[ 0 → 4] TrapCast Express [ 4 → 15] TrapCast Express, it's Tuesday, June 13th, 2023. [ 16 → 20] Kennedy Hall is a supporter of the Society of St. Pius X [ 20 → 24] and an apologist for Recognize and Resist Theology. [ 25 → 29] In recent years, he's come to some prominence in the social media world [ 29 → 32] being affiliated with the Fatima Center [ 32 → 38] and writing for publications such as OnePeterFive and Crisis Magazine. [ 39 → 43] Earlier this year, he published the book SSPX, The Defense. [ 43 → 47] On YouTube, he has his own show called The Kennedy Report. [ 48 → 51] Kennedy Hall is easy to recognize online. [ 51 → 55] He has a slight Canadian accent and a pretty good-sized beard. [ 57 → 59] Now, back on May 11th of this year, [ 59 → 64] Hall released a video entitled Five SSPX Myths Debunked. [ 65 → 70] About a week later, I joined Kevin Davis on the Catholic Family podcast [ 70 → 73] to respond to Hall's video. [ 73 → 76] And in case you haven't seen that yet, please be sure to check it out. [ 77 → 78] The link is in the show notes, [ 78 → 84] or you can just go to YouTube and search for Five SSPX Myths Debunked. [ 84 → 87] We've gotten pretty good feedback on it. [ 87 → 89] People say they found our response informative. [ 89 → 91] And helpful. [ 91 → 94] So, why am I telling you all this? [ 94 → 100] Because on May 26th, Hall released another video entitled [ 100 → 102] Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist. [ 103 → 106] Now, I don't know if that had anything to do with the response video [ 106 → 109] Kevin Davis and I had made a week prior, [ 109 → 114] but in this podcast, I'd like to take some time and go through Hall's video, [ 114 → 116] minus the beard oil commercial, [ 116 → 119] and consider his arguments and respond to them. [ 120 → 124] So, first of all, let's have a look at the title. [ 124 → 129] Hall's video is called Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist. [ 129 → 132] It is not called Why Sedevacantism is False, [ 133 → 135] or Why You Shouldn't Be a Sedevacantist, [ 136 → 139] but Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist. [ 139 → 141] And that already sets the tone, [ 141 → 146] because indeed, his arguments are quite subjective and filled with fluff. [ 146 → 148] There's just not much substance there. [ 149 → 149] But let's go. [ 150 → 151] Let's go through this step by step. [ 151 → 154] I'm not going to play everything Hall says, [ 154 → 155] only the more important stuff, [ 156 → 159] and then I'll rudely interrupt and comment. [ 160 → 162] And folks, I can tell you this right now. [ 162 → 166] In this podcast episode, we're not going to finish. [ 166 → 170] So, this will be part one of probably two or three parts [ 170 → 172] responding to Kennedy Hall. [ 173 → 175] But it'll be worth it. [ 175 → 176] All right. [ 176 → 179] So, Hall begins by clarifying [ 179 → 182] that he is not anti-Sedevacantist, [ 182 → 183] and that in his opinion, [ 183 → 185] Sedevacantists who are of goodwill, [ 186 → 188] and he even concedes there might be some, [ 188 → 190] are not guilty of schism. [ 191 → 195] Let's listen in, starting at the 2 minute, 14 second mark. [ 195 → 196] As far as I'm concerned, [ 196 → 198] when I read the literature on what it means to be a schismatic, [ 199 → 201] whether it's Thomas Aquinas and the great saints and whatever, [ 202 → 203] it's pretty clear that to be a schismatic, [ 203 → 207] you have to essentially reject the papacy out of principle. [ 207 → 210] Well, it's not just the odd moment of disobedience, [ 210 → 210] because of course, [ 211 → 213] scriptures tell us that you could obey God over man. [ 213 → 214] That could include any superior. [ 216 → 218] You know, St. Thomas Aquinas is very clear [ 218 → 220] that St. Paul resisted Peter to his face [ 220 → 222] and wouldn't go along with what he was doing [ 222 → 224] because Peter was scandalizing the church. [ 224 → 226] I mean, you can use your critical thinking skills [ 226 → 229] and understand that if you disobey your father in one instance [ 229 → 230] and you have a good reason for it, [ 231 → 233] this is not you saying your father isn't your father [ 233 → 234] and doesn't have the authority to do [ 234 → 236] what he's