Should Bishops Ignore the Vatican? (Guest: Peter Kwasniewski)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- The reign of Pope Francis has revealed a crisis in the relationship between bishops and the pope. From the sacking of Bishop Strickland to the Vatican micromanagement of dioceses and even parishes, what is the proper relationship between Peter and the other apostles?
Guest: Peter Kwasniewski earned a B.A. in liberal arts at Thomas Aquinas College and an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from The Catholic University of America. Since 2018, Dr. K has been a full-time writer and speaker, contributing to blogs, magazines, and newspapers. He has published over twenty books and his work has been translated into at least twenty languages.
Links:
• "Unresolved Tensions in Papal-Episcopal Relations" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "Ultramontanism and Tradition" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "Bound by Truth" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "Does Traditionis Custodes Pass the Juridical Rationality Test?" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "True Obedience in the Church" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "Are Canonizations Infallible?" (book): osjustipress.c...
• "Flee from Heresy" (book): sophiainstitut...
I am a diocesan priest of 37 years and have offered the traditional Roman Rite of Mass since my ordination. At first I jumped through all of the hoops that the modernist church required including the taking exams and applying for indults etc. I am not doing ANY of that any more. I continue to offer the Traditional Rite of Mass outside the constraints of the diocese and chancery structures and feel perfectly justified in doing so, since the diocesan powers that be, like pope Bergoglio himself, are not and have never been of good will concerning the matter. The Traditional Roman Rite of Mass is not the private possession of any certain pope or bishop, but of Jesus Christ and His Church! Ave Maria!
Amen. I pray for our faithful priests daily.
The saints are saints because, despite all the injustices against them, they "jumped through all the hoops," remained within the constraints of the Holy Catholic Church, and submitted to her legitimate authorities.
Now, if you care more about one of the many liturgical traditions of our Catholic Church (all of them beautiful and sacred) than being a saint, then keep at it. But I wouldn't recommend it.
Bless you, Fr Mikula for your good will. Mary's good will allowed the constraints on her consecrated marriages, celibate at Lk 1:38 and male female at Mt 1:24, of in uncertainty of her belief her keeping in a double keeping at Lk1:29-45 and Mt 1:24.
One keeping was of inseparability and qualitative equality of her procreation gift roles and her identity in need of union and the other was of inseparability and qualitative equality of her family members' identities in need of union.
On this reference point of Mary was the keeping in uncertainty of his belief by the consecrated celibate marriage of Pope Francis in a double keeping on 17 June 2021 in its cases of:
(a) embezzlements of its procreation role gift charity donations by Vatican state citizens/employees, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, on criminal inditements on 17 June 2021 of which convicted on 18 December 2023,
(b) an unacceptable risk of fraud on its identity by the Italian Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill then defeated on 27 October 2021 after simultaneously a protest note on 17 June 2021 from Pope Francis' Vatican state Secretariat of State against this bill to the Italian government.
@@xaviervelascosuarez All rites CAN be beautiful and holy depending on the priest and if you bishop is not a douche. Many bishops handicap even making the Novus Ordo better with TLM style rubrics. Masses with Fag Flags and and shit charismatic rock-n-roll music but an ad orientem Latin chanted Novus Ordo is not allowed. Such bishops and priests need to be removed and replaced by Catholic ones. The Pope can ban all he wants...not going back. I will go to SSPX and Eastern Divine Liturgy
@@gregorymikula4249 I wonder how great saints might be persecuted today by the pope and his hyperpapalist followers?
St. Athanasius was exiled multiple times and deprived of his see
St. Joan of Arc was deemed a heretic and burned at the stake by ecclesial authority
St. Cyril of Jerusalem was deprived of his see by a synod of 40 bishops and accused of heresy
St. Mary MacKillop was excommunicated by Bishop Laurence for her exposing abuse.
St. Columba was condemned by a synod and deprived of his office.
St. Basil was accused of heresy by a synod of bishops.
St. Jerome lamented that the majority of bishops followed the Arian heresy. Can't tell you how many bishops were deprived of their sees by ecclesiastical authority for holding to Orthodoxy.
Point is, the ecclesiastical structure, even the pope, are not free of error, injustice, and wrong. This pope is wrong and will/is persecuting those who are just and Orthodox. Not bound to obey them when they are clearly wrong. I pray that Pope Francis soul is ready but that he be removed from this world along with the home heretics he has gathered around himself
I agree with Archbishop Vigano because, at some point, we'll have to stand up for Christ and the Faith He founded. I don't believe he is a conspiracy theorist as it's plain to see the number of doctrinal errors & heterodoxy committed by the Vatican under this pontificate alone
I believe that God is testing all of us. He wants to see who is and who is not willing to stand up for truth so that when the judgment comes, there can be no doubt as to which side we served and were judged accordingly and rightfully.
I as a cradle Catholic, understand the changes in our Church. We cannot
be blind followers
just because a priest tells you to
jump off the bridge. Vigano is
the wrong person to listen to his fake
comments. He has
made many mistakes and is trying to cover up
by trying to take
credit for things he
neglected to do.
God is his judge.
Why are Catholics
VOTING FOR TRUMP? What has
Trump done for
Catholic Church..
Trump lacks religious orientation. And here all Catholics
who vote for him
are just as bad as he is,ignorance
certainly makes
mockery of God.
Only God sees all
and hears all..he
knows those who
use HIS NAME IN
VAIN FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE..
God Save Our Church,our Country
from Political villains..
Enough lies and
corruption.
True popes do not commit formal heresy. Pope Benedict xvi did not resign the papacy in accordence with all the requirements of canon law. Jorge Bergolio sj. is a manifest formal heretic and simply not a pope of any description whatsoever.
So by recognizing the situation as some class of "pontificate`" you are agreeing to the very errors and heresies that you rightly condemn.
