TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Tuesday, June 13th, 2023.
Kennedy Hall is a supporter of the Society of St. Pius X
and an apologist for Recognize and Resist Theology.
In recent years, he's come to some prominence in the social media world
being affiliated with the Fatima Center
and writing for publications such as OnePeterFive and Crisis Magazine.
Earlier this year, he published the book SSPX, The Defense.
On YouTube, he has his own show called The Kennedy Report.
Kennedy Hall is easy to recognize online.
He has a slight Canadian accent and a pretty good-sized beard.
Now, back on May 11th of this year,
Hall released a video entitled Five SSPX Myths Debunked.
About a week later, I joined Kevin Davis on the Catholic Family podcast
to respond to Hall's video.
And in case you haven't seen that yet, please be sure to check it out.
The link is in the show notes,
or you can just go to YouTube and search for Five SSPX Myths Debunked.
We've gotten pretty good feedback on it.
People say they found our response informative.
And helpful.
So, why am I telling you all this?
Because on May 26th, Hall released another video entitled
Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist.
Now, I don't know if that had anything to do with the response video
Kevin Davis and I had made a week prior,
but in this podcast, I'd like to take some time and go through Hall's video,
minus the beard oil commercial,
and consider his arguments and respond to them.
So, first of all, let's have a look at the title.
Hall's video is called Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist.
It is not called Why Sedevacantism is False,
or Why You Shouldn't Be a Sedevacantist,
but Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist.
And that already sets the tone,
because indeed, his arguments are quite subjective and filled with fluff.
There's just not much substance there.
But let's go.
Let's go through this step by step.
I'm not going to play everything Hall says,
only the more important stuff,
and then I'll rudely interrupt and comment.
And folks, I can tell you this right now.
In this podcast episode, we're not going to finish.
So, this will be part one of probably two or three parts
responding to Kennedy Hall.
But it'll be worth it.
All right.
So, Hall begins by clarifying
that he is not anti-Sedevacantist,
and that in his opinion,
Sedevacantists who are of goodwill,
and he even concedes there might be some,
are not guilty of schism.
Let's listen in, starting at the 2 minute, 14 second mark.
As far as I'm concerned,
when I read the literature on what it means to be a schismatic,
whether it's Thomas Aquinas and the great saints and whatever,
it's pretty clear that to be a schismatic,
you have to essentially reject the papacy out of principle.
Well, it's not just the odd moment of disobedience,
because of course,
scriptures tell us that you could obey God over man.
That could include any superior.
You know, St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear
that St. Paul resisted Peter to his face
and wouldn't go along with what he was doing
because Peter was scandalizing the church.
I mean, you can use your critical thinking skills
and understand that if you disobey your father in one instance
and you have a good reason for it,
this is not you saying your father isn't your father
and doesn't have the authority to do
what he's supposed to do as a father.
They're very separate things
and people will say,
people with critical reasoning skills
can probably distinguish between those two,
which is rare today, sadly.
But nonetheless, in order for someone to be a schismatic,
they have to essentially reject the pope in principle.
They have to reject the papacy as such.
They have to reject that the pope
has the authority to do pope things.
And in the case of St. Evacantus,
if St. Evacantus is of goodwill
and doesn't believe that there's been a pope
for a certain amount of time,
personally,
I don't see that as that person rejecting
to submit to the pope.
I see that as that person believing in good faith
for their reasons,
which we'll get to in a second,
that there is no pope
and therefore there's no one to submit to.
All right.
First, I'd like to thank Kennedy Hall
for pointing out that obviously
St. Evacantus do not reject the papacy,
the papal office,
with its divinely established authority.
Rather, we believe that Francis
and his five predecessors
of unhappy memory
do not, did not,
hold the papal office
and that that is manifest
from their fruits.
In other words,
we have seen the effects
of the supposed pontificates
of John XXIII,
Paul VI,
John Paul I,
John Paul II,
Benedict XVI,
and Francis,
and we reason back
from those effects
to their cause.