supposed to do as a father. [ 236 → 237] They're very separate things [ 237 → 237] and people will say, [ 237 → 239] people with critical reasoning skills [ 239 → 240] can probably distinguish between those two, [ 240 → 241] which is rare today, sadly. [ 242 → 246] But nonetheless, in order for someone to be a schismatic, [ 246 → 249] they have to essentially reject the pope in principle. [ 249 → 251] They have to reject the papacy as such. [ 251 → 253] They have to reject that the pope [ 253 → 255] has the authority to do pope things. [ 256 → 259] And in the case of St. Evacantus, [ 260 → 262] if St. Evacantus is of goodwill [ 262 → 264] and doesn't believe that there's been a pope [ 264 → 265] for a certain amount of time, [ 266 → 266] personally, [ 266 → 269] I don't see that as that person rejecting [ 269 → 271] to submit to the pope. [ 271 → 274] I see that as that person believing in good faith [ 274 → 275] for their reasons, [ 275 → 276] which we'll get to in a second, [ 277 → 278] that there is no pope [ 278 → 279] and therefore there's no one to submit to. [ 280 → 280] All right. [ 281 → 283] First, I'd like to thank Kennedy Hall [ 283 → 285] for pointing out that obviously [ 285 → 289] St. Evacantus do not reject the papacy, [ 289 → 290] the papal office, [ 291 → 293] with its divinely established authority. [ 293 → 295] Rather, we believe that Francis [ 295 → 296] and his five predecessors [ 296 → 298] of unhappy memory [ 298 → 300] do not, did not, [ 300 → 302] hold the papal office [ 302 → 304] and that that is manifest [ 304 → 305] from their fruits. [ 306 → 307] In other words, [ 307 → 309] we have seen the effects [ 309 → 311] of the supposed pontificates [ 311 → 312] of John XXIII, [ 312 → 313] Paul VI, [ 314 → 315] John Paul I, [ 315 → 316] John Paul II, [ 316 → 317] Benedict XVI, [ 317 → 318] and Francis, [ 319 → 320] and we reason back [ 320 → 322] from those effects [ 322 → 323] to their cause. [ 323 → 324] And the only way [ 324 → 326] to explain the effects [ 326 → 327] is by holding [ 327 → 329] that they were in fact [ 329 → 331] not true popes. [ 331 → 333] They never actually obtained [ 333 → 334] the papacy. [ 335 → 337] Whatever the precise reason [ 337 → 337] may have been [ 337 → 338] for their failure [ 338 → 340] to become true popes, [ 340 → 341] whether that be [ 341 → 342] manifest heresy [ 342 → 344] before their respective elections [ 344 → 346] or them placing [ 346 → 348] a voluntary obstacle [ 348 → 349] to a valid acceptance [ 349 → 350] of their election [ 350 → 352] or some other reason, [ 352 → 353] the point is [ 353 → 355] that it is evident [ 355 → 356] that they are not [ 356 → 357] true popes. [ 358 → 359] They cannot be. [ 359 → 360] That's it in a nutshell. [ 361 → 363] Now, with regard [ 363 → 365] to the essence of schism. [ 365 → 366] First of all, [ 367 → 367] the word schism [ 367 → 369] comes from the Greek [ 369 → 371] and means cleft or split. [ 372 → 373] Schism is a division, [ 374 → 374] a separation. [ 376 → 377] Strictly speaking, [ 377 → 378] it has nothing to do [ 378 → 380] with denying a truth [ 380 → 381] of the faith, [ 381 → 383] although that very often [ 383 → 384] accompanies it. [ 384 → 385] Denying a dogma [ 385 → 386] is heresy. [ 386 → 387] Not schism. [ 388 → 389] And schism is a separation, [ 390 → 391] not a denial of the faith. [ 392 → 393] It's unfortunate [ 393 → 394] that Kennedy Hall [ 394 → 395] does not point [ 395 → 397] to any particular source [ 397 → 398] for what he's saying [ 398 → 399] about schism. [ 399 → 400] He's very vague, [ 400 → 401] very general, [ 401 → 403] and just says, [ 403 → 405] well, he's read stuff [ 405 → 406] from St. Thomas Aquinas [ 406 → 407] and the saints [ 407 → 407] and whatever. [ 408 → 409] What we need [ 409 → 411] is chapter and verse. [ 411 → 413] Who says what [ 413 → 414] and where? [ 415 → 415] Now, [ 415 → 417] in researching the question [ 417 → 419] of the nature of schism [ 419 → 420] for this podcast, [ 420 → 421] I've not found [ 421 → 423] an entirely consistent picture [ 423 → 425] in the theological literature [ 425 → 426] before Vatican II. [ 427 → 429] Does the essence of schism [ 429 → 430] necessarily include [ 430 → 432] a denial of the authority [ 432 → 433] of the Pope? [ 434 → 435] Does it imply [ 435 → 437] a rejection of the papacy [ 437 → 438] in principle? [ 439 → 439] As Hall says, [ 440 → 442] pre-Vatican II sources [ 442 → 443] are not always in agreement [ 443 → 444] with each other on that, [ 444 → 445] is what I've found. [ 445 → 447] However, [ 447 → 448] what I can say for sure [ 448 → 450] is that Hall's claim [ 450 → 452] that schism necessarily entails [ 452 → 454] a rejection of papal authority [ 454 → 457] is definitely not held [ 457 → 458] by all authors [ 458 → 461] and even outright contradicted [ 461 → 461] by some. [ 462 → 464] Let's look at three specific [ 464 → 466] traditional Catholic sources [ 466 → 467] on that, [ 467 → 468] starting with, [ 468 → 469] drumroll, [ 469 → 470] St. Thomas. [ 471 → 473] If we look at the [ 473 → 475] Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, [ 475 → 477] the topic of schism [ 477 → 478] is treated in four articles [ 478 → 480] in the second part [ 480 → 481] of the second part, [ 481 → 482] question 39. [ 483 → 484] Let me quote [ 484 → 485] the most relevant fragments [ 485 → 487] from article one. [ 487 → 488] So this is St. Thomas [ 488 → 489] speaking now. [ 490 → 492] Schismatics properly so-called [ 492 → 494] are those who willfully [ 494 → 495] and intentionally [ 495 → 497] separate themselves [ 497 → 499] from the unity of the Church. [ 501 → 502] Schismatics are those [ 502 → 504] who refuse to submit [ 504 → 505] to the sovereign pontiff [ 505 → 507] and to hold communion [ 507 → 508] with those members of the Church [ 508 → 510] who acknowledge his supremacy. [ 511 → 513] The essence of schism [ 513 → 515] consists in rebelliously [ 515 → 517] disobeying the commandments. [ 518 → 519] And I say rebelliously [ 519 → 521] since a schismatic [ 521 → 523] both obstinately scorns [ 523 → 524] the commandments of the Church [ 524 → 526] and refuses to submit [ 526 → 527] to her judgment. [ 528 → 530] So that's what St. Thomas says. [ 531 → 533] Next, let me quote [ 533 → 534] from the Dictionary [ 534 → 535] of Moral Theology, [ 535 → 537] compiled under the direction [ 537 → 539] of Cardinal Francesco Roberti, [ 540 → 541] published in the Italian original [ 541 → 543] in 1957, [ 543 → 546] English translation 1962. [ 547 → 550] Starting on page 1097. [ 551 → 551] Quote, [ 552 → 555] Schism is a technical theological term [ 555 → 557] to indicate a separation [ 557 → 559] of a group or of an individual [ 559 → 562] from the unity of the universal Church [ 562 → 565] with the retention of belief [ 565 → 565] in the Church. [ 565 → 566] The true faith. [ 567 → 568] On this latter point, [ 568 → 570] a schism differs from a heresy [ 570 → 571] or apostasy. [ 572 → 573] This unity of the Church [ 573 → 575] has a twofold aspect. [ 575 → 577] A union of the faithful [ 577 → 578] among themselves [ 578 → 579] in the bonds of charity [ 579 → 581] and a union of the members [ 581 → 582] with the head [ 582 → 584] in the bond of obedience. [ 585 → 587] To lack either of these aspects [ 587 → 589] constitutes a sin of schism. [ 590 → 592] In practice, however, [ 592 → 594] after an initial break, [ 594 → 595] these two elements [ 595 → 597] will coincide in their effects. [ 598 → 599] In itself, [ 599 → 601] schism could exist without heresy, [ 602 → 604] that is, as a mere de facto separation [ 604 → 605] or rebellion [ 605 → 608] without a theoretical denial [ 608 → 609] of the authority of the Pope, [ 610 → 612] as occurred in the Great Western Schism [ 612 → 615] of 1378 to 1418 A.D. [ 616 → 617] In practice, however, [ 617 → 620] heresy usually creeps into a schism [ 620 → 622] since eventually it becomes necessary [ 622 → 624] to deny the dogma of papal infallibility [ 624 → 626] and all other dogmas [ 626 → 629] declared after the schism or break. [ 629 → 631] This occurred in the schism [ 631 → 633] of the Eastern Dissident Churches. [ 633 → 634] It must be noted [ 634 → 636] that individual members of the flock [ 636 → 638] as well as groups [ 638 → 639] may become schismatic. [ 641 → 642] A schism may be material, [ 643 → 644] that is, in good faith, [ 645 → 646] as many Eastern schismatics, [ 647 → 648] or formal, in bad faith. [ 649 → 651] The sin that arises