DIANE MONTAGNA SUBSTACK:

REAL ESTATE FOR LIFE:

https://realestateforlife.org/

iCATHOLICMOBILE:

https://www.icatholicmobile.com/

KENNEDY’S BOOKS: https://linktr.ee/meretraditionkh

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

Aurelio’s Substack:

The book: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/we-hanged-our-harps-upon-the-willow/?srsltid=AfmBOoolSB0zayaaJZ0bRCLPBJlZR2om-jnvV48oU9kNiFP-QlbZFtKz

The Mass course:

https://www.thecatholicmass.online/

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.com

The website links and the contact email.

DONATE HERE TO HELP BUILD A CHRISTIAN CITY IN PAKISTAN: https://www.gofundme.com/f/ze9a2-christian-slaves-in-pakistan?lang=en_GB&utm_campaign=man_sharesheet_dash&utm_medium=customer&utm_source=native_options&attribution_id=sl%3A67e9d772-83de-46d4-8e75-72d202369f77

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION: https://www.pax2.org/about-us

Email HERE to volunteer or support: [email protected]

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

We all know of Catholic Answers [CA]. In fact, many of us owe a debt of gratitude to CA for the good work they have done over the years. I can remember being a fresh “revert” to my baptismal Catholic Faith a number of years ago, listening to endless episodes of Catholic Answers Live while on my daily commute. For decades, CA has produced solid material debunking myths about the Catholic Church, helping Protestants understand true Catholic positions, and answering the questions of callers who want to understand their faith better. Some of the apologists associated with the outlet have, over the years, published books that have helped people come home to Rome, and other complimentary things could be said.

That being said, in recent years, Catholic Answers seems to have been experiencing a bit of mission drift. Granted, I sympathize with the fact that they have had to find a way to transition from a radio/print-heavy media landscape to a more digital and social media-centric world. Radio just doesn’t get the play that it used to — pun intended — and the mission of CA has seemingly always been to use communication technology to spread the Gospel, which is noble in and of itself.

However, as CA has morphed and adapted to changing environments, so have the actions of the most well-known apologists associated with the brand. Trent Horn, for example, has become a household name whose influence spreads outside of strict Catholic apologetics, and he can now be seen on various conservative political punditry podcasts commenting on a variety of topics. In addition, he has made quite a name for himself on YouTube and has cracked the code as far as making click-worthy content that often utilizes the names of other well-known YouTubers for fodder, as he waxes philosophically about the errors of others while taking the high ground.

Jimmy Akin, although not as famous, has made a name for himself as well and has become famous or infamous, depending on who you ask, with his opinions on aliens and other niche or quirky topics.

Before I continue, I would like to say a kind word about Jimmy. I have never interacted with him, so I have no personal experience, but I have a couple of friends who have, and they all say he is the most genuine and kind individual, and he is the furthest thing from “judgmental” in any sense. I must also add that these friends of mine are dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists, so their affection for Jimmy is about who he is as a person and not about his myriad views that often seem puzzling to Traditionalists. And, what I criticize in this article isn’t about Jimmy Akin per se, but more about the issue of CA using the name “Catholic” when its various personalities veer off into topics that ought not to be conflated with any official Catholic position. I imagine, given Akin’s affinity for pipe tobacco, that I could enjoy a long sit-down with him as we puff away and discuss whatever topics come to mind. I believe my friends are correct in their assessment that he is a top-notch person, and I just wanted to make that clear.

Continuing.

Now, is there anything wrong with the fact that CA personalities have become well-known in their own right? Of course not. It is standard in the world of media that individuals may, in a sense, outgrow their position as a mere presenter or performer who is part of a larger cast and branch out on their own. There is nothing evil or immoral about the fact that men like Horn have forged their own paths.

That being said, the fact remains that when CA apologists wade into the world of politics, aliens, and speculative science, they do so with the seeming backing of Catholicism itself, and this is where the problem lies.

What’s in a name?

When you hear the name “Catholic Answers,” what does it make you think of? Well, it obviously makes you think that what you are hearing is the Catholic answer. When you look up Catholicism online and the first result is “catholic.com,” what does it make you think? It makes you think that this website must be the official website of Catholicism — it is in the name.