We as a faithful in the Catholic Faith must be vigilant and watchful not to be deceived by those in Vatican especially in this end-times. (2 Thes 2: 3, 15) "Let no one be deceive you in anyway. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition." "Therefore, brothers stand firm and hold fast to the Tradition that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of our." Now, the Holy Church is covered of the darkness of apostasy, and these apostates in Vatican lead by usurper, antipope Bergoglio is restricting the Traditional Latin Holy Mass, cancelled and persecuted those Bishops and Priest who stand firm to the Tradition. The false teachings of heretic Bergolio that is contrary to the Truth, and contrary to the Catholic Faith is so clear for us. The few faithful shepherds of the Catholic Faith may unite together and elect a true Holy Pope. Why? Bergoglio is not a Catholic because he is the leader of their New One World Religion. Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church is put aside in the corner lead by the false messiah Bergoglio with other false religions. A false ecumenism of the modern Tower of Babylon of the modern Babylonians. He makes himself above God by making his own false doctrine that is not of God, but of the world. Wake-up Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests who are indifferent, spiritually asleep, and blind to the Truth. You are guilty of the "Sin of Ommission." You blindly obey and blindly follow the blind guides without thinking that misled you to the ditch.
Spot on. The last true pope was Benedict xvi who with his botched resignation attempt permitted this awful situation to arise.
That he remained silent is mystifying and leads credence to the conspiracy theories concerning threats to his life.
Either way that the bulk of catholics continue to recognize the formal heretic Bergolio as a "pope" just shows what a successful wolf in sheeps clothing he is.
This show is winning me back.
Thanks gentlemen. Great conversation
Dr. K is a vigorous proponent of the Second Vatican teaching on the ministry of bishops.
At least he gets some things right
The thing with the death penalty is that Francis easily could have had his cake and ate it too. He could have said that it remains morally permissible, but it is so difficult to obtain adequate certainty of guilt, and there are so many alternative punishments available that it is rarely a prudent sentence. Kinda like just war--there is such a thing, but most wars we see don't qualify. In other words, yu don't have to modify the catechism just to say the Vatican generally discourages capital punishment in MOST cases.
Since "Francis" is both formal heretic and antipope nothing he or his supporters say or do has any spiritual authority.
The argument around the death penalty as advanced by the formally heretical antipope Bergolio is idiotic. [just like his condemnation of the air conditioning he no doubt is currently using to stay alive in Romes 40 degree summer heat].
Post Vat II canonizations are just LAUGHABLE! Tks!, Dr. K.
Correction !! JOHN PAUL II gave an indult to destroy the FSSPX
What about ? Abuse of authority ? And what about defending the truth ?
Antipopes like Bergolio have no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever.
Hello from Canada. Very interesting and intelligent discussion! Thanks gentlemen.
I find Vigano very coherent. I’m surprised Dr. K doesn’t. Children of darkness vs. Children of light. Very simple, just as in St. John’s Gospel.
Bishop Torres of Puerto Rico? Where is he? What of Cardinals Burke and Mueller? Why do we need councils such as USCCB or CCCB?
They don’t need to listen to this about stopping the Latin mass. This has nothing to do with papal infallibility. Not at all
Should they? Yeah, probably. Will they? Sadly, no.
I love listening to both of you talking, and separately teaching; please don’t stop! Remind us over and over that only God and the Magisterium are where we go for truth, not just anyone we happen to like or who agrees with us. By the way, is it likely that Rome is taking lessons from Washington DC?
A short answer to the question in your title. YES, BISHOPS SHOULD IGNORE THE VATICAN.
If they are going to ignore the Vatican, they have to get together and do something about the heretical Pope and the corrupt Vatican.
The true problem is that the majority of bishops and cardinals continue to accept a formal heretic and blasphemer as pope.Ignoring the wolf in sheeps clothing is just more betrayal.
The method described for gathering for Mass in these times when so much has to be done secretly reminds me of Mass being celebrated In wilderness areas in the Penal Law period of Irish history two hundred years ago.
If pope Francis asked evety bishop to bring in a pachamama statue into the diocese cathedral and install it in place of a sacred heart of Jesus statue or picture, the bishops have an obligation to say NO.
They’ve already been doing that since montini and roncalli, with the theological idols of freemasonry
@@didymussumydid9726In this case I mean a literal statue like what was present in the Vatican gardens
_Applauding in Greek_
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan I understand, but adding an idol or taking an idol away doesn’t fundamentally change the circumstances. They replaced the worship of god and almost all the bishops went along with it when they should have said “no!”
It was a statue of the BVM, but then you know that by now so you are just being a sedevecantist
I agree that the pope has no authority to abrogate the Traditional Roman Rite. Who does Bergoglio think he is?!...the Holy Ghost? This isn't the 1960s!
It's a continuation of what happend in 1963. Hate to bring up the Word of God, but Paul spoke of the Restrainer being taken away in 2nd Thessalonians Chapter 2. Nowhere is it pointed out that this taking away happends all at once or over a long period of time.
Common antipopes like Bergolio and supporters are to be ignored
Bergolio is not a valid pope. Never has been given the canon defects in Benedicts alleged resignation. Even had Benedict validly resigned Bergolio is still not pope due to manifest formal heresies and blasphemies.
Bergolio thinks he is the Bishop of Rome. Unfortunately for him the last bishop of Rome one Joseph Ratzinger failed to vacate that office properly in accordence with canon law. Ergo there is now no Bishop of Rome since Ratzinger died.
Bergoglio thinks he is the owner,lock stock and barrel of not only the church but the sacraments,liturgy,and its complete tradition and patrimony.
No I believe Vigano would be dead if he went to Rome….sounds crazy, but we see it.
Just like Cardinal Pell?