And the only way
to explain the effects
is by holding
that they were in fact
not true popes.
They never actually obtained
the papacy.
Whatever the precise reason
may have been
for their failure
to become true popes,
whether that be
manifest heresy
before their respective elections
or them placing
a voluntary obstacle
to a valid acceptance
of their election
or some other reason,
the point is
that it is evident
that they are not
true popes.
They cannot be.
That's it in a nutshell.
Now, with regard
to the essence of schism.
First of all,
the word schism
comes from the Greek
and means cleft or split.
Schism is a division,
a separation.
Strictly speaking,
it has nothing to do
with denying a truth
of the faith,
although that very often
accompanies it.
Denying a dogma
is heresy.
Not schism.
And schism is a separation,
not a denial of the faith.
It's unfortunate
that Kennedy Hall
does not point
to any particular source
for what he's saying
about schism.
He's very vague,
very general,
and just says,
well, he's read stuff
from St. Thomas Aquinas
and the saints
and whatever.
What we need
is chapter and verse.
Who says what
and where?
Now,
in researching the question
of the nature of schism
for this podcast,
I've not found
an entirely consistent picture
in the theological literature
before Vatican II.
Does the essence of schism
necessarily include
a denial of the authority
of the Pope?
Does it imply
a rejection of the papacy
in principle?
As Hall says,
pre-Vatican II sources
are not always in agreement
with each other on that,
is what I've found.
However,
what I can say for sure
is that Hall's claim
that schism necessarily entails
a rejection of papal authority
is definitely not held
by all authors
and even outright contradicted
by some.
Let's look at three specific
traditional Catholic sources
on that,
starting with,
drumroll,
St. Thomas.
If we look at the
Summa Theologica of St. Thomas,
the topic of schism
is treated in four articles
in the second part
of the second part,
question 39.
Let me quote
the most relevant fragments
from article one.
So this is St. Thomas
speaking now.
Schismatics properly so-called
are those who willfully
and intentionally
separate themselves
from the unity of the Church.
Schismatics are those
who refuse to submit
to the sovereign pontiff
and to hold communion
with those members of the Church
who acknowledge his supremacy.
The essence of schism
consists in rebelliously
disobeying the commandments.
And I say rebelliously
since a schismatic
both obstinately scorns
the commandments of the Church
and refuses to submit
to her judgment.
So that's what St. Thomas says.
Next, let me quote
from the Dictionary
of Moral Theology,
compiled under the direction
of Cardinal Francesco Roberti,
published in the Italian original
in 1957,
English translation 1962.
Starting on page 1097.
Quote,
Schism is a technical theological term
to indicate a separation
of a group or of an individual
from the unity of the universal Church
with the retention of belief
in the Church.
The true faith.
On this latter point,
a schism differs from a heresy
or apostasy.
This unity of the Church
has a twofold aspect.
A union of the faithful
among themselves
in the bonds of charity
and a union of the members
with the head
in the bond of obedience.
To lack either of these aspects
constitutes a sin of schism.
In practice, however,
after an initial break,
these two elements
will coincide in their effects.
In itself,
schism could exist without heresy,
that is, as a mere de facto separation
or rebellion
without a theoretical denial
of the authority of the Pope,
as occurred in the Great Western Schism
of 1378 to 1418 A.D.
In practice, however,
heresy usually creeps into a schism
since eventually it becomes necessary
to deny the dogma of papal infallibility
and all other dogmas
declared after the schism or break.
This occurred in the schism
of the Eastern Dissident Churches.
It must be noted
that individual members of the flock
as well as groups
may become schismatic.
A schism may be material,
that is, in good faith,
as many Eastern schismatics,
or formal, in bad faith.
The sin that arises from a schism
is serious in its matter
as a grave schism,
a grave sin of disobedience.
Obedience is due
to the supreme head of the Church.
Theologians, following St. Thomas,
list schism with the sins against charity
because it is a breach of peace
among the faithful.
Schism is less grave than heresy
and irreligion
because these are offenses
against the revelation of God,
the supreme head of all men
and infinite truth."