The problem is, CA doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church, although I do believe they have permission from the bishop where the headquarters are located to call themselves Catholic, which is fair enough. CA is an independent organization that speaks for itself and does so with the intention, which I do not judge as anything other than good, of making the case for Catholicism in public. As I said above, I believe that they have done a lot of good work, and I imagine that those who work there do so with a pure intention.

Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it.

However, as their personalities have veered off into uncharted waters and begun to engage in general political and social commentary, the impression is unavoidable that whatever these men are saying is the “Catholic answer” on the topic. In a world of lay apologetics and new media, being associated with CA almost functions like an official designation as a de facto apologist for the Catholic Church. Again, it does not, because CA is not an organ of the Church in an ecclesiastical sense that would give them any real authority; however, the average person is not going to pick up on this.

So, when Trent Horn is insinuating with salacious video titles and thumbnails that Traditional Catholics have an acute pornography problem — which I believe was unfair and even deranged of him to do the way that he did — or when Jimmy Akin has an opinion about stargates and baptizing aliens, curious viewers and listeners are going to assume their opinions represent Catholic teaching. How could they not?

I do not think this is a good thing, and this does not mean I am condemning the men for having their own personal opinions, because there is nothing wrong with it. However, when you look up videos by Horn or Akin, what do you find in the corner of their videos? You find a CA logo. So, we must assume that CA is involved with their own shows, the same way the Daily Wire is involved with the videos of its own political pundits who have channels under their own names.

This sort of approach may be totally fine in the world of political punditry, where what is being discussed or debated is largely a matter of opinion, but in the world of Catholic apologetics, this freedom does not really exist, because it is a matter of eternal salvation.

It is simply irresponsible for an organization that markets itself as the place for “Catholic answers” to be propping up individuals who do basically whatever they want, as long as it is remotely related to Catholic commentary. I believe it is an abuse of the name “Catholic” to do so.

Apologetics is not always Theology

Another issue is that in the public consciousness, apologetics and theology have seemingly become conflated or synonymous, but this is a mistake. Yes, in apologetics, there will often be at least a basic theological aspect, such as when discussing or presenting the arguments for the existence of God, or in how we ought to interpret certain passages in Scripture. However, apologetics often has nothing to do with theology and is more a matter of history. This is not to say that good apologists are not highly intelligent or even that they cannot be sound theologians in their own right, but rather to make the distinctions known. And, the distinctions are gravely important and should be discussed further.

When we do apologetics, we try to convince someone that Catholicism itself is true, whereas when we do theology, we try to explain with philosophical and rational terms a matter of Catholic religion in a way that is comprehensive and scientific.

For example, if someone calls into my hypothetical show and says, “What is the Catholic position on divorce?” I would explain what the Church has defined, and then give an opinion as to why it is a good doctrine and try to prove how it has always been held historically etc. Again, apologetics is about convincing people why the Church is correct.

However, theology goes beyond this and can get quite complicated. While a theologian would certainly be able to spout off basic apologetics on marriage, he would also be able to expound with great profundity on how, for example, the sacrament of marriage affords couples grace throughout the decades they spend together, which would then require an explanation on how sanctifying grace works. This might lead to further discussion, and so on.

This is why theologians tend to write so much, and why, if I may say so with the best of motives, theological papers are often extremely boring to the average reader. This is also why theology is so specialized, with some theologians spending their whole careers discussing a single topic like Pneumatology. You may be scratching your head and saying to yourself, “What is Pneumatology?”, which is the branch of theology that studies the Holy Ghost.

Theology and apologetics are both sciences; however, they differ in degree of complexity and severity, as well as in kind, in some instances. A true theologian is like a PhD in high-level mathematics, whereas an apologist is more like a generalist with a good understanding of math who teaches high-school students.

To use another math analogy, real theology requires something like a profound understanding of calculus, whereas in apologetics, a strong understanding of arithmetic or algebra will do. Arithmetic is extremely important and is the math that most of us use on a daily basis, but there are certain questions that basic arithmetic can simply not tackle, and that high-school teachers are not qualified to answer. Mind you, I say this as a former high-school teacher, and I do not call myself a true theologian.

Arithmetic is supremely practical and tangible, but it cannot handle more theoretical problems, which are reserved for higher mathematics. And, while all calculus experts will no doubt understand arithmetic, we cannot say that those who understand arithmetic will all understand calculus.

