Ultramontanism and Tradition: What are the Limits of Papal Power? Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- ULTRAMONTANISM BOOK: osjustipress.c...
CHESTERTON CONFERENCE IN LONDON: www.corner-cab...
A 12-DAY PILGRIMAGE WITH KENNEDY HALL AND FR. ALBERT KALLIO O.P.: www.catholiche...
/ ciência e filosofia - ...
DONATE TO SCHOOL HERE: olmca.sspx.ca/...
BUY SACRED MUSIC FROM VIDEO HERE: stpeterschoir-...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @meretradition
SIGN UP FOR MY SUBSTACK: meretradition....
SSPX BOOK: www.amazon.com...
TKR STORE PRODUCT PAGE: thekennedyrepo...
EMAIL LIST: thekennedyrepo...
DONATE HERE thekennedyrepo....
PATREON: / thekennedyreport
BOOK - Terror of Demons: www.amazon.com...
BOOK - Lockdown with the Devil: www.amazon.com...
Once in a rare moon I hear something on this channel that I disagree with. So if I may stick my oar in, I thank God for Pope Pius V absolving Englishmen of any supposed allegiance to Elizabeth I. He showed forth the truth, and this helped countless Catholics at the time and ever since. Anyway, God bless you both for the rest of the excellent conversation.
Father, I knew you might object! 😂
Two of my favorite defenders of Tradition. Fr Mawdsley being the third. Awesome talk
Great discussion and I agree, & we also get the leaders we deserve as Fr Ripperger quotes.
Popesplainers: Selective Ultramontanists
...VERY selective ultramontanists.
Great definition .
Absolutely!
This would include Loftdog and Horn as it's main cheerleaders.
....i have to agree with Dr K that a more clear term for "Ultramontainist" is "Hyperpapalist".
@@paulsammon3015 agreed
There are four distinct elements in this discussion about ultramontism: 1) the term itself; 2) how counterrevolutionaries understood this term in the past several hundred years fighting against liberalism, modernism, and the Revolution; 3) the Revolutionary spirit today that uses the virtue of meek obedience to the pope to bludgeon the opposition into submission; 4) how Revolutionaries today understand this term.
For centuries, everyone who defended the church against the advance of the Revolution identified as ultramontanes. In addition, Liberals used the terms reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries as negative epitaphs. These are the three most common terms for anyone who was faithful to the Church.
At no point did Revolutionaries call themselves ultramontanes, counterrevolutionaries, or reactionaries. These are terms that described the good Catholics and anyone who opposed the Revolution.
When did liberals and Revolutionaries start calling themselves any of these terms?
That's why it's puzzling for everyone who have read about the 18th and 19th century struggles of the Church against the Revolution to suddenly read from a conservative using the same exact term to describe a revolutionary behavior.
Ultramontanes in the past, like St. John Bosco, understood the difference between blind obedience to the pope and being faithful to the Church. No ultramontane ever thought the pope can defy Church teaching. It has nothing to do with this modern Revolutionary spirit.
Why not stick with hyperpapalism? It's a much clearer term. It avoids dragging a term held with reverence by so many into the filthy mud, especially if no liberal ever called themselves ultramontanes.
Great show Kennedy! Dr. Kwasniewski's wisdom and knowledge is always appreciated.
Traditional seminaries are ordaining high number of priests each years, while modernist seminaries are closing down.
The chances of a traditionally-minded pope get higher over time.
The most truthful and honest thing that Francis has done with his Papacy has been to remove the title "Vicar of Christ" from his title.
ST. JOHN TELLS US IN 1 JOHN 4 VERSES 1,2,3:
(1) "DEARLY BELOVED, BELIEVE NOT EVERY SPIRIT, BUT TRY THE SPIRITS IF THEY BE OF GOD: BECAUSE MANY FALSE PROPHETS ARE GONE OUT INTO THE WORLD.
(2) "By this is the Spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
(3) "AND EVERY SPIRIT THAT DISSOLVETH JESUS, IS NOT OF GOD: AND THIS IS ANTICHRIST, OF WHOM YOU HAVE HEARD THAT HE COMETH AND HE IS NOW ALREADY IN THE WORLD."
FRANCIS MAY NOT BE THE ANTICHRIST, BUT THERE IS VERY PRECIOUS LITTLE THAT HE HAS DONE WITH HIS PAPACY AND THE PEOPLE THAT HE SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH, AND WHO HE PROMOTES, THAT ARE NOT THEMSELVES ANTI-CHRIST, AND ARE NOT CHOSEN TO HELP FRANCIS DESTROY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST!
Part of the definition of "Jesuit" is "... from Christian Latin Iesus (see Jesus)." There are so many things that Francis has said and done in and with his Papacy that could very easily have the implication that he believes that he is, not the Vicar of Christ, but the very reincarnation of Christ.
Francis has made the statement in the past publicly that if there was going to be a schism in the Church, that he would bring it.