Now, so far,
we've considered schism
as a sin against God's law,
which is a matter of moral theology.
But schism can also be considered
as a crime against church law,
which is a matter of canon law.
With regard to that,
we can quote Fr. Ignatius Zoll,
who wrote the canonical study
The Communication of Catholics
with Schismatics,
published in 1948.
And he explains the notion of schism
as follows.
And this is from pages 1 and 2.
Quote,
The notion of schism is clear,
for in law a schismatic is defined
as one who, having received baptism
and still retaining the name of Christian,
nevertheless refuses obedience
to the supreme pontiff
or refuses to communicate
with those members of the Church
who are subject to him.
There is here involved no denial
of any article of faith,
of divine or Catholic faith.
Strictly considered,
a schismatic professes belief
in the sovereign power
and primacy of the Pope,
but out of malice refuses
to be subject to him
and to obey him
as the head of the Church
and the vicar of Christ on earth.
Such schism is called pure schism.
To constitute the delictive schism
in the strict sense,
the following conditions are required.
Number one.
Number two.
One must withdraw directly,
expressly,
or indirectly,
by means of one's actions,
from obedience to the Roman pontiff
and separate oneself
from ecclesiastical communion
with the rest of the faithful,
even though one does not join
a separate schismatical sect.
Number two.
One's withdrawal must be made
with obstinacy and rebellion.
Number three.
The withdrawal must be made
in relation to those things
by which the unity of the Church
is constituted.
And, number four,
despite this formal disobedience,
the schismatic must recognize
the Roman pontiff
as the true pastor of the Church
and he must profess
as an article of faith
that obedience is due
the Roman pontiff.
As a consequence,
there is no schism involved
if one separates from his bishop
and the communion of the faithful
of his diocese
but remains subject
to the Roman pontiff
and the universal Church.
However, today,
such a position would be impossible
to maintain in practice.
Nor is there any schism
if one merely transgress
a papal law
for the reason that one considers
it too difficult,
or if one refuses obedience
inasmuch as one suspects
the person of the pope
or the validity of his election,
or if one resists
him as the civil head
of a state."
Notice that in none of these quotes
I just gave you
is there any mention of schism
involving a denial of the papacy.
In fact, Fr. Zoll
just explicitly stated
that a denial of the papacy
is not a part of schism as such,
of pure schism.
A denial of the papacy
of the authority of the pope
would be heresy
and has been
since at least
the first Vatican Council,
which dogmatically defined
the papal primacy
as a primacy
of universal jurisdiction,
not only over all the bishops
and clergy,
but also all of the faithful.
Now, it is true
that oftentimes schism
is accompanied by heresy
because the schismatic looks
for a reason
to justify his schism.
Then it's no longer
a pure schism,
but a mixed schism,
schism mixed,
mixed with heresy.
Let me quote one more time
from Fr. Zoll, page 3.
Quote,
Pure schism, however, is rare,
though in theory
or absolutely considered
it can exist,
in practice it is rarely
to be found,
for after a period of time
most schismatics
not only refuse obedience,
but contend that they do not
have to obey.
Unquote.
Now, is this not
exactly what we see now
in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski,
for example,
who is looking
for doctrinal justification
for his refusal
of submission to Francis?
He calls it
rethinking the papacy, right?
And he's coming up with ideas
that are historically tied
to the heresy of Gallicanism.
But anyway,
Kwasniewski is not our topic now.
To get back to my original point,
I just provided
three pre-Vatican,
two sources
that disagree with
what Kennedy Hall said
regarding the nature of schism.
And I think it's pretty evident
from what we just heard
that if schism is lurking anywhere,
it's in the recognize
and resist position.
Because, let's face it,
the recognize and resist tracts
of, you know,
the remnant
and Catholic family news
and similar outlets
do not simply have
the odd moment of disobedience,
as Hall calls it.
They readily admit
that there is
a new religion underway
in the Vatican,
the conciliar religion
of Vatican II.
