[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 30 → 38] Big Picture. Matt comments on Cardinal Burke's accusation that the Society of St. Pius X is in [ 38 → 44] schism. And here's what he says at the six minute and eight second mark. But in any case, it is [ 44 → 50] Cardinal Burke's job to be concerned about schism. That's what he does. And again, I disagree with [ 50 → 55] him with respect to the Society of St. Pius X schism, but I don't disagree with the sentiment. [ 55 → 60] Of course, none of us want to have a break or a breach with Rome, with the Pope, with the Vatican [ 60 → 65] and so forth. But this is what happens when modernists take over the fort, which is what [ 65 → 70] has happened. What do we do? Do we obey these men? Or do we go into what looks like schism [ 70 → 76] for the good of the salvation of our souls? We've got to stop here for a minute. This is such [ 76 → 82] unbelievable junk theology. It's hard to know where to begin commenting on this. First, it's not [ 82 → 89] simply Mr. Burke's job to be concerned about schism. It's every Catholic's job to be concerned [ 89 → 90] about schism. [ 90 → 97] Schism is a mortal sin, which in and of itself puts you outside of the Catholic Church. And it [ 97 → 105] is also an ecclesiastical crime to which is attached the penalty of excommunication. Then [ 105 → 110] Matt says that, well, Catholics don't want to break with the Pope. But what are you going to [ 110 → 116] do when you have modernists in power? Yeah, well, what are you going to do? How about conclude that [ 117 → 120] modernists, since they are not Catholics, [ 120 → 127] definition, cannot legitimately hold office in the Catholic Church because the church is one in faith [ 127 → 135] and modernists don't have the faith. How about that? By the way, how is it that Matt says there [ 135 → 143] are modernists in power? Isn't he one of those who always insists that we cannot find any clear [ 143 → 149] heresy in Francis? And even if we could, it would have to be declared by the church before we could [ 149 → 156] know that he's not a Catholic. So how can he now say that there are modernists in power? [ 156 → 162] There is no church judgment for any of these Novus Ordo hierarchs that has declared them [ 162 → 168] to be modernists. Don't you hate it when logic interferes with your emotionally satisfying [ 168 → 175] theological position? Anyway, it gets worse. Here's some more audio from Michael Matt. [ 175 → 179] I mean, the mortal sin of schism was all about preventing people from leaving the church. [ 179 → 184] Right? That's why it's so bad. If what's now called schism in this completely [ 184 → 191] backwards church of ours, if schism means you're going to adhere to the traditional faith exactly [ 191 → 195] as it was handed down over the centuries, well, obviously the spirit of the law has to be [ 195 → 202] considered. Oh man, this is really bad. Schism has only one definition and it's pretty clear. [ 202 → 209] A schismatic is someone who refuses submission to the Roman pontiff or refuses to be, [ 209 → 216] in communion with those who are subject to the Roman pontiff. That's it. There is no other [ 216 → 223] definition of schism or schismatic. So the only question is whether or not Michael Matt is [ 223 → 229] affirming that it is permissible or perhaps even necessary to refuse submission to the Roman pontiff [ 229 → 236] or to refuse to be in communion with those who are subject to him. And I think we know the answer [ 236 → 239] to that. Oh, but what about the [ 239 → 245] spirit of the law? Well, someone needs to tell the editor of the remnant that you can only invoke [ 245 → 252] the distinction between letter and spirit of the law for human law, ecclesiastical law, church law, [ 253 → 259] not the moral law, which is of divine origin. The reason for that is that ecclesiastical law [ 259 → 265] obviously has a human legislator, a human lawgiver, the Pope. And since the Pope is unable [ 265 → 269] to make laws that take into consideration all possible circumstances, [ 269 → 275] circumstances that may arise for every single Catholic, sometimes it may happen that in a [ 275 → 281] particular situation, following the strict letter of a church law may actually accomplish the [ 281 → 289] opposite than what was intended by the legislator and actually harm a soul. Okay. So in such an [ 289 → 295] event, it is permissible to transgress the letter of the law if by transgressing it, [ 295 → 299] the original purpose for which the law was made, the spirit. [ 299 → 306] Of the law is served. Now, the reason why that principle called Epikiah cannot be invoked for the [ 306 → 313] moral law is simple because God is the legislator of the moral law and God being omniscient had [ 313 → 320] already foreseen every possible circumstance that could arise