In case you missed our initial announcement on December 7: We have published another full-length episode of our popular TRADCAST podcast program. As always, it is loaded with real traditional Catholicism, hard-hitting refutations of various errors, and razor-sharp analysis. Our content is typically challenging but is always delivered with a relieving touch of humor.
The general topic of TRADCAST 026 is Francis and his false opposition. The episode consists of two separate segments.
Segment 1: Francis and his false opposition: how to avoid being deceived; Ratzinger to the rescue?; “Abp.” Carlo Viganò and the changing of the Catholic religion; SSPX U.S. District Superior Fr. Jürgen Wegner and the “struck” shepherd; “Fr.” Thomas Weinandy on an “internal papal schism”; Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s argument that following the Pope can lead one to hell
Segment 2: A dangerous tweet by Steve Skojec; Francis on the Light of Christ and man’s “covenant” with inanimate matter; Michael Voris and liberal Vaticanist John Allen: opponents or buddies?
Total run time: 58 mins
You can listen to the show by clicking the big play button in the embedded player above.
The Church of Mercy, Dialogue, and Compassion has struck again. This time, the object of its solicitous benevolence was the Capuchin “Fr.” Thomas Weinandy, who was a theological consultant for the doctrinal committee of the United States Conference of Bishops (USCCB) — until yesterday. It was then that he committed what is in the Vatican II Church an unpardonable sin and, as a result, was fired “resigned” from his post after a meeting with the American Chief Modernist, “Cardinal” Daniel DiNardo (of Houston co-cathedral Methodist “ordination” infamy).
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer reacts to Novus Ordo Watch post pointing out his episcopal consecration was invalid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjAf94rfQ5o&feature=youtu.be&t=477 (begins at 7:57 mark) In brief: “There is no problem, you angry and judgmental naysayers!” 🙄
@crossroads_23 It’s a question of ‘what is’ rather than ‘who thinks what about it.’ That is the point I’m trying to make. The modern mind is always concerned about the subjective (who says?) rather than the objective (is it true?).
@MarkNanneman Like I said, it has to be reasonable. There has to be a justifying reason why someone *should* be given the benefit of the doubt, and of course it can only be given if there is actual *doubt.*