THERE INDEED IS A SCHISM IN THE CHURCH... IT IS UNMISTAKABLE THAT THERE IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST STARTING APPROXIMATELY AD 33 AND THE CHURCH OF FRANCIS-CHRIST, STARTING APPROXIMATELY AD 2013.
Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, Fiducia Supplicans, and Dignitas Infinita are all the evidence that you need as proof(!) that he, Francis, is anti-Christ and that he has destroyed the Church of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Trinity; and erected a church whose teachings are in direct opposition to those of Jesus the Christ and the Sacrosanct Trinity. This new church he has built over the ruins of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that he and his cohorts have all but razed!
One of the many attributes of the True God is that He is always true to Himself and true to His Word. His Word, the Bible, mentions the word, "remnant", 540 times! He has even in our times ... That is today! ... left Himself a remnant of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which exists wherever the Council of Trent Church is followed and revered as the One True Church, and has not allowed itself to be superceded by the anti-Christ Francis church/the Vatican II church as modified by Francis & company.
In fact, if it is the desire of your heart and soul to get to know, love, and serve God in this world so that you can be with Him in the next, then this is the Church that you want to belong to, this Council of Trent Church. Find it! Do what you have to, to be a part of it, and get on the road to Heaven!
Can hear both clearly
Excellent show gentlemen - thank you both 🔥😎👏!
God bless, Ave Maria 🙏⛪⚓👑.
Not the right question. It isn't about limitlessness. It is about contradictin g dogma overtly, or suggestively and not clearing it up.
Great show with the best in DR K and Kennedy
These discussions on how the papacy must be limited to avoid another Bergoglio are dangerous. You are reasoning from a bad assumption. There are substantial reasons to believe the problem is not with the papacy, but with a “pope” who is an enemy of the Church. And, substantial reasons to believe he is a usurper and not a true pope. The theories on how Bergoglio illegitimately became pope, or perhaps, fell from the papacy once he became pope are too many to count on the fingers of both hands. This unfortunate reality must be properly investigated and adjudicated.
Changing the papacy in response to an enemy who has taken the helm will achieve the final goal of the antipope of the synodal Church. We will end up with a synodal monstrosity and no true pope with the authority to rebuild the church. You cannot bury this lie that Bergoglio is pope and hope to rebuild the church on that lie to enable your false notion that there must not be a disruption in papal succession. That is consequentialist reasoning and heretical. We must face the truth of a false pope. If Benedict remained pope until his death, the interregnum has not been too long.
The problem is not that there is too much fidelity to papal authority. The problem is a wicked pretender in the chair of Peter. The papacy is only a problem if you turn the world on its head and insist Bergoglio is a true pope. He isn’t. And we must base our actions on the truth, not a lie. Can you really say you have no doubts about Bergoglio’s validity when the best reason anyone seems to have for insisting he is pope is that no one has the authority to declare he isn’t? The truth is its own authority. Bergoglio is not a valid pope.
Indeed. Why damage the papacy itself when an interregnum makes more sense, be it fourteen years (1032-1046) which began with Benedict IX obtaining the papacy through bribery and ended when he and two others (one a usurper, the other who bought it off of B9 who sold it) were all simultaneously removed, be it forty years in the Great Western Schism, or be it longer as there was seventy years in Babylon and yet right before Jeremiah told the leadership it was over he told them God said the throne of David would never cease to have a king sit upon it.
That’s a fair point of not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water, but a huge part of this whole discussion is trying to figure out how exactly to adjudicate this whole mess. Plus the point needs to be made that it’s even legitimate to call this pope a problem and a heretic. The mere suggestion of that is already anathema to a ton of ultramontanist/ hyperpapalist Catholics.
@@jefffinkbonner9551
There is precedence in the church to put a cadaver on trial. We should do this before the next conclave and before Mr. Bergoglio is laid to rest. You cannot bury this truth and not think all manner of evil will not spring up from it. Those who oppose this idea, the idea of pursuing the truth, are fire to leave the church. We are better off without them. They are the tares among the good wheat, anyway.
Bergoglio wants a schism where the traditionalist leave. We need a schism where the heretics, who have already materially left the faith, leave in formal schism. Schism is unavoidable and already upon us. We must recognize it, and preserve tradition in the true church.
The question is, “Who is the King?”
Our church is a monarchy! Chris is the King. The Pope is His Steward on Earth until the King returns (the last day / day of judgement).
As Stewart, the Pope has the authority to speak for the King but cannot overturn the King’s laws! The servant (the Pope) is not greater than the Master (Christ the King).
Therefore, if the Pope spreads paganism, supports the sins that cry out to Heaven for justice, etc. we (as followers of the King) CANNOT / MUST NOT obey. Again, the servant in not greater than the Master.
We have had heretical Popes before and the Church is still here, no different for our time. Why? Because, the King stated that, The gates of hell WILL NOT prevail…”.