And it's being taught
in the official magisterium
of the people they recognize
as popes.
And that religion
they want nothing to do with,
nor do they want anything to do
with the worship
or the government
of that Vatican II church.
For example,
this is what Robert Morrison
wrote in The Remnant,
on November 16th, 2021.
Quote,
The entire synodal process
is a damnable abomination
and those who participate in it
are mocking God and the faith.
Unquote.
Now keep in mind,
according to Morrison,
the synodal process
was introduced
by the vicar of Christ.
And yet look at
what he says about it.
In another piece for The Remnant,
released on July,
July 28th, 2022,
the same Robert Morrison says,
quote,
It can be no mere coincidence
that Bergoglio's every step
advances the aims of Satan
and the globalists.
Unquote.
He's talking about the man
he believes is the pope.
And further,
he says of Francis,
quote,
He unequivocally opposes
the one holy Catholic
and apostolic church
and all those who wish
to fight for it.
Unquote.
So much for the odd moment
of disobedience.
But that's nothing.
Nothing compared
to what Jason Morgan wrote
for The Remnant,
published on February 10th, 2022.
That article is entitled
The Tragedy of New Church.
And I'm going to quote
bits and pieces from it,
leaving aside the particular context.
Otherwise, it would be too much.
Just listen to these soundbites.
Quote,
The contradictions and confusion
are not incidental to New Church.
They are inherent in it.
There is no way to be pro-life
and New Church.
For New Church is, at heart,
a humanistic, man-made institution
founded on relativism and compromise.
Modernism,
is New Church's identity.
New Church is antithetical
to the singularity of Christ's cross.
New Church is legion,
is pro-choice to its very core.
Those who want to remain Catholic
will have to find their way
out of New Church at some point.
New Church was born pro-choice.
It was born in schism,
rupture, chaos,
duplicity, misdirection.
New Church is the Vatican II
sham show,
on repeat,
forever.
The Catholic faithful have been asked
for nearly 60 years now
to suspend disbelief
and to pretend that the Novus Ordo,
the new Coke version of the real thing,
is the equivalent, somehow,
of the actual Mass.
New Church is mockery,
a mock-up of Catholicism.
It can never preach Christ
and Him crucified
because that would be an insult
to New Church's God and Satan's
diversity.
The Vatican persecutes Christians
and all dioceses,
everyone who wishes to attend
the real Mass.
Because the Vatican hates most
that which it professes to
but cannot control,
the body of Christ.
In setting up a false Mass
in place of the real Mass
and passing that fake Mass off
as a continuation of the real one,
the Vatican exiled itself
from the Church.
To reform the Mass
is not to reform it,
but to deny it.
To deny the Mass
is to send oneself
into the darkness of exile.
That exile camp of lost souls
is New Church.
Unquote.
Just an odd moment of disobedience.
Folks, if that's not schism,
I don't know what is.
Oh, and in case you think
that's still not schism
because we don't know
what the author means by New Church,
well, on October 2nd,
Morgan had defined the term
for his readers
also in an article at The Remnant.
Quote,
New Church,
the faux Catholic Church
headed by Pope Francis,
is not a religious organization
at all.
Unquote.
Ladies and gentlemen,
this is not simply
the odd moment of disobedience.
This is a wholesale rejection
of the conciliar program
and the institution
that stands in front of us.
It stands behind it.
And by the way,
that is the reason
why Francis is now taking away
their traditional Latin Mass.
But that's another topic
for another day.
What characterizes those
who take a strict
recognize and resist position
is not that there is
the odd moment of disobedience,
but that there is
the odd moment of obedience.
The once in the blue moon
accidental submission.
They are in habitual
defilement.
Fakto separation
from the new church
in its doctrine,
its worship,
and its government.
And it is only sometimes,
on fairly rare occasion actually,
that they display
a kind of submission.
For example,
if Francis grants
a plenary indulgence
for the year of St. Joseph
or something like that.
That they will go along with.
But that is the exception,
not the norm.
Oh, but they pray for the Pope.
