[ 0 → 4] Tradcast Express [ 4 → 15] Tradcast Express, it's Saturday, April 13th, 2024. [ 15 → 29] 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. [ 29 → 47] 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. [ 48 → 52] The following clip is taken from Hall's YouTube video entitled, [ 52 → 57] Pope Francis About to Suppress the Fraternity of St. Peter? [ 58 → 59] Hard question. [ 59 → 60] It's to be asked. [ 60 → 64] It was released on February 29th, 2024. [ 65 → 66] I respect the 1983 code. [ 66 → 67] It's the code of the church. [ 68 → 71] Now, there's many people that think the code is problematic, and I do too. [ 71 → 79] In fact, Pope Francis' letter on, was it Desiderio Desideravi on the Eucharist? [ 79 → 80] Everyone was freaked out about that. [ 80 → 81] That's found in Canon Law. [ 81 → 82] It was there for a long time, by the way. [ 83 → 85] You know, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. [ 85 → 86] There's heresy in Canon Law. [ 86 → 88] I did a show on this a couple years ago. [ 89 → 93] Or at least there's something adjacent to heresy, which is bad enough. [ 94 → 95] And Canon Law is not infallible. [ 96 → 97] If it was, it wouldn't be able to change. [ 97 → 99] So relax, you pope-splainers. [ 99 → 103] You know, it's perfectly fine if you're clueless about something, [ 103 → 106] but then you should just keep your mouth shut. [ 106 → 107] Be quiet, right? [ 107 → 113] Don't blast your errors around the globe, misleading countless souls, even if you mean well. [ 114 → 117] That video, from which I just played you an excerpt, [ 117 → 122] has over 42,000 views as of today, April 13th. [ 122 → 127] And that is utterly frightening, because this is serious stuff. [ 128 → 132] What makes it worse is that Kennedy Hall just published a book, [ 132 → 134] what, about a year ago, [ 134 → 138] Defending the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvris. [ 138 → 143] And in that book, he tackles all kinds of theological and canonical issues. [ 143 → 147] So he's clearly acting like he knows what he's talking about, [ 147 → 152] yet what I just played you, him saying that Canon Law is not infallible [ 152 → 156] and can even contain heresy, is totally wrong. [ 157 → 161] You know what they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. [ 161 → 163] And Kennedy Hall just proved it. [ 164 → 169] See, it would have been very easy for Mr. Hall to avoid this egregious howler, [ 169 → 171] because he simply could have looked it up. [ 172 → 177] And right now, we don't even need to worry about whether the precise case he brings up [ 177 → 178] is or isn't heresy. [ 178 → 181] Here, the issue is a more fundamental one. [ 181 → 185] Is it possible for Canon Law to contain heresy? [ 185 → 188] Is the law of the church infallible? [ 189 → 190] And if so, what does that mean? [ 191 → 193] To get an answer to these questions, [ 194 → 196] all Kennedy Hall would have needed to do, for example, [ 196 → 202] is consult the English translation of Monsignor Gerard van Noort's book, [ 202 → 206] Christ's Church, which is volume two of his Dogmatic Theology series, [ 207 → 214] It's got an imprimatur dated 1956 and has been back in print for over three years. [ 214 → 219] It's available also on archive.org for free perusal and download. [ 219 → 221] Links are in the show notes. [ 221 → 225] In other words, it's readily accessible even in Canada. [ 226 → 228] Here's what van Noort says. [ 228 → 234] And of course, you'll find this also in other approved dogmatic manuals from before Vatican II. [ 234 → 235] Quote, [ 235 → 237] Assertion 3. [ 237 → 242] The church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the church. [ 243 → 245] This proposition is theologically certain. [ 246 → 251] By the term general discipline of the church are meant those ecclesiastical laws [ 251 → 257] passed for the universal church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. [ 258 → 265] Note the italicized words, ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal church. [ 265 → 266] Quote, [ 266 → 272] The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office, but to the ruling office. [ 272 → 276] Disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, [ 277 → 282] that is, only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. [ 282 → 288] When the church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment. [ 288 → 293] First, this law squares with the church's doctrine of faith and morals. [ 293 → 296] That is, it imposes nothing that is at odds, [ 296 → 298] with sound belief and good morals. [ 299 → 301] This amounts to a doctrinal decree. [ 302 → 307] Second, this law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune. [ 307 → 310] This is a decree of practical judgment. [ 311 → 316] Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, [ 316 → 320] especially at the moment when the church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, [ 321 → 323] still the church does not claim to be infallible [ 323 → 326] in issuing a decree of practical judgment. [ 327 → 331] For the church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence [ 331 → 333] for the conduct of affairs. [ 333 → 341] But the church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above, [ 342 → 346] and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law [ 346 → 349] which would be at odds with faith or morality, [ 349 → 355] or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. [ 