TRADCAST 018 (June 28, 2017)

018 TRADCAST (28 JUN 2017)

Contents

  • Segment 1: Pentecost and the charismatic movement; brief response to John Salza’s “Note to Sedevacantists”; Canon212.com and the false church of Francis; “Fr.” Linus Clovis on John Paul II and the Antichurch; response to Steve Kellmeyer’s post “All Roads Lead to Rome”; Christopher Ferrara on Benedict XVI; response to “Fr.” John Hunwicke’s post exonerating Francis from the charge of heresy.
  • Segment 2: From the Jorge’s mouth: why God permits children to suffer, Francis and the death penalty, Francis prays for conversion of terrorists, Francis’ new beatitudes; “Cardinal” Blase Cupich on Amoris Laetitia; a look at George Neumayr’s book The Political Pope; comments on the upcoming “Catholic Identity [Crisis] Conference” in West Virginia; the Great Apostasy began at the top; spiritual Stockholm Syndrome; Faith and the Papacy.
  • Total run time: 1 hr 24 mins

You can listen to the show by clicking the big play button in the embedded player above. Alternatively, you can choose right below from more listening/viewing options:

Alternate Show Links (Audio and Video)

Links to Items mentioned in the Show & Related Information

Automatic Subscription Options for TRADCAST

Share this content now:

18 Responses to “TRADCAST 018 (June 28, 2017)”

  1. James B

    These Tradcasts are much too long and the format is draining with the single, snide toned voice droning on and on. I recommend that you attempt to make it more like Restoration Radio’s “Francis Watch”.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      Thank you for the feedback. If they are too long for you, I have an idea: Hit the “stop” button and continue another time. 🙂 It’s not like you have to listen to it in one sitting.

    • Sonia

      I reckon the longer the Tradcast the better for the listener. So many things need to be covered and always in a clear and engaging way. Also like the Tradcast express. Be great if they could be more regular.

      PS. I used to listen to Francis Watch but when TR changed their subscription set up so you could no longer buy individual episodes; it was a shame.

  2. Siobhan

    Thank you-another great Tradcast. Super important it began with the subject it did, since even in many Trad comboxes one sees uber effusive ramblings about a “New ——-.”

  3. good_stuff

    JamesB: “These Tradcasts are much too long and the format is draining with the single, snide toned voice going on and on.”

    NOW: “If they are too long for you, I have an idea: Hit the “stop” button and continue another time.”

    What about the snide tone?

    Sir, you are brilliant and make some very good points. If you are open to some sincere criticism, please consider this: I can see your zeal for souls but you turn me away every time you snidely dismiss those who don’t fully agree with you. The Church is in crisis and the roads filled with the walking wounded who are trying to figure out their next move.

    You destroy people who agree with 90% of what you say because the 10% of disagreement is like the drop of poison you so often mention. Maybe these people are on the path to salvation and a word of encouragement would be better than a never ending diatribe of condemnation.

    There are many sincere seekers on the road. They are in pain and not ready to admit that this NO church is not THE Church. They are not yet ready to admit that their father is a con man. But they are on the right path. 20 years ago I was NO, then went to an occasional indult TLM. Then only TLM in a NO parish. Now SSPX chapel. Am I still poison because I don’t buy your contention that all popes since Pius XII are not true popes? Is there no room in your philosophy for people who disagree with you on certain points but agree on 90%?

    A good coach knows when one player needs a kick in the ass and when another needs a pat on the back. Do you?

    • Siobhan

      I’d put forth that the same people who’d be turned off by a man’s “tone” (which is an objective observation,) would be turned fast away from this site by—– seeing kvetching going on in the combox about it–instead of an exhilarating intellectual discussion on the actual content of the Tradcast.

      I’d add that many are sick to death of the shlocky effeminate speak typical of VII Sectarians, men & women- (for women are also called not to be effeminate.) The presenter is not dismissing anyone that is seeking–since it’s not a conversational program like Francis Watch- the program Jame B. mentioned,for example. Rather Tradcast is more of a lecture style-the body of which is meant to be absorbed (not agreed with,) over the next months ’til the next Tradcast & hopefully discussed among visitors here.

      On another note,since we both mentioned Francis Watch (James B. & I )-I used to enjoy that. I could buy that one program a month for a very minimal cost. But the entire setup has changed & much of the content on Restoration has fallen into being inaccessible by the impoverished. I know there are less costly choices there than membership-but even that would obviate an opportunity for one like myself. This makes me even more eager for Tradcast..

      • good_stuff

        @siobhan: I think you meant to say subjective observation. More important, you miss my point if you think I’m being effeminate and squeamish about tone.

        My question, and my compliments, are sincere. If one dismisses them as somehow coming from an effeminate point of view, they dodge the real issue and the sincere question to Mr. NOW.

        Anyone who knows me would think the effeminate question is funny. Re-read the last paragraph. I admit that some people need a kick in the ass; I even deliver them myself sometimes. But, if that’s the only tool in your chest, you’ll miss a lot of opportunities to save souls. Isn’t that the primary goal here?