from a schism [ 651 → 653] is serious in its matter [ 653 → 654] as a grave schism, [ 654 → 656] a grave sin of disobedience. [ 657 → 658] Obedience is due [ 658 → 660] to the supreme head of the Church. [ 661 → 663] Theologians, following St. Thomas, [ 663 → 666] list schism with the sins against charity [ 666 → 668] because it is a breach of peace [ 668 → 669] among the faithful. [ 670 → 672] Schism is less grave than heresy [ 672 → 673] and irreligion [ 673 → 675] because these are offenses [ 675 → 676] against the revelation of God, [ 677 → 679] the supreme head of all men [ 679 → 681] and infinite truth." [ 681 → 684] Now, so far, [ 684 → 685] we've considered schism [ 685 → 687] as a sin against God's law, [ 688 → 690] which is a matter of moral theology. [ 691 → 692] But schism can also be considered [ 692 → 694] as a crime against church law, [ 695 → 697] which is a matter of canon law. [ 697 → 699] With regard to that, [ 699 → 701] we can quote Fr. Ignatius Zoll, [ 702 → 703] who wrote the canonical study [ 703 → 706] The Communication of Catholics [ 706 → 707] with Schismatics, [ 707 → 709] published in 1948. [ 710 → 712] And he explains the notion of schism [ 712 → 713] as follows. [ 714 → 717] And this is from pages 1 and 2. [ 718 → 718] Quote, [ 718 → 721] The notion of schism is clear, [ 721 → 724] for in law a schismatic is defined [ 724 → 726] as one who, having received baptism [ 726 → 729] and still retaining the name of Christian, [ 730 → 732] nevertheless refuses obedience [ 732 → 734] to the supreme pontiff [ 734 → 736] or refuses to communicate [ 736 → 738] with those members of the Church [ 738 → 739] who are subject to him. [ 740 → 742] There is here involved no denial [ 742 → 744] of any article of faith, [ 744 → 745] of divine or Catholic faith. [ 746 → 747] Strictly considered, [ 747 → 749] a schismatic professes belief [ 749 → 751] in the sovereign power [ 751 → 753] and primacy of the Pope, [ 753 → 755] but out of malice refuses [ 755 → 756] to be subject to him [ 756 → 757] and to obey him [ 757 → 759] as the head of the Church [ 759 → 761] and the vicar of Christ on earth. [ 761 → 764] Such schism is called pure schism. [ 766 → 768] To constitute the delictive schism [ 768 → 769] in the strict sense, [ 770 → 772] the following conditions are required. [ 772 → 773] Number one. [ 773 → 773] Number two. [ 773 → 775] One must withdraw directly, [ 776 → 776] expressly, [ 777 → 778] or indirectly, [ 778 → 779] by means of one's actions, [ 780 → 782] from obedience to the Roman pontiff [ 782 → 784] and separate oneself [ 784 → 786] from ecclesiastical communion [ 786 → 787] with the rest of the faithful, [ 788 → 790] even though one does not join [ 790 → 791] a separate schismatical sect. [ 792 → 793] Number two. [ 793 → 795] One's withdrawal must be made [ 795 → 797] with obstinacy and rebellion. [ 798 → 799] Number three. [ 800 → 801] The withdrawal must be made [ 801 → 803] in relation to those things [ 803 → 806] by which the unity of the Church [ 806 → 807] is constituted. [ 807 → 808] And, number four, [ 809 → 811] despite this formal disobedience, [ 811 → 813] the schismatic must recognize [ 813 → 815] the Roman pontiff [ 815 → 817] as the true pastor of the Church [ 817 → 819] and he must profess [ 819 → 820] as an article of faith [ 820 → 822] that obedience is due [ 822 → 824] the Roman pontiff. [ 824 → 825] As a consequence, [ 826 → 828] there is no schism involved [ 828 → 830] if one separates from his bishop [ 830 → 831] and the communion of the faithful [ 831 → 832] of his diocese [ 833 → 834] but remains subject [ 834 → 836] to the Roman pontiff [ 836 → 837] and the universal Church. [ 838 → 839] However, today, [ 839 → 841] such a position would be impossible [ 841 → 843] to maintain in practice. [ 844 → 845] Nor is there any schism [ 845 → 847] if one merely transgress [ 847 → 848] a papal law [ 848 → 850] for the reason that one considers [ 850 → 851] it too difficult, [ 852 → 854] or if one refuses obedience [ 854 → 857] inasmuch as one suspects [ 857 → 858] the person of the pope [ 858 → 861] or the validity of his election, [ 861 → 863] or if one resists [ 863 → 864] him as the civil head [ 864 → 866] of a state." [ 866 → 870] Notice that in none