Tradcast Express
Tradcast Express, it's Saturday, April 13th, 2024.
If you're a traditional Catholic, or trying to be, and you get your theology from Canadian YouTuber Kennedy Hall instead of from pre-Vatican II Catholic theology books, that's risky business.
To show you what I mean, let's listen to what the do-it-yourself theologian Hall says in a recent video about the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, solemnly promulgated by John Paul II, whom Hall accepts as a true pope, in 1983.
The following clip is taken from Hall's YouTube video entitled,
Pope Francis About to Suppress the Fraternity of St. Peter?
Hard question.
It's to be asked.
It was released on February 29th, 2024.
I respect the 1983 code.
It's the code of the church.
Now, there's many people that think the code is problematic, and I do too.
In fact, Pope Francis' letter on, was it Desiderio Desideravi on the Eucharist?
Everyone was freaked out about that.
That's found in Canon Law.
It was there for a long time, by the way.
You know, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
There's heresy in Canon Law.
I did a show on this a couple years ago.
Or at least there's something adjacent to heresy, which is bad enough.
And Canon Law is not infallible.
If it was, it wouldn't be able to change.
So relax, you pope-splainers.
You know, it's perfectly fine if you're clueless about something,
but then you should just keep your mouth shut.
Be quiet, right?
Don't blast your errors around the globe, misleading countless souls, even if you mean well.
That video, from which I just played you an excerpt,
has over 42,000 views as of today, April 13th.
And that is utterly frightening, because this is serious stuff.
What makes it worse is that Kennedy Hall just published a book,
what, about a year ago,
Defending the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvris.
And in that book, he tackles all kinds of theological and canonical issues.
So he's clearly acting like he knows what he's talking about,
yet what I just played you, him saying that Canon Law is not infallible
and can even contain heresy, is totally wrong.
You know what they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
And Kennedy Hall just proved it.
See, it would have been very easy for Mr. Hall to avoid this egregious howler,
because he simply could have looked it up.
And right now, we don't even need to worry about whether the precise case he brings up
is or isn't heresy.
Here, the issue is a more fundamental one.
Is it possible for Canon Law to contain heresy?
Is the law of the church infallible?
And if so, what does that mean?
To get an answer to these questions,
all Kennedy Hall would have needed to do, for example,
is consult the English translation of Monsignor Gerard van Noort's book,
Christ's Church, which is volume two of his Dogmatic Theology series,
It's got an imprimatur dated 1956 and has been back in print for over three years.
It's available also on archive.org for free perusal and download.
Links are in the show notes.
In other words, it's readily accessible even in Canada.
Here's what van Noort says.
And of course, you'll find this also in other approved dogmatic manuals from before Vatican II.
Quote,
Assertion 3.
The church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the church.
This proposition is theologically certain.
By the term general discipline of the church are meant those ecclesiastical laws
passed for the universal church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living.
Note the italicized words, ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal church.
Quote,
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office, but to the ruling office.
Disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility,
that is, only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them.
When the church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment.
First, this law squares with the church's doctrine of faith and morals.
That is, it imposes nothing that is at odds,
with sound belief and good morals.
This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
Second, this law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.
This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law,
especially at the moment when the church imposes or expressly reaffirms it,
still the church does not claim to be infallible
in issuing a decree of practical judgment.
For the church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence
for the conduct of affairs.
But the church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above,
and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law
which would be at odds with faith or morality,
or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
Quote,
The church's infallibility in disciplinary matters,
when understood in this way,
harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws.
And here I should clarify that mutability means its changeableness.
For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth,
can, given a change in circumstances,
become less timely or even useless,
so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or malice.
Quote,
That is from Van Noort's book Christ's Church,
paragraph number 91,
found on pages 114 and 115.
And that explains it all right there.
No, the church's law cannot contain heresy,
and yes, it is infallible,
in the sense that it could never contain something
that is in itself harmful, evil, sacrilegious,
or injurious to souls in some other way.
Such infallibly safe laws could become bad by circumstance,
but they cannot be bad in themselves,
which is, of course, what a heretical law would be.
The reason they can become imprudent by circumstance
is quite simply that there is no way for human beings,
even the Pope,
to make laws that could possibly take into consideration
every possible circumstance.
It cannot be done.
Anyway, what I quote from Van Noort
isn't just a lone theologian's opinion.
It's actually taught more or less directly
by the papal magisterium itself.
For example, in the Bull Auctorum Fide,
Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that,
quote,
the church which is ruled by the Spirit of God
could have established discipline
which is not only useless and burdensome
for Christian liberty to endure,
but which is even dangerous,
and harmful,
and leading to superstition and materialism.
Unquote.
And he condemned that as,
quote,
false, rash, scandalous, dangerous,
offensive to pious ears,
injurious to the church and to the Spirit of God
by whom it is guided,
at least erroneous.
Unquote.
And you can find that in Denzinger,
number 1578.
Furthermore, in his encyclical
Mystici Corporis, paragraph 66,
Pope Pius XII clearly taught
that the church, quote,
is spotless in the sacraments
by which she gives birth to
and nourishes her children,
in the faith which she has always preserved
in violet,
in her sacred laws imposed on all.
Unquote.
And then he mentions a few other things,
but they're not relevant here.
Now, for those who claim that
canon law isn't universal law
because it's only for the Latin rite
and not for the Catholic Church,
for the Eastern Churches,
that is nonsense because,
well, for one thing,
the Eastern Churches, of course,
have their own canon law,
but more so because the universality of law
does not refer to rite,
but to territory.
Check the show notes for more on that.
So, unfortunately,
some people like to rush to their webcam
or microphone
and blast all kinds of nonsense
across cyberspace
instead of first making sure
they have a correct answer.
They don't have a correct understanding
of the matter about which
they're influencing other people.
Now that we know that canon law
is infallible in the sense just explained
and therefore it could not contain
anything heretical or sacrilegious,
if at the same time
it is simply undeniable
that there is something heretical
or sacrilegious in the 1983
Code of Canon Law,
solemnly promulgated by John Paul II,
to be valid forever
in the future,
as it says,
and invoking his supposed
supreme authority
and even mentioning
the authority of the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul,
what follows?
What follows from that?
The only conclusion possible
is that John Paul II
was not, in fact,
the Pope of the Catholic Church.
But that is something
Kennedy Hall
will probably not
be podcasting about.
Tradcast Express
is a production of
Novos Ordo Watch.
Check us out at
tradcast.org
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making
a tax-deductible contribution
at novosordowatch.org
slash donate.