        • Siobhan

          Yup, thanks-good-I did mean subjective.

          You totally misunderstood me though, good. I was referring to complaining about the tone being snide. I was trying to express that it’s a welcome change (NOW’s tone, that is-having zero to do with you,) from the, as I said, effeminate shlock we hear from VII Sectarians. I in no way meant I perceived you to be that at all & did not mean to insult you. Very sorry for my lack of clarity.

        • kstewskisAZ

          I have read plenty “snide” comments from the anti-sede position as any over the years, enough to completely push my sister away from tradition in the first place.

          “Snide” is an equal opportunity provider on both sides of the issue. The devil is in the middle, stirring contempt. (p.s. I personally don’t agree with the “tone,” perhaps I understand the context that he’s trying to convey).

          That said, perhaps a written transcript would be better served for those who don’t care to listen. I like the Tradcast format because I can listen as I am taking care of other business. But because there are some great points made, the transcript would be nice to have as well.

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      I am OK with hearing criticism, definitely. I appreciate it, in fact. Just keep in mind that what one person thinks is imprudent, another person thinks is just fine, and vice versa. So, for example, I don’t know if most people would agree with you that I have a snide tone. Maybe I do – I don’t know. Some will say yes, some will say no.

      I don’t think it’s true to say that I snidely dismiss all who don’t fully agree with the NOW position. It really all depends. I think I’ve pointed this out on a number of podcasts: I don’t have a problem with people sincerely disagreeing who are struggling to figure things out. I don’t treat such people with disrespect. For example, see how I spoke very matter-of-factly about Frank Walker in this podcast. He’s struggling, and I acknowledged that. I commiserate with him. But I have a low tolerance threshold for B.S. and unfortunately we get a lot of that from high profile people that others look up to, and so it is quite legit to use rhetorical means to point out that such people do not deserve credibility. Perhaps this excerpt from a 19th century book will help clarify this:
      http://novusordowatch.org/2015/08/polemics-venom-bitter-zeal/

      Our times are difficult. The people I deride are, regardless of their hopefully noble intentions, causing incredible damage to the Faith and to souls. Their errors must be condemned, and they too I think don’t have much of a problem condemning Sedevacantism.

      It took me a while, initially, to realize this but it doesn’t matter that we agree on 90% because we don’t agree *for the same reason*. It’s similar to how one may say, “Protestants agree with us on such and such dogmas” — OK, fine, but they agree for the wrong reason: They agree because they personally find these dogmas acceptable and in accordance with Scripture, NOT because they are taught by the Catholic Church.

      I realize that coming to figure things out in this terrible situation we’re in, takes time. And I realize that this will mean that some people are simply not “ready” yet for Novus Ordo Watch. That’s OK. God bless them, and I pray for them. But what I cannot do is change what needs to be said. I cannot accommodate everyone. I have to point out what we are required to hold — it will take different people different amounts of time to get there, but I cannot change the goal post so as to make it more appealing. Know what I mean?

      I wish you well and pray God will bless you.

      • good_stuff

        Wow. I’ll have to say that I am surprised and touched by your sincere and thoughtful response.

        I have listened to your podcasts for about the past 6 months but have not spent much time on the website other than an occasional article. Today I spent quite a bit of time reading your responses to others in the comment boxes. I get a very different impression of you from that than I do in the podcasts. I’ll have to say that what I percieved as a smug, sarcastic tone is not the same in your one on one communications as is evident in your response to me. I started out with some pretty harsh criticism and your response was anything but smug or snide. Thanks.

        God bless you, too. And may the Holy Ghost enlighten and protect us all in these dark days.

  4. CumExApostolatus

    I’m not sure why anyone would pay too much attention to what John Salza has to say about much of anything. He’s an admitted “former” freemason.
    As such, he should keep his mouth closed, unless he is specifically saying something in regard to his experience in freemasonry. As we all should know by now, there is such a thing as counter-intelligence and moles in the traditionalist movement. After all, how does one best keep track of the inner workings of an oppositional movement?
    Why….by leading that movement, of course.

    • kstewskisAZ

      Very true. So true that I’ve been told (from a reliable traditional source/person) that many “seasoned” SSPX priests have distanced themselves from he and Robert Siscoe, and their disastrous 700+ page screed.

      One of Salza’s big problems is due to the Luciferian influence of humanism embedded into his soul. He continues to grasp the core essence of humanism in his arguments and rebuttals, whether conscious or not. I tend to look at it as a spiritual matter. Perhaps that’s why he seems so erratic in his arguments, as was pointed out in this Tradcast. In charity, we should continue to pray for him (and all of those who he is influencing) for his full conversion.

  6. Sonia

    “Positively willed.” Wojtyla (known by worldlings as JPII.)
    What did he teach was positively willed by God almighty? Religions that reject Christ.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.