Imagine, if you will, a math call-in show called “Math Answers” where people could ask for the answer to basic math problems. Now, imagine if the math apologists branched out under the brand of Math Answers and opined on every topic that had remotely anything to do with math. If a math-themed movie came out, they would talk about it with the seemingly authoritative “Math Answers” stamp of approval, or if there was an election, they would talk about the national debt and tie it into math, also giving the impression that Math Answers has a political opinion. Imagine if some of these math apologists started opining on things to do with theoretical mathematics, topics that are hotly debated and haven’t been settled, but they gave you their own personal answer to the problem. Wouldn’t the general populous think, “Well, this must be the math answer, because these are the guys from Math Answers.”

What if one of these guys gave supremely bad advice about how to do the requisite equations for a building project? It is likely that the person who took that advice would build something that would crumble and maybe even injure or kill someone.

The point is, if you are going to be giving answers to the general public on something so serious as math, you better make sure that you know what you are talking about, or you better not talk about it at all, especially if the Math Answers logo is on your podcast and you are promoted on math.com.

Theology is much more serious and important than math, because, while it would be a shame not to know basic math, your soul will not be at risk if you cannot answer 12x12 without a calculator.

While it is true that at least one true theologian works for CA — I am thinking of Karlo Broussard, and if I am not mistaken, he is duly qualified as a theologian — it is also true that some of the apologists have branched out more and more into general public commentary and speculative theological discussion, and more caution is needed.

The average listener or viewer is not going to be well-versed in theology and will assume that whatever a reputable apologist says will constitute good theology. There is already enough confusion about theology in our grave crisis in the Church, and the last thing we need is the proliferation of apologetics conflated with theology.

Why do Catholic Answers and Trent Horn Seemingly Hate Trads?

While it is true that any of us could get something wrong when speaking in public and therefore we should not be too persnickity about this or that gaff from a CA personality, it is also true that, again, they are doing so in the name of Catholic Answers, as if they speak for Catholicism in some official way.

While I disagree with some of Akin’s ideas about aliens and other weird phenomena, I must give Akin credit which I cannot give to Trent Horn. You see, not only does Horn opine about anything and everything while attaching it to a Catholic motif, but he has also become a run-of-the-mill social media influencer and content creator. He seems to have adopted the characteristics consistent with that milieu, which involve “content vulturing” and piggybacking off of other personalities in order to drive traffic. Vulturing in this sense means what it sounds like — looking around at the landscape and finding the work of others to pick and pull from in order to have something to talk about. This is almost always associated with “reacting” to others or “responding” to others who never intended to react or respond to Horn at all. Also, regarding piggybacking, it doesn’t hurt to throw Taylor Marshall or Father Ripperger in your title or thumbnail because you know you will get legions of viewers who come for Marshall or Ripperger. I imagine many of those viewers will not react positively, but negative comments and arguing in comment sections only help the algorithm to share the video with a wider audience, because monetization loves conflict.

This sort of content creation also betrays a lack of creativity — he seems to have nothing original to say, so he will say something about what others are saying and then say something about what they say about what he said.

Trent has moved on from merely debunking stupid things said by Protestants — although he still does that — to going after any other Catholic writer, thinker, or presenter that he thinks is wrong about something. I am one of many Traditionalists that he has set his sights on, multiple times, and I am not alone. He has accused me and Taylor Marshall, publicly, of grave sin, with very specious reasoning, and he even made up a term for Trads he doesn’t like. He calls people like us “Catholic Fundamentalists,” and he just won’t let that made-up term die. And now, he seems to be opining that Traditionalists have a particular problem with pornography.

As an aside, I can tell you, as someone who has written a best-selling book on Catholic manhood and who speaks at Catholic men’s conferences, that everyone has a problem with this issue. There is, of course, no way to quantify with any real data whether TLM-lovers or Novus-Ordo lovers have a better or worse time with this vice. However, I have spoken to numerous Traditionalist men who tell me they have read my book, Terror of Demons, and kicked their bad habit for good. Of course, I don’t take credit for that, because they have to do the work and live in a state of grace, but the point is that my experience has been that Trads take the issue very seriously and work hard to combat it. I hope this is the same in the Novus Ordo.

