Search This Blog

Sunday, January 2, 2022

Fathers, You Are "Obliged to Resist" Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa ad Dubia

‘Sitting on the fence is not an option’: It is our duty to resist suppression of the traditional rites according to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.

Okay, folks, we're not in Kansas anymore! The shockwaves of the atomic bombs of Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa Ad Dubia have thrust us head over heels into the land of Oz where the white-robed warlock of the west rules with a wooden stang given to him by Ozian youth in the name of Ozma during a synod for young people....

Well, enough of that nonsense!

Let's look at the serious nature of Dr. Kwasniewski's discussion on obedience and the necessity to resist attempts to crush the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and the sacraments according to the rites practiced before Vatican II's upheaval. True obedience to God, according to Dr. K, requires disobedience to Traditionis Custodes (TC) and the dubious dubia and its responsa. His book on obedience coming out in February is a definite must for those who want some clarity on the legitimacy of these cruel documents and whether Catholics have an obligation to accept them as authoritative. Must priests obey their superiors who are using the papal documents to crush the Latin Mass as is Blase Cupich in Chicago, one of the meanest cardinals in the country who wins the "most guilty of clericalism millstone" hands down! 

So... must our priests and we the laity bend the knee to TC? No and liturgists and canon lawyers are explaining why. I'll be posting some of their opinions as time goes on as well as an open letter to Arlington bishop, Michael Burbidge which I mailed to him today. 

But first let's look at Dr. Kwasniewski's reasoning as described by LifeSiteNews previewing his upcoming book on obedience and authority. Here are some salient points from the article;

“It is not obedience that comes first, but truth and charity; and this is why obedience, rightly understood, is not blind,” Kwasniewski says. “Take away truth and you take away love; take away love and you take away the root of obedience.” 
Thus, insofar as a legitimate authority, is himself obedient to God — to divine and natural law — and “wills our good,” we owe that authority obedience.

The “free, intelligent, conscientious obedience” owed to our Church superiors then requires at least first that we trust our superior, that is, “we believe the superior loves us with Christian charity, wills our good, does not seek our injury or destruction;” and second, rightful subordination, which means the superior subjects himself to God, which includes “respec[t] of custom and tradition — especially within the Church, where these things have the force of law;” and also means “that the inferior is subject to the superior only in those matters over which the superior has discretion or command.”...

Think of the apostles before the Sanhedrin ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus. Did they obey the Jewish religious authorities? No, they made it clear their first allegiance was to Almighty God and they had to obey Him rather than the Sanhedrin. 

“Christian obedience is never a form of unthinking servility,” Kwasniewski affirms. Only God, who “is Love itself” and always wills our good, “deserves absolute and unconditional obedience.” True obedience then “is always obedience to GOD, whether immediately or mediately.”

If any authority commands something contrary to God’s divine or natural law, “We must obey God rather than men,” as is declared in the Acts of the Apostles and affirmed by Pope Leo XIII [in his encyclical Sapientiae Christianae].

“If one has a serious and well-founded doubt about whether the human command is compatible with the divine or natural law, one should not obey it,” Kwasniewski notes. “To say otherwise would be to say that in a case where we fear we might be committing a mortal sin, or even a venial sin, we should go ahead and do it lest we offend our superior.”

It is interesting that those who are most rigorous in affirming that freedom of conscience necessitates letting those committing grievous public sins of scandal receive Communion, are so quick to trample on the consciences of the orthodox! 

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms this principle in his Summa theologiae, writing, “Sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”...
"Here is where we reach the heart of the question. An authority’s power to morally bind resides in the common good, so if the authority deploys his office overtly against the common good, then that command inherently lacks moral binding power.”...

“What, then, is the common good of the Church that gives rise to her authority — which is then wielded, to one degree or another, by the members of the hierarchy?”...

“In the realm of the liturgy in particular,” but also with regard to the sacraments, “we must see the traditional rites of the Church as not merely human works but works conjointly of God and men — of the Church moved by the Holy Spirit,” Kwasniewski writes....

‘The traditional Mass belongs to the most intimate part of the common good in the Church. Restricting it, pushing it into ghettos, and ultimately planning its demise, can have no legitimacy. This law is not a law of the Church, because, as St. Thomas says, a law against the common good is no valid law.’”...

 This next section of the article should be read twice... or maybe three times!

Kwasniewski notes that “Catholic tradition recognizes the pope’s solemn duty towards the immemorial liturgical practice of the Church.”

Pope Francis, then, clearly violates “the famous Papal Oath of the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, a handbook of formularies used by the pontifical chancellery at the end of the first millennium,” according to which “the pope is to swear: ‘I shall keep inviolate the discipline and ritual of the Church just as I found and received it handed down by my predecessors.’”