YES
???If a TLM ban is implemented, the bishops would be free not to obey, correct??? The law would be unconstitutional and the bishop wouldn’t be required nor should he since it is a part of Tradition similar to Sacred Scripture….The Pope really couldn’t lawfully punish him because it wouldn’t be just, correct??
Unsure if you can address my question. Thank you.
As St Paul said of St Peter "I wistood him to his face for he was wrong".
@@frederickjones532 That is impossible. Peter was the first POPE!!!
@@robertbrown7470 It happens to be in Holy Scripture, Galatians 2 v 11.
@@frederickjones532 Peter was wrong in his behavior toward the Gentile Christians, but he didn't teach error or promoted pagan worship - big difference!
@@angelaa.4254 Indeed, did he not initiate the Deposit of Faith?
Oh the Glory of Ultra Montanism 😅
AFAIK Theres, no movement other than in China for the state to take over the affairs of the catholic church. On that score antipope Bergolio with his secret deal organized by his hireling, the utterly disgraced and scandalous cardinal McCarrick , played no small part. But since there is no current valid occupant of the Chair of St Peter [last one BENEDICT XVI] any refrences to "Ultra Montanism' are somewhat inapplicable.
But the Pope is working toward new world order. Tradition needs to go. His view.
What pope? Under canon law Benedict botched his resignation . Under divine law Bergolio is a formal heretic. So what pope are you referring to?
So the answer is yes, in this case. Thank you. May God always be with you both.
God bless Archbishop Vigano.
yea, the people who say you're always justified to oppose the pope is never on the right side of history. ever.
YIKES!!!
Vatican II gave more authority and discretion to individual bishops, as to what they allow within their diocese. Francis' dictatorial centralisation is AGAINST Vatican II.
And that is exactly what Protestants do. And we see the results. One diocese celebrates all kinds of vices and evils and another tries to outdo it with more vile and evil practices.
Francis who? Bergolio is a formal heretic and Benedict was the last true pope.
Didn't Bergoglio just get a 'blessing' from 100 Buddhists? Only Our Lord can give a blessing - either directly or through His priests. I consider Bergoglio to be an apostate.
As an orthodox I approve that message.
On whose authority?
@@xaviervelascosuarezJesus Christ
@IHMTriumph So you saw him and talked to him and he talked to you? Did he tell you "feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep" three times?
@@xaviervelascosuarez Jesus Christ is the Authority Bergolio is teaching against Jesus and all Catholics have believed - can't bless morality for example or give Holy Communion to divorced and remarried couples etc etc Jesus is the Authority sooo simple and yes Jesus taught me this catechism of Trent Church Fathers and Canon Law Quo Primum by Pope St Pius V might interest you too or are you just a troll??? He needs to be rebuked for the salvation of his soul have some charity as the Bible states as well
I hear in his next encyclical Bergoglio is going to declare the moon is made of cheese.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Were not Catholic Monarchs throughout history the usual appointers of bishops? Popes got the job with the advent of democracies.
Don’t forget somebody gave an award as “defender of the faith” to Henry the eighth. then he betrayed Thomas More after Thomas More warned him that divorce was a sin
Orthodox here. No. The popes did not appoint the bishops until after the Gregorian Reformation in the 11th century. The Church was not a monarchy before the schism.
@@Hope_Boat Duffy tells us that Catholic Monarchs were still appointing as late as the 19th century.
@@Hope_Boatsure it is.
No they weren't throughout history. There was a fierce struggle though, sometimes they wanted to appoint, sometimes they just wanted a veto, sometimes they won sometimes they lost. Arguably its still ongoing. China has won that issue with this "pope".
Bishops need to jump on this before they're overeach (powertrip) goes too far.
Yes!
Makes sense. Overeach in the Papacy. (Power trip?)
Look at Pastor Aeternus Vatican I for the limits of Papal infallibility, or Newman "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk".
There is nobody currently occupying the Chair of St Peter. Last one to do so was Joe Ratzinger RIP.
And the correct Catholic response is NO
NO - Novus Ordo is not Catholic it despises Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium!
Your position is incoherent. You say, you recognize the authority of the scoundrels, then claim the right to ignore their authority. Vigano, at least, has a coherent position that these criminals do not have legitimate authority, so we need not listen to them and are obligated to save the Church from them. Bergoglio and his friends will dismantle the church, which, Vigano claims was Bergoglio’s intention all along and why he cannot be pope. That position appears to align with a spiritual reality and is a coherent basis for refusing to obey Bergoglio, a false pope. Your position is to come up with reasons to refuse to obey a legitimate pope, which is far more dangerous to the future of the church and a lot closer to Protestantism than Vigano’s position. If we are in a position where we decide whether to obey a legitimate authority, how do we claim to truly be under that authority?
Maybe we should stop pretending there is no solution to a false papacy and that such a thing is not possible, and instead recognize the reality that people thought was not possible? The man who does not claim to be Vicar of Christ is not a true pope, but a usurper, and that is why we need not obey him. You don’t help matters by buying into this charade and creating reasons to ignore the authority of a true pope. You only aid him in dismantling the Church.
to Joseph Cillojr, Bless you for your good will. Mary's good will allowed the constraints on her consecrated marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ at Lk 1:38 and male female vowed to God at Mt 1:24, of in uncertainty of her belief her keeping in a double keeping at Lk1:29-45 and Mt 1:24.
One keeping was of inseparability and qualitative equality of her procreation gift roles and her identity in need of union and the other was of inseparability and qualitative equality of her family members' identities in need of union.