In any event, anyone who is too far to the right on the theological or liturgical spectrum runs the risk of being labelled a Fundamentalist, which is basically a Traditional Catholic who disagrees with Trent. It is quite ironic that his podcast is called ‘The Counsel of Trent,” considering his favourite pastime seems to be picking fights with Catholics who valiantly defend the Tridentine Mass.

And, again, every time he stirs up some beef with someone who, as in my case, had previously never had any interaction with him, he does so with the backing of CA, thereby giving the public the impression that Trent’s counsel is the Catholic opinion on the matter, when in reality it is nothing more than the ravings of an internet theologaster.

This man has argued that Traditional Catholic Creationists make the faith look unserious to potential converts, even though I can’t tell you how many people have told me they hesitated to convert to Catholicism until they found Catholic Creationists because they were under the impression that Catholics had to support evolution because of men like Horn and Akin. This man has accused Traditional Catholics of being “Fundamentalists,” which is clearly meant to imply they are like the other Fundamentalists who reject the Catholic Faith. This man has done his best to make it look like Traditionalists are perverts with pornography addictions, even if he weasels out of technically saying it or by qualifying his statements. And, he does all this with the backing of Catholic Answers, which purportedly speaks for the Catholic Church, and while he simultaneously accuses others of being uncharitable, etc.

If CA wishes to squirrel out of this and allege that Trent only speaks for himself, well, they should stop funding him and allowing him to do his dirty work with their logo on his shows. Also, they should stop using the money donors give to CA to pay to have his show advertised with Google Ads and the like.

If propping up Trent Horn with “Catholic Answers” approval wasn’t bad enough, CA is now, it seems, grooming Alex Jurado — aka the Voice of Reason, who tells hundreds of thousands of Catholics on the internet that Trads aren’t Catholic — to be another CA fixture. If I may offer some advice to CA, although they may perhaps disregard it because I am a “Fundamentalist” who, according to Horn, might also be a pervert, I would advise them to reel in the likes of Horn and Jurado before more Traditionalists catch on and stop supporting CA as such. Remember, a Traditional Catholic YouTuber — Taylor Marshall — is arguably the biggest name in the Catholic media business in the English-speaking world, and his audience is a motley crew of millions of people who love Tradition and don’t want to be called Fundamentalists or perverts. It seems economically unwise to alienate — Jimmy Akin alien pun intended — a huge subsection of Catholics who would love nothing more than to support what CA used to focus on — Catholic apologetics — but can’t, because CA has become synonymous with attacking Traditionalists.

Name in Vain

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and we are told by our catechism not to take the Lord’s name in vain. It seems to me that CA is playing with fire by associating everything from basic apologetics to the opinionated screeds of men like Trent Horn as “Catholic Answers.”

If you are going to call yourself Catholic Answers and post everything on catholic.com, then just know that you are doing so in the name of the Church, which is Christ’s Mystical Body. I do not think it is wise to continue in this fashion and use the name of Christ’s Church in vain.

I don’t know what CA should do, maybe they should change their name, maybe they should go back to doing what they do best; whatever they do, they need to clean up their operation, because they are only cheapening the name Catholic with how they are operating, and they will be judged for it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.com

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit meretradition.substack.com

Article on bishop jurisdiction: https://sspx.org/en/news/owe-pius-xii-important-clarifications-nature-episcopate-28096

This video is a response to a question in the premium subscriber chat. If you would like to ask your own questions, please consider upgrading!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

God bless you al

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe

My readers and listeners/viewers may be aware of an internet personality who goes by the name “Voice of Reason” and is active in Catholic apologetics. His real name is Alex Jurado, and I will say nice things about him before I say things that aren’t nice.

He is, objectively speaking, a young man who demonstrates quick memory recall and good rhetorical skills. He certainly exudes confidence and even courage in his willingness to debate other apologists, mostly Orthodox and Protestant. I do not follow social media besides my time wasted on Twitter — I still cannot call it X — and I understand that he is very active on the other social platforms that are more popular with Zoomers and millennials with nothing better to do. I have seen the odd clip of his stuff reposted on Twitter wherein he will offer a quick “debunking” of this or that claim by an Orthodox or Protestant, and it is the standard fare we should expect from someone who came of age watching the likes of Trent Horn, etc. He has certainly memorized his points of historical factoids that are helpful while engaging in the typical arena of Catholic apologetics, and, I hope that the good things he has said are profitable to the Church and to the souls that hear him.