Is this what Pope Francis is doing? Not by a long shot. He treats Church doctrine with a shrug and a wink. Pachamama gets his welcome into the Church, the TLM gets the boot! 

“In one of its approved texts, the Council of Constance, states: ‘Since the Roman Pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by the rites that are to be observed regarding the Church’s Sacraments.’”...
Kwasniewski affirms that “we do not owe obedience to an ecclesiastical authority if he acts against the common good of the Church,” and that “It is important to note that Catholic theologians are unanimous in maintaining that this is possible — it can actually happen — and, even more importantly, that ordinary Catholics are capable of recognizing when it is happening.”

It's as clear as the writing on the wall. Remember that reference from the Old Testament in the Book of Daniel? King Belshazzar gives a banquet and desecrates the sacred vessels stolen from Jerusalem by his father, Nebuchadnezzar, to serve wine to his guests. Suddenly a hand appears and writes three words on the wall. Daniel correctly interprets the message telling the king that his rebellion against God will be soundly punished. God doesn't change. Is the desecration of the liturgy of less importance than the desecration of the vessels? What will Pope Francis' rebellion against God bring him?

Kwasniewski minces no words. Like Daniel, he spells out the evil being committed:

“Let us be absolutely clear about this: to attack the traditional Latin Mass (or any of the traditional liturgical rites) is to attack the Providence of God the Father; to reject the work of Christ, the King and Lord of history; to blaspheme the fruitfulness of the Holy Ghost in the Church’s life of prayer. It is contrary to the practice of every age of the Church, of every saint, council, and pope prior to the 20th century. It contradicts several key virtues of the Christian life, most notably religion, gratitude, and humility. It implies the rejection of the dogmatic confession of faith contained in the traditional Latin lex orandi in its organic unfolding over at least 1,600 years, which is contrary to the theological virtue of faith … ”

“In all these ways and more, the postconciliar liturgical reform, its subsequent ruthless implementation, and Pope Francis’s renewed effort to extinguish the preceding tradition are unreasonable, unjust, and unholy, and therefore cannot be accepted as legitimate or embraced as the will of God,” Kwasniewski continues.

“A repudiation of our Catholic liturgical patrimony is tantamount to disobedience to God; and we will be obedient to God precisely through our ‘disobedience’ to the revolutionaries.”

Dr. Kwasniewski advises resistance. Putting it in Pope Francis' terms, he advises us to, "make a mess." As he puts it:

“In short: if we are convinced that something essential, something decisive, in the Faith is under attack from the pope or any other hierarch, we are not only permitted to refuse to do what is being asked or commanded, not only permitted to refuse to give up what is being unjustly taken away or forbidden; we are obliged to refuse. Sitting on the fence is not an option.”

“Our obedience is rightfully given to the higher authority — in this case, to Divine Providence, to the Holy Spirit, and to the authority of the Church of all ages. Because this is true, any penalty or punishment that was meted out against us for this disobedience would be illicit. If a punishment is given on false theological or canonical premises, it is null and void...Now that our enemies have made it clear that they intend our eventual liquidation, classic legal principles of self-defense, proportionate resistance, and the invalidity of unjustly-imposed penalties come fully into play....In this way we will also add lustre to obedience in its highest, most beautiful, most radical form: obedience to the truth, for love of the good — for the love of God.”
Dr. Kwasniewski makes a strong case for our marching orders. And so, let us go forth as Catholic soldiers of Christ. No matter our age we are fighting a battle that is ever young and ever new, the battle for truth!


Meinrad said...

Archbishop Lenga of Poland has said the same thing. He is appalled by the revolution
done at the second Vatican council.

I share his viewpoint completely and am struck by how few prelates have properly responded...Like Archbishop Lefevbre. I have been praying for the restoration of the Mass and all the sacraments for a long time now.
I cannot but help seeing the sorting of the goats and the sheep happening either.
The ambiguity which these horrific errors hid behind in the past is now gone.

Now the crime and the miscreants are clearly seen...this is an answer to prayers!

Aqua said...

I am seeing a lot of articles, comments, thoughts like that you express here. The RCC is rediscovering elemental Truth. It is deeply gratifying. It is a common theme throughout history, tied to the struggle between God and Lucifer, enemy of God, for the souls of men and mankind - we fall … and we return; we are sick … and we revive.

Articles like this are very encouraging, because they show us the way back in the midst of trial - especially when we consider the rest of our communion of living saints in training are seeking and finding the same path back.

This year is going to be amazing, I think, in a good way.

Debbie said...

Seems to me Dr. Kwasniewski has come to the same conclusion Abp. Lefevbre did some 50+ years ago. That being said, I think it important to point out that back in May of 2019 Dr. K wrote a review for Antonio Socci's book, "The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope?" His initial review was quite positive to the Benedict is Pope theory...then some three edits later, not so much. Because I am not as learned as most all trads I follow, it's very important to me in these dark days to get my information from those who will say what they think publicly. I believe our first "gut reaction" to things are usually the right ones, so Dr. Kwasniewski's about face edits are a concern to me.