On this reference point of Mary was the keeping in uncertainty of his belief by the consecrated celibate marriage of Pope Francis vowed to man in Christ in a double keeping on 17 June 2021 in its cases of:
(a) embezzlements of its procreation role gift charity donations by Vatican state citizens/employees, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, on criminal inditements on 17 June 2021 of which convicted on 18 December 2023,
(b) an unacceptable risk of fraud on its identity by the Italian Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill then defeated on 27 October 2021 after simultaneously a protest note on 17 June 2021 from Pope Francis' Vatican state Secretariat of State against this bill to the Italian government.
Consecrated marriage, celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God, exercises an absolute power of authorisation.
The Pope would selectively fire various Bishops to force the others to tow the line.
@@oliverclark5604 What the Frick?
Bravo! You speak the truth. They are complicit in the perpetuation of the evils inherent in the Conciliar counterfeit church because they claim an apostate can be a valid pope and at the same time, go through hoops to disobey him.
Viganos position was incoherent for a long time given his recognition of the invalid and formally heretical Bergolian antipapacy.
Talk about tradition, the Pope just announced he will go to Turkey in 2025 celebrate the 1700 anniversary of the council of Nicaea. Comments!
Bergoglian photo-op. Rather ridiculous given that he denies everything in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Yeah prolly will be visiting more mosques and Imams than anything else there
Will be knocking traditional Catholics and promoting “ecumenism.”
@@edwinkubena9944 hate not faith moves you?
@@Runsfrombears hate not faith in Christ moves you?
If you are a bishop just leave its is your choice and stop intriguing the Vatican if you are away already.
🤗
I agree with your guest, with regard to Archbishop Vigano.
Also, concerning the complete lack of leadership, particularly among the Cardinals.
With the exception of Cardinal Zen & the african Cardinals.
It is my understanding, that Cardinal Müller had stated, that the recent papal document: Fiduccia Supplicants, was full of confusing language. How can there be any confusion, when the word: 'couple', is mentioned nine times ? More specifically with respect to homosexuals, receiving 'blessings' as couples.
This is but another example, of a member of the clergy (Müller), trying to equivocate, so as not to incur the wrath of those in the Vatican; as Francis & Fernandez, unashamedly promulgate this heretical, pro-homosexual document. Which is but another reason why, the german Catholic Church, continues to die a slow & agonizing death !
💖
Better question: What actual relevance does Vatican II have today? For the most part? It seems the issues addressed were very pertinent for the 1950s and 1960s. Not so much now. For the most part. So much so that the Lituegy - Taylor made for that generation - fails to resonate with the faithful today. For the most part. What is it that bishops are ignoring or rejecting? Most of the Vatican II documents are merely modes operandi documents that do not demand ascent of faith. They contain no doctrine that require ascent like Unitatis Red., or Nostrae Aetate, etc
Peter Kwasniewski is saying that a Bishop rules his diocese like a monarch and the Pope does not have a right to remove him? By Canon Law a Pope can appoint a Bishop to any diocese he sees fit and he can remove a bishop from governing a diocese for what ever reason within canon law he wants to. Does Peter Kwasniewski know Canon Law? It appears not! A PhD in Philosophy does not qualify someone as knowledgeable about canon law.
Your comment only makes sense when a valid pope occupoies the See of St Peter. BENEDICTS RESIGNATION WAS INVALID UNDER CANON LAW. BERGOLIO UNDER DIVINE LAW IS A FORMAL HERETIC.
@Emie-f3g A pope can overule canon law in the sense that as the supreme lawgiver he can at will make/change/or revoke any canon law. But since pope Benedict xvi died there has been no valid pope so the authority vested in many sections of canon law has been suspended.
@Emie-f3g Since you agree that a pope is bound by canon law [unless he changes it] then pope Benedict xvi was thus so bound with regard to canon 332 no 2. That very specific provision requires any resigning pope to a] properly manifest his resignation and b] resign the office of the papacy. Pope Benedict did neither a] or b]. He therefore remained pope in office until his death. The logic of the situation is that the 2013 conclave that elected Bergolio was canonically invalid. Every body can see the fruits of this mess in the formal heresies and sacrileges of the so called "Bergolian pontificate".
Canon law is the sole protection catholics have from arbitrary spirtual rule. Sadly pope Benedict failed to properly understand that principle and even more tragically Jorge Bergolio sj has nothing but contempt for all law be it civil, church or divine.
@Emie-f3g You fail to see the relationship between canon law and a valid pope. Since the latter can alter canon law then he is above canon law but only in the sense of a supreme legislator. He himself remains bound by canon law as written. If he want s to change it he can.
@Emie-f3g You are failing to understand the concept of timed legislation. A valid pope, as an individual , is the SUPREME law giver with regard to canon law. He literally has the authority to make or change any provision of the code.Thats the way it has always been. He does not have to consult with anybody either. Canon laws down through the centuries have been changed by the direct fiat of the pope. However the pope is SUBJECT to canon law. If there is something in it he dislikes then he must either obey it or change it. If you reject the pope as the SUPREME lawgiver then you are not a proper catholic.
Thats why its so icritically importent to be certain that any pope occupying such an exalted position is legitimately elected and thereafter does not commit formal heresy.
Who is this guy? His argument shows how twisted he is!
Obviously no.
Vigano Vini Vici!
No
I will follow the bible and only follow sound doctrine and dogma!!!! I will never follow anyone who contradicts the bible!!
Francis said on Easter Sunday that jesus christ death on the cross was a failure!! That's hericy!! Jesus christ death on the cross is God's core plan of salvation!!!
_I will follow the bible and only follow sound doctrine and dogma!!!! I will never follow anyone who contradicts the bible!!_ as we orthodox said 1000 years ago. Better sooner that later. Better later than never.