Reminds me of the bad Stewart of Gondor waiting (but not really expecting) the return of the King of Gondor, Aragorn. When it became apparent that there might actually be a real King of Gondor returning, the Stewart went mad. He couldn't "handle the truth."
The limits of Papacy was defined by Jesus in Mathew 16:19. And anyone who had problem with that has problems with Jesus.
I used Papal regularly, but I don't think it is limitless.
Thank you both for this informative and reassuring conversation. What I appreciated most from this interview was the clarification of Catholic theology on the papacy, its limits, responsibilities and where good Catholics from all walks of life can make an honest and faithful stand whilst in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The part about abusive fathers and separation 🙌🏻 thank you. ❤
Ok, but how many people have to see the emperor has no clothes before the "Monsters in Miters" get off their cabooses and declare the obvious, the man is a stubborn apostate / heretic
👍
Lmao so here is where everything starts, traditionalists getting ready for the upcoming liberal Ex-Cathedra revelation from the Pope in case the Orthodox asks them
With respect brother, you're looking too much like Jack Murphy.
I’m just wondering is Dr K an SSPX or FSSPX????
Didn’t Pius V suppress the Gallic Rite? Seems problematic.
It seems Vatican 1 was still in a process when war broke out. So might have not found its final voice. It’s obvious from Scripture that Paul rebuked Peter so the first Pope who was spirit filled and totally graced to lead the church needed to be challenged. We don’t get the scene of what happened at that moment if Peter wept and hugged Paul we don’t know but Peter I assumed received it with great respect acknowledging it as truth and not with pride. I think if we can get through this papacy there will be a new wisdom about the position of Pope and discussion if a pope can be “fired” by close door debate and confrontation if pope falls into heresy. But the church will need to become Catholic beyond what has been going on since the reformation. This includes the lay people. The first council at Jerusalem was a huge debate that included the lay who after the debate and Peter taking it all in - spoke. And it was good to all.
Loved seeing Fr Mawdsley comment. Glad he checks in on my favorite debaters.
28:48 Is this actually true?
In the Summa, Aquinas wrestles with the timing of the body’s animation by the soul, and he said that Mary’s body would not have been sinless before animation, if animation occurs after the time of conception, for various reasons including, if I recall correctly, it doesn’t make sense to talk about sinlessness of the un-souled body, so to speak.
Therefore, his disagreement with more updated theology concerning the Immaculate Conception is remedied simply by assuming the soul animates the body immediately at conception, and it seems that Aquinas would agree with the conclusion if given this premise.
So, it doesn’t seem fair to say that Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception, at least in the Summa.
Elsewhere, Aquinas also denied that her “cleansing” meant the removal of any filth existing but rather a prevention of it ever coming into contact.
So…I used to use this canard, but I now reject it and don’t like hearing it continuing to be used by otherwise intellectually rigorous scholars.
No the Bishop of Rome doesn't have limitless authority and never did and neither does anyone else.
Brideshead Revisited. Bergoglian climate change ultramontanism:
Fr. Mowbray: Supposing the pope looked up & saw a cloud & said it's going to rain. Would that be bound to happen?
Rex Mottram: Oh yes, Fr.
Fr. Mowbray: But supposing it didn't.
Rex: Well then, it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.
...because Cordelia was playing tricks on Mowbray!
😊
I think after Francis, it has changed my view. We cannot allow ourselves to simply accept the pope’s view as what’s best for us. Never felt that way previously and I fear, truly, it’s only going to get worst.
The pope's opinions are not dogma. You must be able to think for yourself.
please i need to order antiabortion life checks does anyone knows where?
The Michael Davies vs EMJ debate is the ultimate dialectical sniff test: anyone who sided with Davies is not a character worth taking seriously.
Yes. Davies was incorrect that obedience was only limited to matters of faith and morals as the pope is constantly speaking Ex Cathedra, even when he isn't, as Ex Cathedra means constantly, for 2000 years, and all part of the Magesterium, except the part, though not limited to it, where popes (in conjunction with the Ecumenical Council of Trent) declared Luther was in error on Justification as Francis declared he "did not err" on it. So for over four hundred years they were in error on this and many other things, but Francis isn't, nor are any popes from nineteen sixty two until now. See?
@@RayMack-xz7xgPope John XXII was another one who constantly had to be obeyed in all things, even when he taught falsely on the Beatific Vision and the Faculty of the Theology of the Sorbonne showed he was incorrect on the issue, not obeying adherence to his teaching. But then he disobeyed himself so it was then okay.
@@RayMack-xz7xg Vatican 1 -- Session 4, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2: Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
This established, where is this mythical "declaration" of Francis?
There are NO limits to papal power if you're a Roman Catholic - which is why it's best to return to Eastern Orthodoxy and the way the Church was governed by the first 1,000 years.
ahhh, a couple of protestants complaining and spreading erroneous ideas about the papacy!
Useless comment.
Are you here to set the record straight? We’re waiting
PACHAMAMA, Ted McCarrick, Ruptnik all protected by this pope