356 → 356] Quote, [ 356 → 359] The church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, [ 359 → 361] when understood in this way, [ 361 → 366] harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. [ 367 → 371] And here I should clarify that mutability means its changeableness. [ 371 → 376] For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, [ 376 → 379] can, given a change in circumstances, [ 379 → 382] become less timely or even useless, [ 382 → 386] so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or malice. [ 386 → 389] Quote, [ 389 → 391] That is from Van Noort's book Christ's Church, [ 392 → 393] paragraph number 91, [ 394 → 397] found on pages 114 and 115. [ 398 → 400] And that explains it all right there. [ 400 → 403] No, the church's law cannot contain heresy, [ 404 → 406] and yes, it is infallible, [ 406 → 408] in the sense that it could never contain something [ 408 → 413] that is in itself harmful, evil, sacrilegious, [ 413 → 416] or injurious to souls in some other way. [ 416 → 421] Such infallibly safe laws could become bad by circumstance, [ 422 → 424] but they cannot be bad in themselves, [ 424 → 427] which is, of course, what a heretical law would be. [ 428 → 431] The reason they can become imprudent by circumstance [ 431 → 435] is quite simply that there is no way for human beings, [ 436 → 436] even the Pope, [ 436 → 440] to make laws that could possibly take into consideration [ 440 → 443] every possible circumstance. [ 443 → 445] It cannot be done. [ 446 → 448] Anyway, what I quote from Van Noort [ 448 → 451] isn't just a lone theologian's opinion. [ 452 → 454] It's actually taught more or less directly [ 454 → 456] by the papal magisterium itself. [ 457 → 460] For example, in the Bull Auctorum Fide, [ 461 → 464] Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that, [ 464 → 464] quote, [ 464 → 468] the church which is ruled by the Spirit of God [ 468 → 469] could have established discipline [ 469 → 472] which is not only useless and burdensome [ 472 → 474] for Christian liberty to endure, [ 475 → 475] but which is even dangerous, [ 475 → 477] and harmful, [ 477 → 480] and leading to superstition and materialism. [ 480 → 480] Unquote. [ 481 → 482] And he condemned that as, [ 482 → 483] quote, [ 483 → 486] false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, [ 487 → 488] offensive to pious ears, [ 488 → 491] injurious to the church and to the Spirit of God [ 491 → 492] by whom it is guided, [ 493 → 494] at least erroneous. [ 495 → 495] Unquote. [ 495 → 497] And you can find that in Denzinger, [ 498 → 500] number 1578. [ 501 → 503] Furthermore, in his encyclical [ 503 → 505] Mystici Corporis, paragraph 66, [ 505 → 508] Pope Pius XII clearly taught [ 508 → 509] that the church, quote, [ 509 → 512] is spotless in the sacraments [ 512 → 514] by which she gives birth to [ 514 → 515] and nourishes her children, [ 516 → 519] in the faith which she has always preserved [ 519 → 519] in violet, [ 520 → 523] in her sacred laws imposed on all. [ 524 → 525] Unquote. [ 525 → 526] And then he mentions a few other things, [ 527 → 528] but they're not relevant here. [ 529 → 531] Now, for those who claim that [ 531 → 533] canon law isn't universal law [ 533 → 535] because it's only for the Latin rite [ 535 → 535] and not for the Catholic Church, [ 535 → 536] for the Eastern Churches, [ 537 → 538] that is nonsense because, [ 539 → 540] well, for one thing, [ 540 → 541] the Eastern Churches, of course, [ 541 → 542] have their own canon law, [ 542 → 546] but more so because the universality of law [ 546 → 548] does not refer to rite, [ 548 → 549] but to territory. [ 550 → 552] Check the show notes for more on that. [ 553 → 555] So, unfortunately, [ 555 → 557] some people like to rush to their webcam [ 557 → 558] or microphone [ 558 → 561] and blast all kinds of nonsense [ 561 → 562] across cyberspace [ 562 → 564] instead of first making sure [ 564 → 565] they have a correct answer. [ 565 → 566] They don't have a correct understanding [ 566 → 568] of the matter about which [ 568 → 569] they're influencing other people. [ 571 → 573] Now that we know that canon law [ 573 → 576] is infallible in the sense just explained [ 576 → 578] and therefore it could not contain [ 578 → 580] anything heretical or sacrilegious, [ 581 → 583] if at the same time [ 583 → 584] it is simply undeniable [ 584 → 586] that there is something heretical [ 586 → 588] or sacrilegious in the 1983 [ 588 → 590] Code of Canon Law, [ 590 → 592] solemnly promulgated by John Paul II, [ 592 → 594] to be valid forever [ 594 → 596] in the future, [ 596 → 597] as it says, [ 597 → 599] and invoking his supposed [ 599 → 601] supreme authority [ 601 → 602] and even mentioning [ 602 → 605] the authority of the Holy Apostles [ 605 → 606] Peter and Paul, [ 606 → 607] what follows? [ 608 → 609] What follows from that? [ 610 → 611] The only conclusion possible [ 611 → 613] is that John Paul II [ 613 → 615] was not, in fact, [ 615 → 617] the Pope of the Catholic Church. [ 618 → 620] But that is something [ 620 → 621] Kennedy Hall [ 621 → 623] will probably not [ 623 → 624] be podcasting about. [ 625 → 626] Tradcast Express [ 626 → 627] is a production of [ 627 → 629] Novos Ordo Watch. [ 629 → 630] Check us out at [ 630 → 631] tradcast.org [ 631 → 632] and if you like what we're doing, [ 633 → 634] please consider making [ 634 → 635] a tax-deductible contribution [ 635 → 638] at novosordowatch.org [ 638 → 639] slash donate.