They pray for Francis.
Well, that's nice.
I bet the Dalai Lama does too.
Again, schism is refusal
of submission to the Roman pontiff.
It is not refusal to pray
for the Roman pontiff.
A picture of the Pope
in your sacristy
does not mean you're
in communion with him.
Now look, of course,
not every recognize and resistor
is going to go quite as far
as Jason Morgan.
But the remnant
is a mainstream
recognize and resist publication.
And I think it says a lot
that they saw fit
to print that stuff.
I mean, the remnant is read
not just by SSPX people,
but especially, I think,
by Indult people,
those who go to the diocesan
traditional Latin mass
and maybe the fraternity
of St. Peter.
Apparently, Michael Matt,
the editor of the remnant,
apparently he knew
that not too many people
in his camp
would have a problem
with what Jason Morgan said.
And perhaps not everyone
would phrase it the same way,
but I'd say that deep down,
most recognize and resist people
are separated from Francis
and want to be.
They would never allow
Francis to be the final arbiter
to determine
what they must believe,
how they must worship,
or what laws they must follow.
Folks, some of them
will not even venerate
the people Francis
has declared to be saints.
Whether Francis is or isn't Pope
makes a big difference
because the papacy
makes a big difference.
How could you possibly say
that whether a certain individual
holds the office of Vicar of Christ
with the keys to the kingdom of heaven
or not doesn't really matter?
The only way you could say
it doesn't matter
is if you've already
separated yourself
from him spiritually anyway.
Right?
Now, in the case of us
Sedevacantes,
do we intentionally
separate ourselves from Francis,
from Jorge Bergoglio?
Of course we do.
But we do because we believe
he is not the Pope.
And why do we believe that?
Because he proves
just about every day
that he could not possibly
be the Pope.
Because if you look at
the Catholic teaching
on the papacy,
you can see
that Bergoglio, Francis,
does not fit the description
of what the Pope is
and does in the least.
Francis is not
the principle of Catholic unity.
He is not
the guarantee of orthodoxy.
He does not denounce errors,
nor does he make virtue loved.
His magisterium
is not the proximate
and universal criterion of truth.
Far from keeping
the gates of hell from perishing,
from prevailing,
Francis actually represents
the gates of hell
more than anyone else.
And I think most of the
recognize and resist trads
like Kennedy Hall
would probably agree with us there.
But that's precisely
what's so scary.
Because if they concede
that the Catholic doctrines
and dogmas concerning the papacy
are not verified in Francis
and nevertheless claim
he's the Pope,
then they're implying
and implicitly denying
what the Church teaches
about the papacy.
And if on top of that,
they then refuse him submission,
when submission is likewise
required by Catholic dogma,
then Catholicism has been
totally turned on its head.
Do you see how much damage
their position is doing
to the papacy?
But they refuse to let go
of the idea that Bergoglio
is the Pope,
and so they have no choice
but to reduce the papacy
to meaninglessness.
They're sacrificing
the Catholic teaching
regarding the papacy
for the sake of having
a warm body, so to speak,
someone they can point to
and say,
look, there's the Pope.
But it really doesn't go
much farther than that, does it?
As the late Father Anthony Ciccata
said many years ago,
theirs is a cardboard Pope.
He exists for display purposes only.
But the Pope of Catholic teaching
is not a cardboard Pope.
He is a Pope to whom
you must submit as the rule of faith,
the principle of unity
in the Church,
the father and teacher
of all Christians,
the guarantee of orthodoxy.
Ask yourself how God
can require submission
to the Roman pontiff
as a condition of salvation
if such submission
could at the same time
constitute the rule of faith.
If it could constitute
a danger to your salvation,
if it could lead you to hell,
it makes no sense whatsoever.
We'll continue with more
of our response
to Kennedy Hall's video
Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist
in the next episode
of Tradcast Express.
Won't be long.
Stay tuned.
Tradcast Express
is a production of
Novus Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making
a tax-deductible contribution
at novusortowatch.org
slash donate.