@@Hope_Boatthe so-called'Orthodix' never claimed anything of the sort in the C11th. The Ohotion Schism of the C9th AD and the Kerularian Schism of the mid-1050s0 Had nothing to do with the Bible but everything to do with the arrogance and ambition of uncanonically elected patriarchs of Constaninople. In the case of Michael Kerularios (who ended up in prison for deposing an emperor), his suppression of the Latin Rite in the city and condemnation of the Latin as a azymites was complete nonsense with no foundation. Kerularios was desperate to exercise authority over the other patriarchates, especially Alexandria and the Church in Southern Italy. He managed to completely scupper the Papal-Byzantine alliance against the Normans. However, there was no formal schism. The claims of the Eastern Greek church to eternal orthodoxy is quite laughable. The iconclast heresy is a case in point: the East went heretic and the Latin Church remained orthodox and protected refugee iconophile monks.
@@patrickparsons2378 We are not Pepsi-Cola. Stop reacting like Coca-Cola. We don't try to steal you market shares. You have a problem and we have the solution. If you are confortable with the current state of affairs in your Church, fine. It's none of our business. You have been busy insulting orthodoxy since 1054. We are neither tired nor vindictive. You can go for another millennium if you wish. God bless you.
Kyrie eleison.☦
We may not have seen anything yet from this Pope.
How can legitimaate Christians not follow the Bible?
This podcast should bring back Jimmy Akin; the Church doesn’t teach what Kwasniewski thinks.
I’m sorry, but I have stopped listening to Jimmy Akin. I’d rather listen to Dr. K
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan I'm sorry you feel that way. I always encourage people to listen to both sides, but at the end of the day, we follow the Magisterium of the Church, not the magisterium of theologians and apologists.
@ryanb4780 what is the Magisterium? The DDF+Pope?
@@jasong7128 No. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of Christ exercised through the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope.
@@ryanb4780yea but when they contradict the previous magisterium and so on what do you think is the criteria? Can God be bound by man? Answer, no, the Holy Ghost guided Tradition, you’re not getting it, Tradition is what God Gave us not this pope or that and that’s the problem with Modernism or neo modernism that holds (erroneously) that “living tradition is held by evolution” again, can God Change? no, God doesn’t Change and popes can disobey God obviously, there’s Peter and Simon son of Jonah, man and man under Grace, this second one is subject to Truth in order to hold the promises, Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ, yesterday and today; Jesus Christ forever. James 1:17 Every excellent gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor any shadow of alteration. Same holds to little truths that come from that first Truth, if obstinate man wants humanism and not Grace (Truth) then the binding (moral binding) is not binding no more for we must obey God before man in order to be under obedience to God that gave men that power from above, and did so as to keep order, not disordered society which is the Church not so as to man do whatever arbitrarily but to hold strong Tradition that we received for our sanctification Ephesians 4:13 until we all meet in the unity of faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as a perfect man, in the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ. 14 So may we then no longer be little children, disturbed and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, and by the craftiness which deceives unto error.15 Instead, acting according to truth in charity, we should increase in everything, in him who is the head, Christ himself.
Cue all the keyboard warriors with their: "I'm with VIGANO! Now we KNOW Dr. K. isn't a REAL Trad!". Bc ... Almost NO ONE can make distinctions anymore.
That road is going to end with “NO ONE is a REAL trad but ME!!”
@@EpoRose1 BINGO
@@EpoRose1your road ends with "obey the pope". Silly.
@@sliglusamelius8578 But there is no pope now since Benedict xvi died. Bergolio is a formal heretic and never canonically elected in accordence with due procedure.
At time 36:15, your history is badly mistaken. You say the Anglican Reformation comparison is invalid based on the "The State" having issued the order rather than the Bishops. You forget that all but TWO of the Bishops of England (Saints More and Fisher, martyrs) capitulated to the tyranny of Henry VIII, and by 1549 the Latin Mass had been banned by those Legitimate Universal Pastors in favor of Cranmer's new worship service: vernacular, versus-populum and non-sacrificial. Then, as now, the Bishops capitulated to the "head" of their church.
Fisher was the Bishop; Thomas More was a lay person (he was married)
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan Heh, that's right, good point. But who was the other Bishop, then? Because I remember the TWO from some other source.
English Bishops , priests and clergy were required by “the state” to recognize Henry as the “ Head of the Church” in England, and Anne Boleyn as his legitimate wife and Queen. From that time forward “the state” ( monarch and parliament, ) controlled church property, liturgy and discipline. Clergy who did not conform were deprived of their office, put into prison, and some lost their lives. For all practical purposes, it was a state run church and the bishops had very little to say in what went on in it.
@@giovanniserafino1731 Yes, precisely. But that doesn't change the fact that the Bishops were all ordained, prior to the break with Rome, by the Catholic Church, according to tradition. Following Mr. Sammon's logic they were therefore the people's "Legitimate Universal Pastors". And those Legitimate Universal Pastors ordered their people to give up the traditional Latin mass. The situation in modern times is all too similar, and the detail of whether the impetus for betrayal comes from violent tyrants (kings or communists) or non-violent tyrants (clericalist ideologues) doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant.
Part of the problem here is our tendency to telegraph the modern notion of "separation of church and state" backwards in time to the late middle ages. The Church and State were intimately intertwined then, so distinguishing between "The State" vs. "The Church" in that historical context is always going to lead to confusion. Though that's a very different topic, to be sure. Sorry for the rabbit hole, heh.
@@peternelson9259 Discussion is always good. As I’m sure you know, most of the laity rejected the protestant schismatic Edwardian Ordinal of 1549 and “Communion Service “ written by the heretic Cramner and wanted their Latin Mass back. Unfortunately, most of the clergy, fearful of the state, did not return to the Latin Mass. It wasn’t until the reign of Queen Mary Tudor that public Latin Mass returned, and then only for a short time. Of course, the Latin Mass continued “underground” and in secret for many years. We may be returning to those days very soon.
