It's never right to disobey Popes (see Quanta Cura and Vatican I). Lefebvre is no Saint, he is still excommunicated.

@Matthew Schmidt The hierarchy didn't have the fortitude to excommunicate him directly. They simply suggested that he was excommunicated "latae sententiae" which was a cheap, cowardly way to sully his reputation and deny him any due process while he was living. In any event, the matter of Lefebvre's "excommunication" has been largely been discredited.

@@jeffbrewster7475 Exactly. The anti-Lefevebrists, would appear to still be mired in 1988.

​@@matthewschmidt5069 You need to tell Apostle St Paul, St.Augustine Doctor of the Church-oh... AND the HOLY SPIRIT-that. For, St. Augustine directly stated that the example given of Paul opposing/resisting Peter in Sacred Scripture was put their>by the HOLY SPIRIT< as a lesson to all... that >IF< there's danger to the Faith, then we must oppose/resist even the pope. Btw, VAT I directly stated that the authority/power of the pope over the Church is given him from God specifically to >defend/build up the Faith.< As Mr. K cogently explains WITH supporting quotes and examples, >IF< any prelate, even pope, uses power/position/authority to oppose or tear down the Faith, Sacred Tradition, etc... he >must be resisted and opposed.

That's great to hear! Could you send me your thesis by email? I'd enjoy having a look at it. You can reach me via www.peterkwasniewski.com/

@@DrKwasniewski Thank you for taking the time to read it! It should be in your inbox.

Having listened to him and studied some of his books, it is not possible to remain confused.

For sure!

Thank you for your encouraging words about my work. Regarding "Hope Is Fuel," I gave a full explanation on my Facebook page of why I withdrew. But I will copy and paste it here for convenience:

@@DrKwasniewski Thank you for your prompt and thorough response. I don’t have a Facebook so I was unaware you had made a statement! I wish you all the best and pray that the rest of the year and any conferences or future presentations you may participate in will be fruitful!

I look to Dr K with the highest respect and his work is absolutely crucial and I Thank Our Blessed Lord that we have Dr K fighting for God's Glory and the Glory of His One True Church every day and on the front lines. Still, if you look at the group that pulled out on Patrick Coffin, most Traditionalists would not want to be in any way associated with that particular group of liberal "Catholics". By following a group that cancels fellow Catholics is definitely not a good look for Dr K in my opinion. God Bless Dr K, his family and his work. *+IN CHRISTO REGE*

As far as I was concerned, it was a "lose/lose" proposition, but I made the choice that comported most with my conscience, and for the reasons I gave -- not because of pressure applied by the woke progressives. I don't care what they think at all, and never have.

​@@DrKwasniewski With respect, I'd ask you Mr.K, >If< you would've disassociated from St. Catherine of Sienna or St. Vincent Ferrer, had you been living then, based on similar reasons to those you posit against Patrick Coffin? Those two great saints were on opposite sides. Literally, St. Vincent Ferrer later had to confess sin for praying for a false/fake man as pope in the Te Igitur of the Mass. Strictly, by the >exact words of Canon Law< multiple qualified persons, incl. priests have publicly stated the prima facie deficit/flaw in the resignation of Pope Benedict-a man fluent in Latin and intimately expert in Canon Law (responsible for putting together the 1983 Code under JPII). Dr. Edmund Mazza, a deeply knowledgeable and devout man (who's appeared repeatedly on both the John Henry Weston and Taylor Marshall shows) >cogently points out substantiating evidence< besides this. The arguments and case he presents IS compelling, whether or not you agree with his position. In all fairness, I'd suggest you view his different interviews. (Btw, Dr. Mazza, unlike P. Coffin who has a bold, even hostile tone at times; is an exceedingly calm man in how he presents himself and his position. So I urge you, in Christian charity and justice, to hear him out. (Neither T. Marshall nor J. H. Weston have fully accepted Mazza's position, yet I doubt-I'd be even shocked-if they'd disassociate themselves from him. And, as best as I can gather, Dr. Mazza's position and P. Coffin's are basically the same on the resignation issue. ... With respect, I dispute you terming either P. Coffin, or Dr. Mazza as holding a "sedevacantist" position. NEITHER of them have anything in common with the standard sedevacantist platform, to use political lingo. They both staunchly uphold the Papacy as part of the Faith; AND every pope up to and including Benedict they have fully supported. To the contrary, sedevacantists, do Not agree with that. Virtually >every< sedevacantist I've ever heard or read reject some or all of the popes after Pius XII. Coffin and Mazza are Nothing like that. (With respect, for both are immeasurably wiser and holier than I; I'd guess that Sts. Catherine of Siena and Vincent Ferrer would understand where Coffin and Mazza are coming from. 🕯️Honestly, I'd really love to hear their advice on this subject-and especially on how the faithful should act re: Francis. St. Francis of Assisi said to obey your superiors in all things except sin. Huge travesty is that Francis repeatedly AND publicly has taught, advised, even praised what are Serious Sins against Faith AND Moral-yup, he has publicly & explicitly praised or >by wilful silence< been complicit in< sinful acts and behavior. God bless and protect you always. ... Thank -you- 👍👍 for ALL your work! You are doing a great service for the Church and for the faithful.