of these quotes [ 870 → 871] I just gave you [ 871 → 873] is there any mention of schism [ 873 → 875] involving a denial of the papacy. [ 877 → 878] In fact, Fr. Zoll [ 878 → 880] just explicitly stated [ 880 → 882] that a denial of the papacy [ 882 → 885] is not a part of schism as such, [ 885 → 886] of pure schism. [ 887 → 888] A denial of the papacy [ 888 → 890] of the authority of the pope [ 890 → 891] would be heresy [ 891 → 892] and has been [ 892 → 893] since at least [ 893 → 895] the first Vatican Council, [ 895 → 897] which dogmatically defined [ 897 → 898] the papal primacy [ 898 → 899] as a primacy [ 899 → 901] of universal jurisdiction, [ 901 → 903] not only over all the bishops [ 903 → 904] and clergy, [ 904 → 906] but also all of the faithful. [ 908 → 909] Now, it is true [ 909 → 910] that oftentimes schism [ 910 → 912] is accompanied by heresy [ 912 → 914] because the schismatic looks [ 914 → 915] for a reason [ 915 → 917] to justify his schism. [ 917 → 919] Then it's no longer [ 919 → 920] a pure schism, [ 920 → 921] but a mixed schism, [ 922 → 922] schism mixed, [ 922 → 924] mixed with heresy. [ 924 → 926] Let me quote one more time [ 926 → 928] from Fr. Zoll, page 3. [ 929 → 929] Quote, [ 930 → 932] Pure schism, however, is rare, [ 932 → 933] though in theory [ 933 → 935] or absolutely considered [ 935 → 936] it can exist, [ 937 → 938] in practice it is rarely [ 938 → 939] to be found, [ 939 → 941] for after a period of time [ 941 → 942] most schismatics [ 942 → 944] not only refuse obedience, [ 945 → 947] but contend that they do not [ 947 → 948] have to obey. [ 949 → 950] Unquote. [ 951 → 952] Now, is this not [ 952 → 954] exactly what we see now [ 954 → 956] in Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, [ 957 → 957] for example, [ 957 → 958] who is looking [ 958 → 961] for doctrinal justification [ 961 → 962] for his refusal [ 962 → 964] of submission to Francis? [ 964 → 965] He calls it [ 965 → 967] rethinking the papacy, right? [ 968 → 969] And he's coming up with ideas [ 969 → 971] that are historically tied [ 971 → 973] to the heresy of Gallicanism. [ 974 → 975] But anyway, [ 975 → 977] Kwasniewski is not our topic now. [ 977 → 979] To get back to my original point, [ 979 → 980] I just provided [ 980 → 982] three pre-Vatican, [ 982 → 983] two sources [ 983 → 985] that disagree with [ 985 → 986] what Kennedy Hall said [ 986 → 988] regarding the nature of schism. [ 988 → 990] And I think it's pretty evident [ 990 → 991] from what we just heard [ 991 → 993] that if schism is lurking anywhere, [ 993 → 995] it's in the recognize [ 995 → 996] and resist position. [ 996 → 998] Because, let's face it, [ 998 → 1000] the recognize and resist tracts [1000 → 1001] of, you know, [1001 → 1002] the remnant [1002 → 1004] and Catholic family news [1004 → 1005] and similar outlets [1005 → 1007] do not simply have [1007 → 1009] the odd moment of disobedience, [1009 → 1010] as Hall calls it. [1010 → 1012] They readily admit [1012 → 1014] that there is [1014 → 1015] a new religion underway [1015 → 1016] in the Vatican, [1016 → 1018] the conciliar religion [1018 → 1019] of Vatican II. [1020 → 1021] And it's being taught [1021 → 1023] in the official magisterium [1023 → 1025] of the people they recognize [1025 → 1026] as popes. [1026 → 1027] And that religion [1027 → 1029] they want nothing to do with, [1030 → 1031] nor do they want anything to do [1031 → 1032] with the worship [1032 → 1034] or the government [1034 → 1036] of that Vatican II church. [1036 → 1038] For example, [1038 → 1040] this is what Robert Morrison [1040 → 1042] wrote in The Remnant, [1042 → 1045] on November 16th, 2021. [1046 → 1046] Quote, [1047 → 1049] The entire synodal process [1049 → 1051] is a damnable abomination [1051 → 1054] and those who participate in it [1054 → 1056] are mocking God and the faith. [1057 → 1058] Unquote. [1058 → 1060] Now keep in mind, [1060 → 1061] according to Morrison, [1061 → 1062] the synodal process [1062 → 1064] was introduced [1064 → 1065] by the vicar of Christ. [1066 → 1067] And yet look at [1067 → 1068] what he says about it. [1069 → 1071] In another piece for The Remnant, [1071 → 1072] released on July, [1072 → 1074] July 28th, 2022, [1074 → 1076] the same Robert Morrison