Bishops are, indeed, "successors of the apostles" and even "vicars of Christ" (as the CCC clearly says). But they are NOT "monarchs with the divine right to rule" in any sense of the term, Protestant civil or any other. When a Catholic bishop acts contrary to the direct and explicit direction of the Bishop of Rome, and does so blatantly, even provocatively (on social media, say); and then when the vast majority of his brother bishops do NOT support him but, on the contrary, agree with the Bishop of Rome against the deviant bishop, the matter is clear -- or as clear as it can be this side of the grave. Bishop Strickland was openly and unrepentantly standing his ground against the Pope and his fellow bishops, all of them "successors of the apostles" with the Pope as "successor of Peter" (as well as a good many of his people and clergy). Let that sink in (to quote Peter Kwasniewski).
They have NO authority outside the Catholic Church of Rome.
What you say would be correct if the See of St Peter was occupied by a valid pope. It is not so occupied and the man Bergolio is a formal heretic under divine law. Even if his election was valid which it wasnt given that Benedict never PROPERLY fulfilled the requirements of canon law concerning papal resignations.
We orthodox are ignoring the Vatican since 1054 and focus of the conservation of the orthodox faith. As a result we did a better job maintaining the creed, the sacraments, the divine liturgy, the sacred art (iconography) the sacred architecture, the Eucharist, the confidence of the orthodox nations and our consistency. What was the justification of the rise of the pontifical monarchy again? Hmmm. if I remember well he was supposed to be a guarantor of orthodoxy : _we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff._ (Unam Sanctam 1302). That worked well did it?
Orthodoxy is relevant. Pontifical monarchy? Not so much.
Kyrie eleison.
IC XC
NI KA
You also allow divorce, and deny the Assumption, you also have your own divisions between Moscow and Constantinople, along with those follow the old calendar ..Kyril is pawn of Putin as well.. things are not perfect in the East either.
@@sergesavard636 I will not enter into an explanation on why this is not relevant. Just a few words. We are not a political party. It does not matter who's the head of the Church. We don't submit to him. He's a servant who washes our feet.
Concerning divorce, as for many other things we hold the position of the Apostles from which you deviated and you now think we are the ones who changes. No. Read the bible. _I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery._
Matthew 19:9
Read st John Chrysostom : Divorce was always possible in case of fornication of the one spouse and no repentance possible because it's the duty of the Church to save the other soul.
Our Lady of Fatima asks Catholics to pray for the conversion of Russia.
Our current crisis is probably chastisement for not heeding her other requests. But she said, "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph."
This is probably not the best time for the Orthodox Church to reconcile but we will continue to pray for them.
There is a small remnant who remain true to the Sacred Traditions, Sacred Scriptures, and Magisteriums before 1958.
@@guineapig0199 A conversion of Russia to what? The Novus Ordo world religion? Russia was baptised in the 10th century and needs no conversion. Stop being arrogant. Rome is piling up heresies ever since the Great Schism. You went from extreme brutality to extreme tolerance. You have no guidance because you follow a man. Not Christ. You end up with a ruined Church , no correct liturgy, no correct sacraments, ill inspired art, new age architecture, debauchery within the clergy, persecution of traditionalists, worship of idols on your altars, kissing of the Quran, washing of the feet of Muslims and insyead of wpndering why all this is happening you pray for orthodox Russia to 'convert' into that desaster? That's insane. The pre 1958 dogmas you pretend to save have been proven false. Where happened to 'the Roman Church will never err in all perpetuity'?
What happened to 'The Roman Pontiff holds the imperial Insignia and all princes are to kiss his feet '? What happened to "no salvation outside the Roman Church '?
The only thing Rome holds to is the necessity to submit to the Roman Pontiff which was never part of the orthodox faith in the first place. Christ never said we shall submit to the first among us. He said the exact opposite: Do not lord it over the nations like the kings who pretend to be benefactors. Luke 22:24-26
The first is like the youngest (primus inter pares).
Stop inventing stuff and return to what the Lord taught us. Kyrie eleison ☦
This video is the definition of legalism.
Canon law is legalism, so what?
@@sliglusamelius8578 Judges 17:6 Condemns lawlessness "There was no King in Israel and every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
@@frederickjones532
Ok, so what is your point? I accept the law of God and I accept that there is canon law, I do not accept the idea that the pope is a dictator, one who ignores canon law 915, and one who receives blessings from Buddhist monks.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Newman thought that the properly informed conscience was supreme. The Pope is the guide to the meaning of tradition, he is not tradition itself ( as Pius IX maintained ) and he certainly can make mistakes except when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Liberius and Honorius were heretics.
What does Kwasniewski say regarding Donum Veritatis. That document seems to suggest Kwasniewski is guilty of the sin of public dissent.
Kinda sad that your first instinct is to try to find a way to silence Dr. K rather than engage his arguments. The Church shouldn’t be run like the Soviet Union.
@CrisisMag Sorry, but if Kwasniewski is preaching contrary to the Magisterium, that's called dissent. I'm honestly trying to find Kwasniewski's explanation of Donum Veritaris and how it fits in with his understanding of "true obedience," but I can't find anything. As far as I can tell, he's promoting grave sin. And to compare the Papal Magisterium's rulings on a particular form of the Roman Rite to the Soviet Union is just grotesque. There is nothing "tradional" about a lay person (even a theologian) making himself the Magisterium and deciding which traditions are Sacred and which are not. Contrary to what Schneider states, he and Kwasniewski are fundamentally Protestant in their ecclesiology: namely, they make themselves their own Magisterium, and have the audacity to presume to know more than the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of Christ's Magisterium.