I agree with you, but I’m so glad you’re staying Catholic. We should never leave Jesus because of Judas…not even when an evil Judas is the Pope who fills his aging hierarchy with others like him. Their days are literally numbered, and some must remain to help restore the Church.

Don't leave, stay the course! I left the Church in 1972 when the Traditional Mass was forbidden, and the only choice was the Protestantised Novus Ordo. At least we now have a choice, and we need to keep supporting our beautiful Latin Liturgy.

Stay the course! Traditionis Custodes or the actual Guardians of Tradition is the SSPX. They have been beaten up by the modernists since the 1970s, and they remain standing at the foot of the cross of Christ. Look at the Immaculata church their work has produced. God bless them.

@@dasan9178 Thank you. 💓

@@Marcia-fw3wz Thank you. 💓

Yes, I usually try to do that (as you'll see with some of my other videos), but this video was prepared by someone else and I had no control over its production.

@leaverus: what you stated couldn't be farther from the truth! TLM chapels are bursting at the seams, new chapels are being erected. If you want to see babies, children, teenagers and people of all ages, and ethnic backgrounds, go to a TLM near you. And to answer your question, the priests who will know how to celebrate the TLM are the growing number of traditionalist men in seminaries all over the world at this moment.

​@@paisley293 If anything is dying, it's the Novus Ordo. Dying on the branch of contraception.

I've traveled the world speaking to Latin Mass communities and I can tell you for sure: this Mass will never, ever die. If it's canceled somewhere, it will move underground, and emerge again when saner counsels prevail. If Paul VI and his henchmen could not suppress it in the 1970s, no one will be able to do so today, when there are a thousand times the number of clergy and laity devoted to it.

You couldn't be more wrong. If anything, in 20 years it will be the Novus Ordo parishes that are few and far between, and the TLM will be dominant.

...well, it's quite opposite. TLM draws people back to Christ through real catholicism... just find a local parish with TLM and see for yourself.🙏

Yes, you are quite right. I sang the role of Sir Joseph Porter KCB in a high school production of the play. But I am quoting Dom Alcuin Reid whose quote contains this mistake.

@@DrKwasniewski Oh, I’m sorry! 🤦🏼‍♂️I failed to notice that.

At the time when the above declaration was made the Novus Ordo had not yet been invented, it is referring to the ceremonies as they were at that time ie; the Latin Mass and the traditional order of confecting the sacraments. The council of Trent also condemns anyone who should attempt to change the traditional ceremonies of the church.

@@Sarah-bug Hi, are you quite sure the wording of the anathema is limited to what existed at the time of Trent? Regarding your second point, Vatican II and what followed did not change the TLM as far as I'm aware. It replaced it. The TLM is still 'on the books.' It's just being heavily restricted, whether you agree with that or not. But even if you were right that it was changed and that this is condemned in Trent (and I actually think there some various small changes made between Trent and Vatican II, including by Pius X), wouldn't the consistent conclusion be that the church is now self-condemned?

The Council of Trent did, in fact, anathematize many of the practices we have implemented in worship over the last 5+ decades. Like the framers of the American constitution, they could not have foreseen the depths of novelty we have embraced.

@@jeffbrewster7475 Right, Jeff. But it isn't also Catholic dogma that what you've just described can't happen? Isn't the Pope supposed to be infallible in faith and morals and isn't it impossible for the Church to give bad rites? Short of sedevacantism, the trad position seems to invite me simultaneously to affirm and deny these points.

​@@IrishRover79 ​Basil, the pope is only infallible when he speaks formally on matters of faith and morals, or "Ex Cathedra." Pope Francis has not done during his tenure. He prefers to speak off the cuff. Can poorly constructed rites be established within the Church? Well...Pope Benedict XVI called the Novus Ordo, somewhat hastily developed in the late 1960s, a "banal fabrication." Does that make it a "bad rite"? I don't know that I'd call it bad; most traditional Catholics grant that it is valid, but that is a low bar (like a valid marriage) and I'm convinced it is less pleasing to God than traditional rites that have developed organically over a millenium. With regard to Trent, I think one area that the New Mass walks a fine line is its de-emphasis of the Holy Mass as a sacrifice of our Lord on Calvary for the propitiation of our sins and more of a man-centered meal with the breaking of bread. Perhaps more directly, Trent anathmatized those who thought the "mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar (vernacular) tongue only" which is common practice today. By extension, those calling for the abolition of the Latin Mass were anathemized by Trent. Bishops and priests always tip their hand when they talk about "the Council" as if Vatican 2 were the only Church Council of the last 2000 years.