says, [1076 → 1077] quote, [1077 → 1079] It can be no mere coincidence [1079 → 1082] that Bergoglio's every step [1082 → 1084] advances the aims of Satan [1084 → 1086] and the globalists. [1086 → 1087] Unquote. [1088 → 1090] He's talking about the man [1090 → 1092] he believes is the pope. [1094 → 1095] And further, [1095 → 1096] he says of Francis, [1096 → 1097] quote, [1097 → 1099] He unequivocally opposes [1099 → 1101] the one holy Catholic [1101 → 1104] and apostolic church [1104 → 1106] and all those who wish [1106 → 1107] to fight for it. [1108 → 1108] Unquote. [1109 → 1112] So much for the odd moment [1112 → 1113] of disobedience. [1114 → 1115] But that's nothing. [1116 → 1117] Nothing compared [1117 → 1119] to what Jason Morgan wrote [1119 → 1120] for The Remnant, [1121 → 1123] published on February 10th, 2022. [1124 → 1126] That article is entitled [1126 → 1128] The Tragedy of New Church. [1129 → 1130] And I'm going to quote [1130 → 1131] bits and pieces from it, [1131 → 1133] leaving aside the particular context. [1134 → 1135] Otherwise, it would be too much. [1136 → 1138] Just listen to these soundbites. [1139 → 1140] Quote, [1140 → 1142] The contradictions and confusion [1142 → 1145] are not incidental to New Church. [1146 → 1148] They are inherent in it. [1148 → 1150] There is no way to be pro-life [1150 → 1152] and New Church. [1152 → 1154] For New Church is, at heart, [1154 → 1157] a humanistic, man-made institution [1157 → 1159] founded on relativism and compromise. [1160 → 1160] Modernism, [1161 → 1163] is New Church's identity. [1164 → 1165] New Church is antithetical [1165 → 1168] to the singularity of Christ's cross. [1169 → 1170] New Church is legion, [1170 → 1172] is pro-choice to its very core. [1173 → 1174] Those who want to remain Catholic [1174 → 1176] will have to find their way [1176 → 1178] out of New Church at some point. [1178 → 1181] New Church was born pro-choice. [1181 → 1182] It was born in schism, [1182 → 1184] rupture, chaos, [1184 → 1186] duplicity, misdirection. [1187 → 1189] New Church is the Vatican II [1189 → 1190] sham show, [1190 → 1191] on repeat, [1191 → 1191] forever. [1192 → 1194] The Catholic faithful have been asked [1194 → 1196] for nearly 60 years now [1196 → 1198] to suspend disbelief [1198 → 1200] and to pretend that the Novus Ordo, [1200 → 1203] the new Coke version of the real thing, [1203 → 1205] is the equivalent, somehow, [1205 → 1206] of the actual Mass. [1207 → 1209] New Church is mockery, [1209 → 1211] a mock-up of Catholicism. [1211 → 1213] It can never preach Christ [1213 → 1214] and Him crucified [1214 → 1216] because that would be an insult [1216 → 1219] to New Church's God and Satan's [1219 → 1220] diversity. [1221 → 1223] The Vatican persecutes Christians [1223 → 1224] and all dioceses, [1224 → 1226] everyone who wishes to attend [1226 → 1227] the real Mass. [1227 → 1229] Because the Vatican hates most [1229 → 1231] that which it professes to [1231 → 1232] but cannot control, [1233 → 1234] the body of Christ. [1235 → 1237] In setting up a false Mass [1237 → 1238] in place of the real Mass [1238 → 1241] and passing that fake Mass off [1241 → 1243] as a continuation of the real one, [1243 → 1245] the Vatican exiled itself [1245 → 1246] from the Church. [1246 → 1248] To reform the Mass [1248 → 1250] is not to reform it, [1250 → 1251] but to deny it. [1251 → 1252] To deny the Mass [1252 → 1254] is to send oneself [1254 → 1256] into the darkness of exile. [1256 → 1259] That exile camp of lost souls [1259 → 1260] is New Church. [1262 → 1262] Unquote. [1264 → 1267] Just an odd moment of disobedience. [1268 → 1270] Folks, if that's not schism, [1270 → 1271] I don't know what is. [1273 → 1274] Oh, and in case you think [1274 → 1275] that's still not schism [1275 → 1276] because we don't know [1276 → 1278] what the author means by New Church, [1279 → 1280] well, on October 2nd, [1281 → 1284] Morgan had defined the term [1284 → 1285] for his readers [1285 → 1287] also in an article at The Remnant. [1288 → 1288] Quote, [1289 → 1290] New Church, [1290 → 1292] the faux Catholic Church [1292 → 1293] headed by Pope Francis, [1294 → 1296] is not a religious organization [1296 → 1297] at all. [1298 → 1298] Unquote. [1299 → 1300] Ladies and