is with these radical changes [2135 → 2136] and trying to get rid [2136 → 2139] of the received and approved Roman right. [2139 → 2140] If the faith were endangered, [2140 → 2145] a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. [2145 → 2148] Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, [2148 → 2150] rebuked him in public on account [2150 → 2154] of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith. [2154 → 2159] And as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2.11, [2159 → 2161] this is Augustine speaking, [2161 → 2164] Peter gave an example to superiors [2164 → 2166] that if at any time they should happen [2166 → 2168] to stray from the straight path, [2168 → 2171] they should not disdain to be reproved [2171 → 2174] by their subjects, end quote. [2174 → 2176] That's Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. [2176 → 2177] Yes, and people are gonna say, [2177 → 2181] well, you can rebuke your prelate publicly, [2181 → 2183] but I mean, that's just like your Bishop. [2183 → 2188] No, the example that Thomas uses is Paul rebuking Peter. [2188 → 2190] Peter was the Pope. [2190 → 2193] So the quote here, Thomas Aquinas is not just talking [2193 → 2196] about rebuking your priest, your pastor, [2196 → 2198] a deacon, your local Bishop. [2198 → 2203] The example he gives is rebuking Peter, the Pope. [2203 → 2204] That's right. [2204 → 2207] All right, so it is certainly true that any Catholic, [2207 → 2210] even the Pope himself, can be rebuked [2210 → 2215] by an inferior if he sins, especially if it's public [2215 → 2218] and he scandalizes the faithful. [2218 → 2221] That is a matter of fraternal correction. [2221 → 2225] Since even the Pope is a sinner, even the Pope can be [2225 → 2232] fraternally corrected. So, if the Pope tells you to rob a bank and use the money to build a church, [2233 → 2239] you must refuse, first of all, and you should also rebuke him for telling you that. That's [2239 → 2246] fraternal correction, and that is what St. Thomas is talking about. That's also what St. Paul did [2246 → 2252] with regard to St. Peter in Galatians 2. St. Paul thought that St. Peter's decision to eat [2252 → 2258] with the Jewish converts separately, apart from the Gentile converts, out of human respect, [2259 → 2266] was scandalizing the Gentiles, and so he reproved him for his imprudence. That's all that was. [2267 → 2272] St. Peter didn't issue some decree establishing a law for the whole church, [2272 → 2280] nor did he teach anything. He simply acted imprudently. St. Augustine held that St. Peter's [2280 → 2282] was merely a venial thought. [2282 → 2288] fault of imprudence, and you can look that up in the traditional Catholic Hadoc Bible [2288 → 2296] in the Commentary on Galatians 2.11. Cardinal Baronius thought that St. Peter didn't sin at all. [2297 → 2305] Next, Gaspers quotes St. Robert Bellarmine from his work On the Roman Pontiff, Book 2, Chapter 29. [2305 → 2312] Just as it would be lawful to resist a pontiff invading a body, so in other words threatening [2312 → 2319] physical harm, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much [2319 → 2327] more if he should endeavor to destroy the church. And I would say that trying to destroy the Roman [2327 → 2333] Rite of the traditional Roman Rite is an attack on the church herself, definitely. So Robert [2333 → 2335] Bellarmine goes on to say, [2335 → 2341] I say it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he commands and by blocking him, [2342 → 2347] lest he should carry out his will. Still, Bellarmine says, it is not lawful to judge [2347 → 2354] or punish or even depose him because he is nothing other than a superior. So this is really where we [2354 → 2361] get the idea of recognizing the Pope is the Pope while also resisting illegitimate commands and [2361 → 2365] decrees, etc. Yeah, well, it's unfortunate that they never quote, [2365 → 2370] this passage from the same book by St. Robert Bellarmine, quote, [2370 → 2379] The Pope is the teacher and shepherd of the whole church. Thus, the whole church is so bound to hear [2379 → 2386] and follow him that if he would err, the whole church would err. Now, our adversaries respond [2386 → 2393] that the church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than [2393 → 2395] men. On the other hand, [2395 → 2402] who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to [2402 → 2408] judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly [2408 → 2416] doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. [2417 → 2424] As we showed above, from the whole church one can appeal to the Pope, yet from him no one is able [2424 → 2425] to appeal. [2425 → 2432] Therefore, necessarily, the whole church will err if the pontiff would err, unquote. [2433 → 2440] That is from St. Robert Bellarmine's book on the Roman Pontiff, Book 4, Chapter 3. [2440 → 2447] And it's easy to see that this is very applicable to the issue we're actually talking about, [2447 → 2455] which is the Pope teaching or legislating in his official capacity. In any case, [2455 → 2455] it's not. [2455 → 2461] What do we make of the Bellarmine quote cited by Gaspers? Well, the late Father Anthony Ciccata [2461 → 2467] once explained what that quote is actually talking about. We got it linked in the show [2467 → 2473] notes, so you can look it up. But let me just quote Father Ciccata's summary. [2474 → 2474] Quote, [2475 → 2483] 1. Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands, [2483 → 2484] not one who, [2485 → 2485] like the [2485 → 2494] post-Vatican II popes teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. Number two, the context of the [2494 → 2501] statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope. [2502 → 2512] Number three, Bellarmine is justifying resistance by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics. [2512 → 2520] Number four, Bellarmine teaches in the next chapter of his work, chapter 30, that a heretical [2520 → 2529] pope automatically loses his authority. In a word, the passage can neither be applied to the present [2529 → 2541] crisis nor invoked against Sedevacantism, unquote. But hey, the Semitrats have been using that quote [2541 → 2542] for decades. [2542 → 2549] And although Father Ciccata wrote this almost 20 years ago, in 2004, no one has ever, to my [2549 → 2553] knowledge, interacted with it or attempted to answer it. [2555 → 2561] All right, Gaspers then wraps it up with a recommendation of two books by Peter Kwasniewski, [2562 → 2571] one of them about true obedience. Let me just say here that Dr. Kwasniewski is on record [2571 → 2572] accusing [2572 → 2583] Pope St. Pius X of, no joke, liturgical modernism. Oh, you think I'm kidding? Not at all. [2583 → 2591] Look it up yourself. He wrote that in an article posted at newliturgicalmovement.org [2591 → 2600] on February 4th, 2019. The piece is entitled, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the [2600 → 2601] SSPX and the Bible. [2601 → 2602] The piece is entitled, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the Bible. [2602 → 2602] The piece is entitled, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the Bible. [2602 → 2610] and the FSSP. So, that man is informing the Semitrads on proper submission to the Pope. [2610 → 2618] Okay, then. No, I'm not going to spend any time now on Peter Kwasniewski. At [2618 → 2626] novusortowatch.org, there is plenty of material refuting the man. And, you know, just recently, [2626 → 2633] he called some of St. Pius X's papal allocutions a historical embarrassment. [2634 → 2641] You know, if we had a true Pope, some of what this man has written would be on the index of [2641 → 2648] forbidden books. But he's very popular among the Semitrads because he gives them academic [2648 → 2656] justifications for their position. But academic is one thing, and capitalistic is another. [2656 → 2665] Catholic is another. All right. Thus far, our critical review of Taylor Marshall's and Matt [2665 → 2673] Gasper's video, Can Pope Francis Ban the Latin Mass? As you can see, what may at first sight [2673 → 2680] look like a really convincing presentation falls apart rather quickly once you actually examine [2680 → 2686] what they say critically. Marshall and Gaspers spoke for about an hour and a half, and they [2686 → 2693] were in total, but at no point did they offer clear, irrefutable evidence that the Pope [2693 → 2701] absolutely cannot abolish the ancient Roman rite of mass and replace it with a new one that is also [2701 → 2708] orthodox and holy. What they did is offer certain quotes that can be interpreted in that way, [2708 → 2716] but they have not shown that it is the correct or the only possible interpretation. And, [2716 → 2723] even if they could do that, still, that would only establish that the Pope will never do such a [2723 → 2730] thing, precisely because he cannot. It would not mean, as Gaspers and Marshall would have you [2730 → 2738] believe, that the Pope can issue such legislation, but it remains without any effect, and everyone [2738 → 2743] else in the Church then has the right and obligation to ignore or resist it because of [2743 → 2746] something St. Robert said over here, or St. Robert said over here, or St. Robert said over here, or [2746 → 2754] St. Thomas said over there. That is a pipe dream of the Semitrads, and neither Gaspers nor Marshall [2754 → 2761] have given any evidence that, per Catholic doctrine, such a scenario is even possible. [2762 → 2770] At best, Marshall and Gaspers simply gave us their own private and non-authoritative opinions [2770 → 2776] about things. But against those opinions, there stands the official, [2776 → 2784] and authoritative, legislation of the person they claim is definitely the Vicar of Christ. [2785 → 2791] Tradcast Express is a production of Novos Ordo Watch. Check us out at tradcast.org, [2791 → 2796] and if you like what we're doing, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution [2796 → 2799] at novosordowatch.org.