One Language to Revere God Versus One Language to Replace God.

@@thomasjorge4734 Acts 2:8“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

@@jamessheffield4173 Catholic, Universal, not Globalist.

@@thomasjorge4734 Derived from Greek, not Latin.

On this question of language, see my lecture "Why Latin Is the Right Language for Roman Catholic Worship" rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/06/why-latin-is-right-language-for-roman.html Or to watch: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h693eNB8ydfZeYU.html

Yes, we try to do that when possible. I had no say in the production of this video. Usually the questions can be inferred from the answers I give. Thanks for watching!

I would say two things. 1. Yes, they try to redefine the good. We see this especially in the area of morality, but it also occurs with liturgy. What was good in the past was to adore God in union with the priest offering sacrifice; what is good in the present is for everyone to celebrate actively and communally a service of praise. 2. On the other hand, frankly, most of the opponents of tradition could care less what canon law says, and wouldn't dare to use the old-fashioned (backwardist, even) expression "the good of souls," just as they wouldn't use the phrase "the care of souls." As an Austrian once said to a rival: "It's all about money and power."

That's a bit simplistic, but I understand what he's getting at. Put differently, it seems that authorities in the Church do not know clearly any more what is the authority they have been given and for what purpose. The continual abuse of their spiritual fatherhood certainly gives the faithful more reason for caution and even distance.

@@DrKwasniewski Of course his book on the subject isn't that simplistic, but from my understanding that seems to be the conclusion. If you want to read it for yourself, the spanish title is: La lampara bajo el celemin, which means the lamp under the bushel. I've looked for english translations but there doesn't seem to be one.

"Trad TV - Where the Past Becomes Present"

See my reply to another comment ("Conivore") for an explanation of why I stepped away from that event.

We are not (and never have been) required to blindly submit to human authority, even when it’s the pope’s. We are all directly answerable to God and HIS authority. Jesus clearly did not intend for Peter and his successors to be dictators, but shepherds and gardeners. We would be a better Church if we remembered the limits of human authority.

It is not 'disobedience' if the order given is unlawful. Being told to oppose the common good is never lawful. All laws must be rational, for the common good, and promulgated, and this by a competent authority. A law must meet all four of these criteria. If it fails in any one of them, it is not a law, and it can be or even should be resisted. So we are not free to 'pick and choose' what (legitimate) instructions we should obey. But we are to use discernment as to what is lawful, which is why God gave us a brain. And He gave us a will, so we might have the courage to do what we know to be right. Nothing good ever comes from disobedience. As resisting evil instructions is necessary, it is evidently not disobedience.

@Carlos Leijeina: here's an example of legitimate disobedience >> Bishop John Fisher refused to accept the King Henry VIII as the supreme head of the Church of England and for upholding the Catholic Church's doctrine of papal supremacy. For taking this righteous stand, Bishop Fisher was executed by order of Henry VIII during the Protestant Revolt

​@@ScriptureandTraditionFrJM Hello Fr. Mawdsley ❤

I assume you have listened to this lecture? I spell out conditions for when obedience ought to be withheld. The entire Catholic tradition, including St Thomas Aquinas, agrees that there are times when a superior must not be obeyed. For further details, see my book "True Obedience i the Church": www.amazon.com/True-Obedience-Church-Discernment-Challenging/dp/1644136740/

That's wrong. Read Vatican I and repent of your slander against the Vicar of Christ.

Hello. I haven't read Vatican One. But we all know that an enemy of the Faith is not a shepherd. Virgo Dolorosissima, ora pro nobis.

@Matthew Schmidt Francis has explicitly refused the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ and has stated that he wants to be called the ‘Bishop of Rome’ instead.

From VI: The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine but that by His help they may guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith and might faithfully set it forth.'

Sonia's point is not well stated because she is not a theologian (and probably neither are you). But surely any sentient being at this point can sympathize with her dismay at Francis and the current state of affairs. Mix in a little mercy and compassion with your hyperpapalism. In all seriousness, Vatican I is bandied about as if it's perfectly obvious what it all means, and yet there are deep and abiding questions on its interpretation and application in the life of the Church. These articles help to show the complexities that are too often bulldozed in the interest of sound bites: onepeterfive.com/objections-replies-pastor-aeternus/ onepeterfive.com/spirit-vatican-one-post-revolutionary-political-problem/

Wrong again! See, for starters: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/03/full-text-of-dr-kwasniewskis-talk-on.html rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/05/50-years-of-religious-and-cultural.html