gentlemen, [1301 → 1302] this is not simply [1302 → 1304] the odd moment of disobedience. [1304 → 1306] This is a wholesale rejection [1306 → 1308] of the conciliar program [1308 → 1310] and the institution [1310 → 1310] that stands in front of us. [1310 → 1311] It stands behind it. [1312 → 1313] And by the way, [1313 → 1314] that is the reason [1314 → 1316] why Francis is now taking away [1316 → 1318] their traditional Latin Mass. [1318 → 1320] But that's another topic [1320 → 1320] for another day. [1321 → 1323] What characterizes those [1323 → 1324] who take a strict [1324 → 1326] recognize and resist position [1326 → 1327] is not that there is [1327 → 1329] the odd moment of disobedience, [1330 → 1331] but that there is [1331 → 1333] the odd moment of obedience. [1334 → 1335] The once in the blue moon [1335 → 1337] accidental submission. [1338 → 1340] They are in habitual [1340 → 1340] defilement. [1340 → 1341] Fakto separation [1341 → 1343] from the new church [1343 → 1345] in its doctrine, [1345 → 1346] its worship, [1346 → 1347] and its government. [1348 → 1349] And it is only sometimes, [1349 → 1351] on fairly rare occasion actually, [1352 → 1353] that they display [1353 → 1354] a kind of submission. [1355 → 1355] For example, [1356 → 1356] if Francis grants [1356 → 1358] a plenary indulgence [1358 → 1359] for the year of St. Joseph [1359 → 1360] or something like that. [1360 → 1362] That they will go along with. [1363 → 1364] But that is the exception, [1365 → 1366] not the norm. [1367 → 1369] Oh, but they pray for the Pope. [1369 → 1370] They pray for Francis. [1370 → 1372] Well, that's nice. [1372 → 1374] I bet the Dalai Lama does too. [1375 → 1377] Again, schism is refusal [1377 → 1380] of submission to the Roman pontiff. [1380 → 1382] It is not refusal to pray [1382 → 1383] for the Roman pontiff. [1384 → 1385] A picture of the Pope [1385 → 1386] in your sacristy [1386 → 1388] does not mean you're [1388 → 1389] in communion with him. [1391 → 1392] Now look, of course, [1392 → 1394] not every recognize and resistor [1394 → 1396] is going to go quite as far [1396 → 1397] as Jason Morgan. [1398 → 1399] But the remnant [1399 → 1400] is a mainstream [1400 → 1402] recognize and resist publication. [1402 → 1404] And I think it says a lot [1404 → 1405] that they saw fit [1405 → 1406] to print that stuff. [1407 → 1409] I mean, the remnant is read [1409 → 1411] not just by SSPX people, [1411 → 1412] but especially, I think, [1412 → 1414] by Indult people, [1414 → 1415] those who go to the diocesan [1415 → 1416] traditional Latin mass [1416 → 1418] and maybe the fraternity [1418 → 1418] of St. Peter. [1420 → 1422] Apparently, Michael Matt, [1422 → 1423] the editor of the remnant, [1423 → 1424] apparently he knew [1424 → 1425] that not too many people [1425 → 1426] in his camp [1426 → 1427] would have a problem [1427 → 1428] with what Jason Morgan said. [1428 → 1430] And perhaps not everyone [1430 → 1432] would phrase it the same way, [1433 → 1435] but I'd say that deep down, [1435 → 1437] most recognize and resist people [1437 → 1438] are separated from Francis [1438 → 1440] and want to be. [1440 → 1442] They would never allow [1442 → 1444] Francis to be the final arbiter [1444 → 1445] to determine [1446 → 1447] what they must believe, [1448 → 1449] how they must worship, [1449 → 1451] or what laws they must follow. [1452 → 1453] Folks, some of them [1453 → 1454] will not even venerate [1454 → 1455] the people Francis [1455 → 1457] has declared to be saints. [1458 → 1462] Whether Francis is or isn't Pope [1462 → 1464] makes a big difference [1464 → 1466] because the papacy [1466 → 1467] makes a big difference. [1468 → 1469] How could you possibly say [1469 → 1472] that whether a certain individual [1472 → 1474] holds the office of Vicar of Christ [1474 → 1477] with the keys to the kingdom of heaven [1477 → 1480] or not doesn't really matter? [1481 → 1482] The only way you could say [1482 → 1483] it doesn't matter [1483 → 1485] is if you've already [1485 → 1486] separated yourself [1486 → 1488] from him spiritually anyway. [1488 → 1488] Right? [1490 → 1492] Now, in the case of us [1492 → 1493] Sedevacantes, [1493 → 1494] do we intentionally [1494 → 1496] separate ourselves from Francis, [1496 → 