Okay, now I have to be not so nice.

We Canadians have the reputation of being friendly and kind-hearted, and this reputation has merit. However, if you have ever looked into why there are international conventions about what constitutes war crimes, you will likely find a link to the actions of Canola farmers from Saskatchewan and good ol’ boys from the Great Lakes region. We are friendly at times, but we historically enjoy a good dust-up. There is a reason our national sport is basically sword-fighting on ice. It is also playoff season, and I want the Oilers to win, even though I am a Canadiens fan, and am in a fighting mood.

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Jurado Attacks Marshall

Recently, Jurado has been making the rounds speaking at various parishes and giving lectures, and clips from his presentations have been shared around on Twitter and YouTube. In one clip he went after Taylor Marshall — who is a dear friend and a man I will happily defend with all my strength if the occasion calls for it — and he had some very awful things to say about Taylor.

In the clip, he goes on a screed about how Taylor is the worst because Taylor is bad because he doesn’t like Taylor because Taylor said things he doesn’t like that didn’t make him feel good. Specifically, he says, “Stop listening to Taylor Marshall because Taylor Marshall is garbage.”

Let’s unpack this for a moment. Now, I did my best to say nice things about Jurado, and I have many not-so-nice things I would like to say, but is it ever acceptable to call another Catholic “garbage.” Does Jurado actually think it is appropriate to call another human being a name that insinuates he is worthy of being thrown into the trash, mixed with dirty diapers in a landfill and incinerated?

He goes on, “I promise you, if you keep listening to Taylor Marshall you are going to leave the Catholic Church.” Well, that is quite the claim, isn’t it? Knowing Taylor as well as I do, I know that I could provide a million examples of the complete opposite. In fact, when I started listening to Taylor before I knew him, and before he was famous, I found his podcasts to be edifying, and, when he blew up, his commentary on the Crisis in the Church was equally edifying. One only has to go through Taylor’s comment sections to find the myriad testimonials of former Protestants who came home to Rome because Taylor challenged them to pray the Rosary.

In any event, his insulting rhetoric about Taylor is revealing of Jurado’s own problem, which he admits in the clip. He adds, “I listened to Taylor Marshall for years, and I almost left the Catholic Church.”

Frankly, anyone who thinks of leaving the Church does so because they lack the virtue of faith. And, if Jurado believes it is bad to listen to something that is not, in his opinion, edifying, then the question remains; Why did you listen to Taylor for so long? Couldn’t you simply not listen to Taylor?

I don’t listen to Jurado because I don’t want to become an alcoholic, but if I did spend years listening to him and then began sucking back Crown Royal in order to drown out his words rattling around in my head, it would be my fault, and not his. Blaming someone for an interior crisis of faith is effeminate, weak, and stupid.

Jurado then makes himself look even more foolish by adding, “Most of what he says is proven false,” which he says is evident because after Taylor makes a video, other YouTubers make videos saying Taylor is wrong. Good grief, how can a man who lacks such basic reasoning skills even be qualified to pass a driving test?

What if a bunch of creators make videos saying Jurado’s views are false, does that make his views false? Well, in the land of stupidity that Jurado inhabits, that would be the line of argumentation.

In the same clip, he claims that Taylor is a material schismatic — quite a bold claim — and that he doesn’t think “you can call Taylor Marshall Catholic.”

This young man is going to damn his soul if he keeps this up.

So, according to the “Voice of Reason,” Taylor Marshall isn’t Catholic largely due to the fact that he makes videos other people don’t like and because of this he is a schismatic.

Adding fuel to the fire he started, Jurado hammers home his view that Taylor isn’t Catholic because Taylor doesn’t accept Vatican II, and he says that if you reject any Council of the Church you aren’t Catholic.

