True Obedience in a Time of False Churchmen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- I gave this lecture at Sanctus Ranch, Pipe Creek, TX, on April 27, 2024.
In it, I address the very large topic of obedience from the particular angle of legitimate, principled, and praiseworthy adherence to the traditional liturgical rites of the Church. A pair of truths recognized by Newman and Ratzinger, among others - namely, that it would be alien to the spirit of the Church to abolish or prohibit orthodox forms, and that doing so is inherently harmful to souls - led to the famous doctrinal formulation that serves as the central premise of 'Summorum Pontificum': "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Dr. Kwasniewski's Substack "Tradition & Sanity"
traditionsanit...
Dr. K's personal website
www.peterkwasn...
Dr. K’s Facebook page
ProfKwasniewski
Dr. K on X (Twitter)
/ drkwasniewski
Dr. K's composer website
cantabodomino....
Dr. K's publishing house Os Justi Press
osjustipress.com/
Dr. K's SoundCloud page
/ drkwasniewski
Dr. K's Spotify page
open.spotify.c...
Wonderful speech!
Very well said, thank you sir.
Brilliant speech, Mr. Kwaśniewski. Regards from Slovakia
Glad Tradvert here! So thankful for all Dr. K's work.
It seems that every word was perfectly chosen! Amazing!
A true tour de force. A brilliant explanation of a key concept so the true Church/Faith can grow back. 👏👏👏👏👏
Glad you enjoyed it!
"Obedience is a virtue intended to direct us toward good, not toward evil. To pretend not to see evil in order not to appear disobedient, is a betrayal of truth and a betrayal of our own selves." ~ Archbishop Lefebvre ❣️🙏
I have no doubt whatsoever that archbishop L is in heaven a saint
@@KMF3 definitely 🙏
You just defined a #popesplainer . They categorically defend error and refuse the truth. The do not understand or comprehend the true faith.
We nightly ask his intercession at the end of our family Rosary.
@@blueyedmule I should start to do that too. Thanks
I entered the Church through the Novus Ordo, and so thought i could completely relax in regards to popes. It has been a little of a return to old ways of thinking/acting that at first felt uncomfortable, as if i were being a Protestant again. But the difference is this: i hold up what's being taught to that of eternal Rome, to which i have pledged myself.
The Church is human and divine. Cling to the solid divine element. Question the human element.
Fantastic! I look forward to listening to all your inspiring talks. Thank you once again Dr K. 😊
My pleasure!
I wish I had known you were going to be in Pipe Creek, for I would have been there had I known. May God Bless & keep you. Mike T
Exactly it is not a preference. That just makes me so frustrated to hear that when people say that. It's just such a lack of understanding of why this is so important.
Audio is right side only. Great talk
Nailed it!
Thrilling
To hold fast to the Truth and pray and not Compromise in our faith or the Church of Jesus Christ.
Great comment on key traditionalists - but completely overlooks Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Without this saint, there would be no bishops faithful to Tradition. And as ABL said"no return to Rome until Rome converts to Catholicism".
That is certainly not true. In my talk I spoke broadly about ALL the people who resisted the imposition of the new Mass and the exclusion of the old Mass, and those who fought against doctrinal and moral aberrations. Obviously I had Lefebvre in mind, but many other figures too. Just because he's not named doesn't mean he is either forgotten or denigrated.
Our Lord and Our Holy Mother are always left out of the equation when giving Archbishop Lefebvre most of 37:48 the credit in the preservation of the Traditional Latin Mass.
@@DrKwasniewski Since you are under the authority of Bergoglio and recognize him as "pope" you have to submit to what he sais if you don't do so, you have a gallican behaviour which is schismatic aswell as you have to accept the benediction of same sex-couples. The only option not to fall into heresy is to declare the Seat of Saint Peter vacant. The dogma of papal infallibility was established with Vatican 1 1870. The pope cannot teach heresies since Jesus has said to Peter : "I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when you are converted, strengthen your brothers" (Luc 22-32) and "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Math. 16-18). Would have Jesus lied by telling so?
You "tradionnalists" under the Novus Ordo Authority, have the nerve to criticised the action of "your pope" that you recognize as the legitimate authority of the Church but do your opinionism in the that you are willing to to submiit to and the things you are not willing to submit to. It's exactly what Mgr Lebvre and the authorities of the FSSPX that followed him do. The priest during the Canon of the mass sais "UNA CUM FAMULO TO PAPA NOSTRO ...." (just to remind you). And it means "with" in union with and not "praying for".
Note that Benedict (in typical Ratzingerian doublespeak) said that what earlier generations held to be sacred cannot be ENTIRELY forbidden. Does that mean that it can be somewhat forbidden? Mostly forbidden? Almost entirely forbidden? Restricted to being only said in a rundown chapel located next to a garbage dump in the bad part of town and only said at 9:30pm every third Thursday of the month? He never clarified and he absolutely never led by example.
And besides anyone who makes the argument that the Pope has no authority to abolish a traditional liturgical rite yet accepts what Pius X did to the Divine Office (which is just as much a part of the liturgy as the Mass) in 1911 can hardly be said to be following the principle of non-contradiction.
Here, here!!! Ratzinger once derided the bogus Ordo as a “banal, on the spot fabrication.” He also said that there was never any break or “rupture with the liturgy. Never any break.” Which is it????🤥🤥🤥
Actually, in this case, I don't really think he was trying to hedge his bets or make qualifications. I think those words are emphatic words. If you look at all the things he says in various writings about the irrationality of banishing the old liturgy, he is contrasting a sane attitude with the militant anti-traditionalist who wants to forbid everything everywhere, etc. It would be entirely foreign to the liturgical thought of Ratzinger to imagine that he would be OK with partially forbidding the tradition, partially excluding the faithful attached to it, etc.
