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

The Church is human and divine. Cling to the solid divine element. Question the human element.

Glad you enjoyed it!

My pleasure!

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".

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.

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!

See the show notes. This is a talk given at an event held at Sanctus Ranch.

I doubt it🤨

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.

🤨 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 🤣