when he made the law. So there is no [ 320 → 326] possible way you could invoke Epikiah for the moral law. And you know what? Michael Matt's [ 326 → 329] columnist, Christopher Ferreira, just made that. [ 329 → 337] Point in a blog post at the Remnant website on October 6th. It's a post entitled still more [ 337 → 343] fake news. La Stampa tries again about the whole Amoris Laetitia and filial correction kerfuffle. [ 344 → 352] Ferreira quoted a Ratzinger document from 1990 as follows, quote, Epikiah and Equitas Canonica [ 352 → 358] exist in the sphere of human and purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, [ 358 → 359] but cannot be applied to the moral law. And so, in this case, Epikiah and Equitas Canonica [ 359 → 367] apply to those norms over which the church has no discretionary authority, unquote. So there you [ 367 → 373] have it. And what makes this really amusing is that what Michael Matt is doing here is he's [ 373 → 380] basically taking the same reasoning that's behind Amoris Laetitia and applying it to the question of [ 380 → 388] schism. Because the defenders of Amoris Laetitia, they're also saying, hey, you know that divorce, [ 388 → 389] remarriage, adultery thing? [ 389 → 395] Yeah, we really need to move away from the strict letter of the law and look at the spirit, [ 395 → 400] which is for the procreation and rearing of children. And so if you're doing that in your [ 400 → 405] second marriage, then you obviously have to consider the spirit of the law and not the letter. [ 406 → 412] And how could Michael Matt possibly answer that argument since he just admitted the very principle [ 412 → 418] it relies on? If one man can have schism, why can't another man have adultery? [ 419 → 426] Anyway, you can see that at the remnant, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. [ 426 → 432] It boggles the mind to think how many people consider that newspaper a traditional Catholic [ 432 → 440] publication. It's really tragic, but Michael Matt just doesn't get it. You can never become [ 440 → 448] a schismatic in order not to become a heretic. If you're schismatic, you might as well be a [ 448 → 449] Catholic. [ 449 → 456] Now, to suggest that God would require you to enter into schism in order to escape heresy [ 456 → 464] is absurd and blasphemous. It's also impious. Come on, Michael Matt, what more evidence do you need? [ 464 → 472] Your position leads you to embrace an impossible scenario, the scenario being that you must break [ 472 → 478] communion with the Roman pontiff in order not to have to embrace his religion. Well, if that isn't [ 478 → 479] an infallible situation, then you're not a schism. You're not a schism. You're not a schism. You're not a [ 479 → 482] schism. You're not a schism. You're not a schism. You're not a schism. You're not a schism. [ 482 → 488] And don't give me that silly argument that, ooh, if we're doing it for a good intention, [ 488 → 495] then it's not really schism. Schism has a clear definition and it is always wrong. Schism is an [ 495 → 503] intrinsic evil. What Matt is saying is that it's okay to be a schismatic when you're doing it for [ 503 → 509] the sake of upholding the Catholic faith, and then it's not really schism. Yeah, well, too bad that [ 509 → 517] faith includes as a dogma the necessity of submission to the Roman pontiff. In any case, [ 517 → 522] I'd be interested to see what theological manual or magisterial document Matt can quote [ 522 → 531] to back up his junk theology. In 1873, Pope Pius IX published a long encyclical letter called [ 531 → 539] Quartus Supra, in which he completely dismantles all the bogus arguments of the schismatics of his [ 539 → 545] time. And if you read that today, it reads like it was written specifically for Bishop Fallet and [ 545 → 554] the Society of St. Pius X. Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from [ 554 → 562] the church. Pius IX says that in his encyclical, quoting St. Jerome. Well, it sure looks like not [ 562 → 569] much has changed since 1873. Okay, here's one more quick soundbite before we go. [ 569 → 573] From Michael Matt. So we look now, all the traditional Catholics, we look out over the [ 573 → 577] landscape, we look out over the hierarchy, and we say, gee, is there anybody that will just give us [ 577 → 583] just that much that we can fall in behind them and at least try to bring things back to sanity [ 583 → 589] and orthodoxy in the church? Yeah, Mr. Matt, in the Catholic Church, there is one man whom a [ 589 → 598] Catholic always can and always must follow, and that is the Pope. Trapcast Express is a production [ 598 → 599] of Novoselic.com. [ 599 → 604] Novos Ordo Watch. Check us out at Trapcast.org, and if you like what we're doing, please consider [ 604 → 609] making a tax-deductible contribution at NovosOrdoWatch.org.