@@CrisisMag It's tragically sad that you and many other Catholics, who claim to value tradition, would rather give ascent of will and mind to a Magisterium of theologians over and against the Magisterium instituted by Christ.
there approach to Church teaching of Truth vs Legend is if the Truth doesn't align with my Legend choose the Legend. The Magistrium should bend to their will not the other way around. They are the True Catholics not the Pope God gave the authority.
@@ryanb4780Is this current Magisterium really a Magisterium instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ? Will Our Lord Jesus Christ instruct His Magisterium to violate the First Commandment?
The Pope is the BOSS. He is Christ's personal representative on Earth and must be obeyed by all Catholics. Besides God or Christ, the only one that can over-rule the Pope is the Virgin Mary.
Scripture says we are not to follow the doctrine of deamons!!! Pope Francis said on Easter Sunday that jesus christ death on the cross was a failure! This is hericy!!
Jesus christ death on the cross is God's core plan of salvation!!!
Yes but when he is in error we have an obligation to resist him.
Your understanding of the position of the Patriarch of the West and the Vicor of Christ (aka the Pope) is not in agreement with Vatican 1 which delineated on this topic in fairly significant detail. You seem to be more of a Papalist than a Catholic.
No problem with that provided the person calling himself pope is validly elected and has not fallen into formal heresy.
Fr. Bergolio SJ is an antipope and as such has zero authority.
Your comment only applies to VALID popes. Bergolio is not a valid pope being a formal heretic and elected contrary to canon law.
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
That's right! The Pope is the BOSS. He can only be over-ruled by Jesus Himself no matter his heresies and evil doings!
@robertbrown7470 Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Jesus Christ was also considered an evil doer in His day, so too Pope Francis is considered the same by modern day elders! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 Are you aware that Popes Honorius and Liberius were heretics and that Athanasius stood for Orthodoxy when "The whole earth groaned and found itself Arian".Knowing this history Vatican I adopted a very limited view of Papal Infallibility.What would you have done in the Athanasius time?
Top theologians 4 or 5 times have accused Francis of heresy. WAKE-UP!!!!! He is so far from Jesus! Your delusional!
@dianneraimondi8382 and 4 out of 5 top elders and Pharisees, also accused Jesus Christ of heresy! Yes, wake up! Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! There are still many Bishops and Cardinals, and especially, Canon Lawyers, that affirm that Pope Francis has never taught anything contrary to Church teaching or Canon Law or Holy Scripture! I bet you one million dollars, that you have never read any of the encyclicals of Pope Francis, or morning homilies! So shameful! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The answer is no. It's prideful to go against the head of the Church. Only time we were to do that is if we were asked to do something grieviously wrong
Scripture tells us God prefers obedience rather than our own sacrifice.
You can't be serious. He's not supposed to be the dictator he turned himself into, it's horrible.
What would be a “grievous wrong” that would constitute that?
@@sliglusamelius8578 I am. I think you caught up too much in this, were being victimized mentality. Listen, what did Jesus say? He said in the gospel to follow what ever the scribes and pharisees say for they sit on the seat of Moses, just not to do what they do. The Pope has the authority given by God to do certain things. In this case it's not a sin, it just not what you want. If he were telling you to sin, that would be a different story. So, yes I am serious, are you? Or do you follow your own will?
@@EpoRose1 Anything that is a sin. This is not a sin. Its just not what you want.
@@ryans339
He can't bless sin. Period.
People are trying to rationalize disobedience to the pope, and may I say, tacitly, calling into question the validity of the new mass, despite anything they may say otherwise. The old mass is being used as a club, both to bang on the new mass, to provide a place for dissenting priests, and as a club of membership. It is being used to divide by some who attend it, and by the pope who is annoyed with its misuses. None of that makes all the crazy things acceptable, but, it kind of explains some things, IMHO. The pass given to countless others, like Germany, Rupnik, and the like, are another matter. The crazy needs to stop, whether it is screwy Jesuits, promoters of gay weddings, fat bottomed morons kneeling before an idol in a garden, or "rad trad" BS. It all needs to stop.
Start with oneself.
There is no "new Mass", only the TLM. V2 was an abomination by all measures, and it was a hostile takeover by Masons to destroy the Church from within - and your comment proves they're winning.
Blessing Same-Sex Marriages is like a 500 foot Neon Sign saying this Pope is evil and is directly undermining Jesus and the Word of God - but it's ok. He's the Pope, he can do not wrong however wrong it is. I like your logic - if you are a supporter of this heretical Pope.
Traditional Catholic... This is a misnomer really. The Novous Ordo is the latin rite today. The Latin church is all over the world. The various other rites of the Catholic Church serve their local communities unlike the Latin rite that serves the globe. Look at how the church is flourishing in Africa and South East Asia. The old version of the Latin rite (TLM) should be kept for Europe and America. This would end up as a division from the rest of the world if we do not have a rite that unites us the way the Novous Ordo does it the TLM did. Also the TLM could have just been vernacularised to help with the missions outside of Europe and America.
1) It seems duplicitous for Peter Kwasniewski to talk about a bishop defending his flock arguing that his flock "don’t deny the validity of the Novus Ordo" when he has argued numerous times now that one need not attend a NOM even when it's the only option
2) Bishop Schneider needs to stop writing that a Pope cannot change the Nicene Creed because, I'm sure he's well aware, a Pope did that already
Cite with quotes where Kwasnieski said any such thing. I call bushwa on your allegation.
@@JackGordone "there cannot be sufficient probability of a Novus Ordo Mass that fulfills the conditions necessary for obligatory Divine Worship" Peter Kwasniewski, Sanctus Ranch, Pipe Creek, TX, on April 28, 2024. this can be viewed at 39 minutes on the video he posted to his own youtube channel under the title "When the Sunday Mass Obligation Binds and Ceases to Bind".