1497] from Jorge Bergoglio? [1498 → 1499] Of course we do. [1500 → 1502] But we do because we believe [1502 → 1504] he is not the Pope. [1505 → 1507] And why do we believe that? [1507 → 1509] Because he proves [1509 → 1510] just about every day [1510 → 1512] that he could not possibly [1512 → 1513] be the Pope. [1513 → 1515] Because if you look at [1515 → 1516] the Catholic teaching [1516 → 1517] on the papacy, [1517 → 1518] you can see [1518 → 1520] that Bergoglio, Francis, [1520 → 1522] does not fit the description [1522 → 1524] of what the Pope is [1524 → 1526] and does in the least. [1527 → 1528] Francis is not [1528 → 1530] the principle of Catholic unity. [1531 → 1532] He is not [1532 → 1534] the guarantee of orthodoxy. [1534 → 1537] He does not denounce errors, [1537 → 1539] nor does he make virtue loved. [1540 → 1541] His magisterium [1541 → 1543] is not the proximate [1543 → 1545] and universal criterion of truth. [1546 → 1547] Far from keeping [1547 → 1548] the gates of hell from perishing, [1548 → 1548] from prevailing, [1549 → 1551] Francis actually represents [1551 → 1552] the gates of hell [1552 → 1553] more than anyone else. [1555 → 1556] And I think most of the [1556 → 1558] recognize and resist trads [1558 → 1559] like Kennedy Hall [1559 → 1562] would probably agree with us there. [1563 → 1564] But that's precisely [1564 → 1565] what's so scary. [1565 → 1567] Because if they concede [1567 → 1569] that the Catholic doctrines [1569 → 1571] and dogmas concerning the papacy [1571 → 1573] are not verified in Francis [1573 → 1576] and nevertheless claim [1576 → 1576] he's the Pope, [1577 → 1578] then they're implying [1578 → 1579] and implicitly denying [1579 → 1581] what the Church teaches [1581 → 1582] about the papacy. [1583 → 1584] And if on top of that, [1585 → 1587] they then refuse him submission, [1587 → 1589] when submission is likewise [1589 → 1591] required by Catholic dogma, [1592 → 1593] then Catholicism has been [1593 → 1594] totally turned on its head. [1596 → 1598] Do you see how much damage [1598 → 1599] their position is doing [1599 → 1600] to the papacy? [1601 → 1603] But they refuse to let go [1603 → 1605] of the idea that Bergoglio [1605 → 1605] is the Pope, [1605 → 1608] and so they have no choice [1608 → 1609] but to reduce the papacy [1609 → 1610] to meaninglessness. [1611 → 1612] They're sacrificing [1612 → 1614] the Catholic teaching [1614 → 1615] regarding the papacy [1615 → 1617] for the sake of having [1617 → 1619] a warm body, so to speak, [1619 → 1620] someone they can point to [1620 → 1621] and say, [1621 → 1623] look, there's the Pope. [1624 → 1626] But it really doesn't go [1626 → 1627] much farther than that, does it? [1628 → 1630] As the late Father Anthony Ciccata [1630 → 1631] said many years ago, [1632 → 1634] theirs is a cardboard Pope. [1634 → 1637] He exists for display purposes only. [1638 → 1642] But the Pope of Catholic teaching [1642 → 1643] is not a cardboard Pope. [1644 → 1646] He is a Pope to whom [1646 → 1648] you must submit as the rule of faith, [1648 → 1650] the principle of unity [1650 → 1651] in the Church, [1651 → 1652] the father and teacher [1652 → 1653] of all Christians, [1654 → 1656] the guarantee of orthodoxy. [1657 → 1659] Ask yourself how God [1659 → 1660] can require submission [1660 → 1661] to the Roman pontiff [1661 → 1663] as a condition of salvation [1663 → 1665] if such submission [1665 → 1667] could at the same time [1667 → 1667] constitute the rule of faith. [1667 → 1668] If it could constitute [1668 → 1670] a danger to your salvation, [1670 → 1672] if it could lead you to hell, [1672 → 1675] it makes no sense whatsoever. [1676 → 1678] We'll continue with more [1678 → 1679] of our response [1679 → 1680] to Kennedy Hall's video [1680 → 1682] Why I Am Not a Sedevacantist [1682 → 1683] in the next episode [1683 → 1685] of Tradcast Express. [1685 → 1686] Won't be long. [1687 → 1687] Stay tuned. [1688 → 1689] Tradcast Express [1689 → 1690] is a production of [1690 → 1691] Novus Ordo Watch. [1692 → 1693] Check us out at tradcast.org [1693 → 1695] and if you like what we're doing, [1695 → 1696] please consider making [1696 → 1697] a tax-deductible contribution [1697 → 1700] at novusortowatch.org [1700 → 1701] slash donate.