Miguel Ayuso is one of the greatest catholic thinkers of our time.

Professor Miguel Ayuso to Father Alfredo Verdoy, SJ: "No one is sovereign, God alone is sovereign!" Amazing answer! 😇 Dr. Kwasniewski, thanks a lot for translating and sharing this excerpt from Prof. Ayuso's participation in this episode of Lagrimas en la Lluvia (Tears in the Rain), hosted by Juan Manuel de Prada, one of the most influential Spanish writers among Catholic traditional circles. Many Hispanics such as myself admire Prof. Ayuso's work as an academic and loyal son of the Church. Thanks to him we have learned a lot about the Tradition of the Church, as well as the Spanish monarchy and Christendom. He has been supporting Catholic law associations in Hispanic America keeping the ideals of jurisprudence tied to faith alive. Greetings and blessings from Texas! Laudetur Iesus Christus! 🙏🏻❤️🕊️ Ave María, gratia plena... 🙏🏻🤍🕊️

Love this crossover! May the spanish and english catholic worlds grow closer!

Wow, that shoots down so many arguments I’ve heard in support of the council. The birth of a new church, shiver.

Yes, Don Miguel Ayuso is positively brilliant! I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting him personally yet, but have had some contact regarding the traditionalist magazine, Verbo, which he directs.

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you very much.

Very interesting exchange, thank you Dr Kwasniewski. It was quite interesting to observe the outright contempt of the 2 priests opposite Dr Ayuso. I was also fascinated by Dr Ayuso's use of the translation of "Collector of all heresies" instead of the usual "synthesis of all heresies". I think "collector" is a simpler, much more powerful visual.

Bravo!!

The clarity of this man's thinking is a marvelous thing to listen to...even though I was actually reading because I have no Español. Will be researching to find his books in translation.

Bravo 👏🏻 this was awesome summary

I agree with the speaker 100%.

Brilliant!

I am glad he points out that the council wasn’t misinterpreted and miss applied. It was interpreted by and applied by the very same men who took part it in, not extraterrestrials lol

Wonderfully explained points.

Buenísimo!

Wow!

A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic.

“No one is Sovereign, only God is Sovereign”. In just one second, he synthesised a 500 year war on mankind and on God itself.

Ayuso so so articulated, in this debate he could in the most elegant manner win against three well formed priests who were defending the Council, btw one of these priests in other debate defends evolution 😢

Perfecto, soberano es SOLO DIOS!🙏🌹

That young priest can barely contain himself with the eyerolls, bless his heart.

And in spite of everything he says, the padre to his right sums up the neocon "shrug": but, but, a council is sovereign!

Mic drop!🤯

0:36 Look at their faces! La cara es el espejo del alma, as Spanish saying goes.

My priest underlines every time he can, the idea of the originality of the Church that was born due to the Vatican II Council.and he always praises the modernism because he brought fresh air to the Church.

Lo más importante es reafirmar La Realeza social de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, como Verdadero Dios Y como Verdadero Hombre. Y ahí veremos que la soberanía del hombre se antepone dando inicio a una nueva iglesia antropológica. !!! VIVA CRISTO REY DE LAS NACIONES !!!!!

Our Lady of Fatima condemns Vatican 2!

*Lo de "profetas de calamidades" no lo dijo Pablo VI sino Juan XXIII.*

Miguel Ayuso is underrated like every spanish thing due to Catholic Church is hated.

Is there a transcript?

Paul VI wrote that "Vatican 2 is more important than Nicea." A self deceptive understanding of this "hodge podge" Council and decisions of the Bishops. Attend the Latin Mass.