"If one is doubtful about the lawfullness of the New Rite one has an obligation to clear them and in the mean time avoid attending it. Speaking for myself, when I tried to clear up my own doubts the things I learned only intensified them. Hence, I personally would not attend the Novus Ordo even if it were the only liturgy available" at about 51 : 30 of the same lecture
Edit: “Numerous” may have over sold it but this does seem to be his current position which he expresses publicly his own doubts, presenting himself as an expert, planting those doubts in others, etc
Bishop Schneider didn’t say a pope couldn’t change the Nicene Creed, he said a pope can’t “abrogate” (cancel, forbid) the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.
@@EpoRose1 “abrogate or substitute a new formula” was the quotation
@@TSliw You misunderstand what he actually said and try unsuccessfully to make out that he promulgates a general rule for the faithful. Read what he said more carefully. "I PERSONALLY...." is not in any way a blanket statement including others.
No worshiping of Mary, no fake rosary, no false Latin Mass, no bits of cloth or bones...
go back to your prot site and have your "personal relationship"
God gave us His guideline, the problem is people don't want to believe or accept these standards. Who are we to decide that God's Church is off the rails and people have to leave it and change those rules. The Queen Mother is always honored in worldly kingdoms, The rosary begging her to Pray For Us is valid, The Latin Mass may have been said in Hebrew and Greek and some other languages but Latin finally becoming the official one for the Vatican to make matters more official and clear. Those trying to get rid of the Latin are also trying to destroy the Clearity. You are very confused. God gave the Jews guideline and when Christ established his Church for the entire world He gave us Guide lines and only Catholic Tradition has kept that Tradition Pure, if there is confusion it is because some men have chosen to make confusion God is the Same, His Church is the Same, He even Promised it is the Same.
???If a TLM ban is implemented, the bishops would be free not to obey, correct??? The law would be unconstitutional and the bishop wouldn’t be required nor should he since it is a part of Tradition similar to Sacred Scripture….The Pope really couldn’t lawfully punish him because it wouldn’t be just, correct??
Unsure if you can address my question. Thank you.
The TLM is not part of Sacred Tradition, it is part of tradition.Also, the Popes actions are governed by canon law but the pope can change canon law as he sees fit. The TLM evolved from the initial practice of the Apostles, undergoing it greatest changes after the church was
made the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. The council of Trent mandated that the form of the mass as used in Rome must be used in all of the west and suppressed about 50 forms of the Roman Rite then in use in the west. Finally, the TLM and the Novo Ordo are both valid forms of the current Roman Rite
@@joejohn1492
Thank you for your response. The concept of Big T and little t Tradition is a modernist invention. I included a link to one of Father Ripperger’s round tables where he explains this more eloquently than I ever could.
Can’t post the link…See “The Tan Roundtable: Errors of Protestantism”
Also, the TLM comes from apostolic tradition, many aspects of it. The majority of it was well formed and it under went some development afterwards, again Father Ripperger explains this further in the video I included below. The Supreme Pontiff does not have the authority to suppress the traditional Roman Rite, just like he can’t remove the Epistle of St. James or the Gospel of St. Matthew from Sacred Scripture…
There are aspects of the liturgy he can’t change due to apostolicity and longevity.
See Dr. Taylor Marshall’s interview posted 7 months ago on the Limits of Papal Authority
@@lordoftherings2571 Bless you for your erudite contribution. The limits of papal authority are in its reference point of Mary's double keeping in uncertainty of her belief.
This double keeping exercised an absolute power of authorisation by Mary's family member consecrated marriages in their roles - identity of the advantageous combining in present moment real presence of keeping in uncertainty of belief of all the role activities of helpers of the family.
Mary's good will allowed the constraints on her consecrated marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ at Lk 1:38 and male female vowed to God at Mt 1:24 as inseparable and qualitatively equal, of in uncertainty of her belief her keeping in a double keeping at Lk1:29-45 and Mt 1:24.
One keeping by Mary was of inseparability and qualitative equality of her procreation gift roles and her identity in need of union and the other was by Mary of inseparability and qualitative equality of her family members' identities in need of union.
On this reference point of Mary was the keeping in uncertainty of his belief by the consecrated celibate marriage of Pope Francis in a double keeping on 17 June 2021 in its cases of:
(a) embezzlements of its procreation role gift charity donations by Vatican state citizens/employees, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, on criminal inditements on 17 June 2021 of which convicted on 18 December 2023,
(b) an unacceptable risk of fraud on its identity by the Italian Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill then defeated on 27 October 2021 after simultaneously a protest note on 17 June 2021 from Pope Francis' Vatican state Secretariat of State against this bill to the Italian government.
Exercise of an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of ensuring procreation role gifts and insuring need of union of identity is only by consecrated marriage, (a) identity and role and (b) celibate and/or male female, as each inseparable and qualitatively equal in its double keeping.
From 1930-31 this double keeping in national accounts worldwide was termed the "multiplier" as of economic processes and non-economic progress.
From 1946 this multiplier was tested by the consecrated male female marriage of economist/statistician of national accounts, Colin Clark, described by Keynes as "quite first class" and commended with a papal medal by Pope St Paul V1 in including the "inseparable" principal in his Encyclical Letter, "Of Human Life", Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12: 'marriage has "Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation" ' on the basis of the finding by Colin Clark of "just about paripassu rate of growth of population and food supplies in the developing countries".
To "inseparable" was added 'qualitatively equal' by the consecrated marriages, male female from 25 February 1991 then celibate from 1 November 2017 on the death of his wife, of me as a son of Colin Clark.
This was the reference point for Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage on 17 June 2021 in the Becciu + 9 and "Zan" cases.
The product of this multiplication by the "multiplier" is the "I AM WHO I AM" revealed to Moses at Exodus 3:14 as having its "fulfilment" as in uncertainty "believed" by Mary as "that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (RSV Lk 1:45).