Dr. K:
With all do respect, I disagree. You are a magnificent proponent of the restoration of sacred tradition, but Ratzinger was a politician. He may have written some beautiful things, but he couldn’t, or wouldn’t??? his modernism. Who among us can forget the night of his fleeing when lightning struck St. Peter’s Dome? He was a father who abandoned his children when the going got tough. But alas, ever since the close of the Council, hasn’t that been the case with the hirelings, dilettantes, and sodomites who oppress us?
@@DrKwasniewski Joseph doublespeak Ratzinger was never not trying to hedge his bets. He always wanted to be all things to all people, even if he oftentimes failed miserably in the attempt, God rest his soul. And if you doubt me I will quote his own very illuminating words concerning why he issued Summorum Pontificum when a year later on a flight to Lourdes (since quoting papal in flight comments as some sort of attempted magisterium is all the rage these days) he was asked about the fears of some in France that his motu proprio was some sort of threat to the supposed 'great insights' of the Second Vatican Council. Here is what he said:
"Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. " www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_francia-interview.html
An act of tolerance for a small group. Nothing more. And yes tolerance does imply that what you are tolerating is displeasing to you and worthy of restriction but you're just not going to do it now for whatever reason. No intended restoration (on his part at least). I am grateful that Summorum Pontificum was issued and for the benefits it has brought to my life - but I have no illusions about the man who did it.
You are spot on Peter. This is the boomer’s last gasp. It’s their last charge at the union center on day three at Gettysburg.
"To be a traditionalist today requires no great wisdom" -- and yet it does require a minimal degree of wisdom, which the vast majority of the Catholic masses (clergy and laity) evidently lack (I'm sure it's not *just* courage they lack).
Y T = = = > Peter Kwasniewski Declares 'Traditionis Custodes' Null and Void
I'll admit it...its a bit fuzzy what a faithful Catholic considers True Obedience, namely to Vatican pronouncement as outlined Dogmatically. Or are we left to decide on our own and hope for the best?
A simple bullet point outline would be helpful
RE: the famous BXVI quote, "What former generations held as sacred is sacred and great to us..."
Can you speak to how the Pope here puts qualifiers into what otherwise seems to be an encouraging statement? As in:
"...and cannot *altogether* be *suddenly* forbidden."
Just like in the appointment of both saintly and diabolically-oriented cardinals, is he just being forever the hegelian by putting those qualifiers in?
After all, Pope Francis waited a little bit to put out TC; he didn't act suddenly. Under TC, we can still travel to a non-parish at the far side of the diocese to have TLM at 3.30 on a Sunday afternoon; it's not altogether forbidden.
Exactly. Ratzinger’s fatal taint of Hegelianism. More trads should realize that the famous B16 quote is a double-edged sword; don’t treat it as a trump card. The bullet should be bitten: the go-to papal text has to be Quo Primum not SP.
As I wrote elsewhere in this thread: in this case, I don't think BXVI was trying to hedge his bets or make qualifications. I think those words are *emphatic* words. If you look at all the things he says in various writings about the irrationality of banishing the old liturgy, he is contrasting here a sane attitude of welcome for tradition with the militant anti-traditionalist who wants to forbid everything everywhere, etc. It would be entirely foreign to the liturgical thought of Ratzinger to imagine that he would be OK with partially forbidding the tradition, partially excluding the faithful attached to it, etc. Remember, the dramatic step of Summorum was to leave the choice to say the old Mass in the hands of priests, one by one!
Is lumen CHRISTI connected to lumen gentium?
See the show notes. This is a talk given at an event held at Sanctus Ranch.
I doubt it🤨
Jesuits, I understand vow to nott take positions such as bishop, cardinal, and especially pope. Was he absolved from the Jew, or just like the Commandments with his moral compass are not absolutes, so too he disregards now’s?
Well whoever accused the pope of logic 😞😂?
Madness. You believe that Francis is an actual pope, an actual Vicar of Christ, yet you consider yourself free to sift his magisterium. This is the kind of total madness produced in those “traditionalists” who refuse to admit that Francis can’t possibly be an actual pope.
You are trapped within a conception of the papacy that is altogether abstract, idealistic, and impossible. It's a bubble blown up by the ultramontanism of the late 19th century and into the mid-20th century, with the pope as a god-king, an "angelic pastor." The idea that one could have a disastrous pope seated in the chair of Peter but not teaching with the authority of the chair doesn't seem to cross the sede's mind. Meanwhile, in exchange for a real but awful pope, you have an unreal but utopian Church, barely visible, where there are scarcely any true bishops or priests or sacraments, and the mission of Christ to transmit His graces through imperfect instruments has been thoroughly undermined.
@@DrKwasniewskiDr Mazza shows very clearly that his election was not valid. On top of that Bergolio is an honorary rotary club member and that is not allowed for clergy. This is an easy call to make, and I thank God for that.
another mic drop, Dr K. losing count
Don’t give up on your passive blobness.
🤨 what?
He's referring to my comment in the lecture:
"All of these theologians assume that Catholics are capable of recognizing when the pope is failing to adhere to the Church’s received and approved rites, assaulting souls, undermining the common good, or destroying the Church. In other words, we are not passive blobs who are waiting to be told that the pope is saying something false or doing something wrong that deserves to be rebuked and resisted; there is some role for our informed reason and faith to play in evaluating his words and actions-and those of any other bishop, for that matter."
@@DrKwasniewski ok 🤣