Heretical practices long-approved by Vatican II, not supported by Sacred Scripture, Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, innumerable popes, saints, etc, that Bergoglio is facilitating for his so-called "unique expression" of the Mass: A.) 1.) Lay people may be commissioned to proclaim Biblical readings at Mass, except for the Gospel reading which is reserved to clerics. 2.) Lay people may act as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, distributing Holy Communion with the priest, when not enough ordinary ministers or instituted acolytes are available. 3.) In countries where the bishops' conference has obtained permission from the Holy See, the consecrated host may be received on the hand, rather than directly into the mouth. 4.) Women and girls may act as altar servers if this is approved by the diocesan bishop & if the parish priest chooses to implement it. These are in opposition to B.) Sacred Scripture (the disciples in Luke 22, Matt. 26, Mark 14) weren't laypeople and thus were allowed to receive the host in their hands, and Judas' sinning wasn't known and priests prohibit the host to the mortally-sinning unrepentant when it is known) and 1-4 above are in opposition to the following: C.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) Pope St. Eutychian (275-283) Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand. 3) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 4.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 5.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 6.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful. 7.) The Synod of Rouen (650) Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.” 8.) The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681) forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 9.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8) 10.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565) "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." 11.) Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini) 12.) Pope John Paul II: To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11). D.) 1.) But, as the article states He [Francis] writes: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite." Look at this and compare it to 11 and 12 and then with the following: 2.) "Pope Francis is now putting forth that the current missal - and not the 1962 missal - is the “unique expression of the lex orandi.” Problem is, 11 and 12 and D 1.) from Francis don't line up with D. 2) from Francis and given what is shown in A, 1-4. Did these saints, popes, infallible, binding Councils, etc, commit error, teach lies, dispense falsehoods, and not promulgate truth or has Vatican 2 and the Vat 2 popes done this? Does truth change? Does Sacred Scripture (as shown in B) change? How can Vatican II and its popes undo Sacred Scripture? E.) Concerning the 6th Ecumenical Council and the Council of Trent for C, 8: 1.) Was the 6th Ecumenical Council wrong in promulgating this? Was it in error even though popes then and innumerable ones afterwards agreed with it? Were they in error to do so and promulgate it? Was it true then to do this but not a true thing to do now? Does truth change? If not, then it is binding upon Vat II popes and Vat II popes and they must promulgate it as truth is binding and cannot be changed. Concerning the Council of Trent (19th Ecumenical Council) in C, 10) which 2a.) also declared the Latin Mass cannot be abrogated, was it in error to declare 2b.) this is truly an "Apostolic Tradition"? Was it wrong in promulgating 2a and 2b? Was they in error on both though popes then and innumerable ones afterwards agreed with it? Was it true then for both but not true now? Does truth change? Can Popes change truth established for 2k years? If not for all the aforementioned for the 6th and 19th, then Vatican II and Vatican II popes must abide by them and promulgate them. If they are correct, then Vat II and Vat II popes would be undermining the binding and infallible Ecumenical Councils that possess dogmatic force whereas Pope Pius VI said Vatican II was not infallible and 2 popes after him said Vat II did not possess dogmatic force. Or did the church begin in 1962? Waz the first Ecumenical Council in 1962. Did the first papacy came into being then with nothing before them to adhere to? No to all. F.) Vat II facilitated the heretical Nostra Aetate to falsely make Christ-denying Islam palatable and salvific. G.) John XXIII altered the Good Friday Prayer, thus bringing an attack upon Christ's own words in Jn. 8:21-24 which declared faithlessness on the Jews part would damn them: [21] Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.* [22] The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? [23] And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. [24]. John XXIII's move was a capitulation similar to the one fomented against Pope St. Peter but refuted by him in Acts 4:12 which bolstered Christ's words. F and G both encapsulate the religious indifferentism promoted and promulgated by Vatican II which declares man is free to choose any religion he deems true in the light of his own conscience and reason and through it obtain salvation, which is refuted by Sacred Scripture per Jesus Christ' own words in Mt. 7:14, 16:16-18; Jn. 10:7-9, 14:6, Pope St. Peter in Acts 4:12, by the Council of Trent, Pope Pius the 9th in the Syllabus of Errors, and more.