Of course, Taylor does not reject Vatican II as a Council of the Church, but only questions certain disputed elements of some of the documents, which is standard Traditional Catholic operating procedure. If Jurado was as reasonable as his stage name suggests, he would know that this sort of attitude is perfectly acceptable according to Catholic theology, because disputed questions — some of which are occasioned by less-than-clear statements from Vatican II — are, in fact, disputable. In any event, I won’t give Jurado a lesson on the levels of theological certainty, because, he is obviously so reasonable that he will know all that already.

In addition, Jurado not only maligns wrongly and unfairly the good Dr. Marshall, but he also kicks himself out of the Church by his own logic, or whatever he thinks logic is.

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Jurado the Nestorius Defender

Orthodox writer — and former Catholic — Michael Davis wrote an article called “The Nestorian Moment,” wherein he catalogued various Catholic apologists who seem to support the heresy of Nestorianism. Before I continue, I will focus only on his exposé of Jurado’s claims, and I will take what Davis says with a grain of salt about Catholic apologists in general because he has demonstrated that he has a bit of an axe to grind against his former correligionists. In any event, he cites Jurado word for word and here is what he said:

Nestorianism is the heresy that splits Jesus into two, that there’s a Divine Jesus and there’s a human Jesus. And the orthodox view is that Jesus in his divinity is also fully man, and Jesus in His humanity is also fully God. And [Nestorianism] was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. They condemned the heresiarch Nestorius. But it turns out now, the consensus in the scholarship is that Nestorius wasn’t actually a Nestorian. And it was the Council Fathers that misunderstood him. So, they wrongfully condemned Nestorius, but they rightfully upheld the orthodox Faith.

Blessed day, I must say “Thank you” to Jurado because I am going to have fun showing how idiotic he can be using his own words and logic if we can say he understands logic. Also, please note that the mean things I say about Jurado are not about him as a person, but about his moronic words and ideas; I wouldn’t go so far as to call him an idiot the way he calls other people garbage and anathematizes them from the Church because his favourite TikTokers disagree with them.

So, let’s break down his statement in light of his other statements.

After giving his explanation of Nestorianism, he rightly acknowledges that Nestorius was condemned by a Council. Remember, you can’t be Catholic if you reject a Council according to Jurado. He then says that the Council fathers were wrong in condemning Nestorius because “the consensus” of scholars is that Nestorius wasn’t actually a heretic.

Hold on a tick. I can’t seem to find in Catholic theological literature where it says that the consensus of scholarship changes what has been declared by a Council. Granted, if Jurado were making a nuanced statement about the difference between a juridical declaration from a Council and a binding statement on faith and morals, perhaps he could flesh out his argument.

However, Nestorius wasn’t only condemned by one Council, but two!

Davis writes:

Firstly, the Council of Chalcedon—the next Ecumenical Council following Ephesus—renewed the condemnation of Nestorius:

“Moreover, the exposition of their faith, of the illustrious Cyril of blessed memory set forth at the Council of Ephesus (in which Nestorius was condemned) is received. And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, show what the true faith is. Likewise, the holy Synod holds this faith, this it follows; nothing further can it add, nor can it take anything away.”

Now, Nestorius died after the Council of Chalcedon. Why would the Council Fathers not have mentioned that Nestorius was reconciled to the Church?

So, Nestorius was condemned again after his death for heresy, which was the second time he was condemned for heresy by the Council Fathers of both councils because they rightly viewed him as a heretic. And, Davis demonstrates that Jurado makes the same argument as Protestant James White, who may be the most vicious anticatholic preacher in the business. The irony!

And, as Davis rightly observes, if Nestorius reconciled himself to the orthodox Catholic faith and rejected the errors associated with his name, why is there a Nestorian schism?

Well, my friends, shouldn’t we agree with Jurado’s logic and kick him out of the Church as he does to Catholics — rather, men he doesn’t believe are Catholic because of his own judgement — because he rejects not one but two Councils?

And, if we are being particular, Vatican II defined nothing and anathematized nothing or no one, so the various Councils aren’t even really comparable when we consider the binding character of their statements.

Also, if we would like to have a bit more fun, could Jurado make a video explaining that if Catholics reject the Fourth Lateran Council’s declaration that Jews and Muslims are required to dress differently in Christian lands, this would constitute rejecting a Council and make someone a former Catholic. Now, I am not even arguing Lateran IV was wrong, because I understand the difference between disciplinary canons and matters of faith and morals, and I understand the context of that Council.

In any event, please, Mr. Jurado, make a video and put it on YouTube showing why Catholics cannot reject a Council’s declaration that Jews should dress differently in public; I am sure that video would go viral, but, I bet this wouldn’t bode well if you would like to be invited back to the longhouse at Live Action.

Jurado Excommunicates the SSPX

In keeping with other influencers of his ilk, Jurado likes to set his sights on the SSPX. Before I make my point here and show what he says, I would like to challenge Jurado to a debate on this topic. My only stipulation is that it be in person, and he has to find an impartial moderator to host it. I would prefer if he came to Canada because it is hard for me to find time to repeatedly leave my wife and soon-to-be seven children, but if he can make it professionally viable for me, I will debate him somewhere else, and I will utterly wipe the floor with him if he is foolish enough to accept. It would have to be in the Spring after the New Year because I am booked up for the rest of the year.

If he does agree to the debate, and I hope he does, maybe he can explain why he venerates Gregory Palamas, who lived and died a schismatic and condemns Archbishop Lefebvre. After all, the consensus of scholars, at least the scholars I like, is that Lefebvre was a saint, and there are also YouTube videos that agree with me and disagree with Jurado, so this must be a sign that Jurado is wrong about Catholicism. That’s how it works, right, Voice of Reason?

We could also ask him why he calls Photius a saint, considering that he died in disgrace and was a central figure in creating the Great Schism between East and West.

In any event, he says in one of his lectures, “… we have the SSPX church, we can look at them and say ‘you’re not Catholic.’”

Exactly who isn’t Catholic at the SSPX chapel? Are the faithful non-Catholics? And if so, why? What about the ones who were married by an SSPX priest with the explicit recognition of the local bishop? What about the children baptized in the trinitarian formula by Catholic priests?

Are the priests non-Catholics, you know, the priests who have recognized jurisdiction to hear confessions from Rome? Or, in Jurado’s mind that is so full of reason, can priests with jurisdiction from the Catholic Church also be, at the same time and in the same place, priests who are not in communion with the Church that grants them permission?

We could go on and rip apart his stupid comments on the SSPX, which I would of course love to do. But, I wrote a book on the topic because it is exhausting to play theological and historical whack-a-mole and constantly address and refute every stupid thing that is said about the SSPX by ignorant people online.

At any rate, let’s summarize what we have learned about Jurado, who is the self-appointed voice of reason.

Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

* People who say things about Catholicism that he doesn’t like are not Catholic

* Videos he doesn’t like are the reason he wanted to leave the Church, and it wasn’t his fault that he lacked the virtue of faith

* If people on YouTube disagree with other people, this is proof that the person disagreed with is wrong and against the teachings of the Church

* The consensus of scholars — whatever that means — means that he can reject two Ecumenical Councils that did explicitly define doctrine, bind Catholics and condemn heretics… but, if you dispute disputable points of doctrinal expressions in a Council that did no such thing, then you are not Catholic and a material schismatic

* If you don’t like someone you can call them garbage for hundreds of thousands of people to see

* Wicked heresiarchs and schismatics are saints but the SSPX isn’t in the Catholic Church

* Also, the Church is presently wrong about the SSPX but Jurado is right

* And, it is okay that Jurado disagrees with Church authorities on the SSPX, because he has the right to disagree with the authorities, but other, real theologians don’t have that right, and if they do, they are no longer Catholic

Did I miss anything?

Finally, I will address the elephant in the room regarding Jurado; his baritone timber. Personally, I don’t mind the sound of his voice, because I love Rocky, and if someone sounds like Sly Stallone, I don’t mind. People shouldn’t make fun of how he sounds. However, the verbal diarrhea that emanates from his vocal cords should be mocked and ridiculed.

If Jurado is the Voice of Reason, then Ozzy Osbourne is the Voice of Sobriety and Sean “Diddy” Combs is the Voice of Chastity.

Please, someone who knows Jurado needs to hook him up with someone like Dr. Ed Feser to learn how to actually use his reason before he spends the next years of his life finding reasons why he is the only true Catholic left.

Thanks for reading Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall! This post is public so feel free to share it.

*** Here is the iCatholic Mobile link ***

https://www.icatholicmobile.com/

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit meretradition.substack.com/subscribe