The only way out of this mess is the Truth. If, (and I believe he is) Benedict is the true Pope, then this truth must be made known clearly and loudly. To keep this belief private (as Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara reportedly do, per Ann Barnhardt) is a grave disservice to their contributors and readership.

Fr. Bergoglio is an antipope and need not be listened to. Pray for the one, true pope, Pope Benedict XVI, most especially at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. Debbie, would you do anything different if you didn't decide one way or another if Francis was the pope? People have told me I need to decide. I feel like I don't have the authority or expertise to say he is or is not the pope. But I wouldn't do anything different than what I'm doing regardless. Things are confusing, not the first time in history. There were multiple claimants to the See of Peter when Joan of Arc was alive. She never tried to decide. Throughout history when there have been multiple claimants some saints have supported the man who ultimately was determined NOT TO BE the authentic pope. So I just shake my head and let others argue about it.

Debbie said...

HI Mary Ann,

If I believed Bergoglio was the true pope, I might still be in my "second" marriage. Seeing as Our Lord gave Peter the authority to bind and loose, I might have tried to convince myself that all was ok since the Pope says it's ok now. If you believe Bergoglio is the pope, how would you convince me that I couldn't stay in my second marriage?

If there were multiple claimants to the See of Peter today and they were both/all teaching the Catholic faith, I doubt I would make any claims of certainty to who was the true pope either, especially if my mission was to unite France and get the rightful king crowned. Comparing multiple claimants, whom I presume were not heretics, from centuries ago is not what we are dealing with today.

Since I was doing the Protestant thing for 10+ years, I have Protestant friends (most all of them baptized Catholics), who I try to show need to come back to the Church. With Bergoglio, it's really quite impossible to use the need for authority argument, but the packamama (misspelled on purpose) debacle together with the onset of the covid "pandemic" shortly afterwards is a great example of the Church being attacked by an the Church goes, so does the world. I honestly do not know how anyone, beside Jimmy Aiken, can possibly evangelize to the truth of the faith and at the same time insist Bergoglio is the true pope. At the very least one has to admit the other guy in Rome, wearing white, giving the Apostolic Blessing, calling himself Pope Emeritus, and with a questionable "resignation" is a viable option for being the true pope.

I know of two fairly well known Catholics, Robert Spencer and Jonathan Byrd who left the Catholic faith for the Orthodox Church because they couldn't reconcile a "Pope" Francis. I'm certain there are many more. Personally, I think it's very important to make the argument for BiP (Benedict is Pope), if nothing else than to help those who are thinking of leaving the faith.

You say there were many who SUPPORTED the wrong Pope, and this is true, even Saints.....but do you really SUPPORT "Francis"? It's one thing to support an antipope who doesn't teach heresy...but again, this is not what we're up against.

Aqua said...

This is the man some call Francis:

Remember that? The Stang? Not a Crucifix in the hand of this man ... a "Stang".

"On October 3, Pope Francis opened the Synod of Bishops on the topic of “youth, faith and vocational discernment” in Saint Peters Square in Vatican City, and instead of holding a traditional papal ferula he was clutching what looked a lot like a Wiccan “stang.” (PJMedia).

What is a stang?

"A stang is a forked staff, of usually two or three tines, that can serve many purposes. It can act as a vertical altar, a bridge to the other world, a symbol of the world tree, a symbol of (or altar to) a Deity, a walking/traveling stick, or as a staff to raise/direct energy and to mark ritual space. It is usually used by hedgewitches and other traditional witches, but can be incorporated into numerous paths". (Hearth and Hedge - a Wiccan blogger).

(a pagan, Wiccan blogger - but an interesting insiders article)

"Francis" was given the Stang on Oct 3, 2018.

One year later, Oct 4 2019, on the Feast of St. Francis, "Francis" installed Pachamama and a "sacred tree" in the Vatican Gardens under the spell of Wiccan chanters and enchantments - carefully attended by "Francis" and devoted Cardinals. The same Pachamama was then subsequently placed before the high altar of St. Peter's Bassilica on Oct 7, then carried in procession to the Synod on youth - a plant used in the Wicca ceremony was placed sacreligiously on the High Altar itself.

It's not even a question any more whether he is a Pope. He leads a different religion. And it ain't Catholic. There is so much that he does against Christ and the Faith, it is impossible to recall all the voluminous outrages from before. This one we should never forget as it violates the most fundamental commandments prohibiting idolatry against our Lord God - given to Holy Mother Church as a "gift" by the man some call Pope (I say it with great sorrow).

Read the links to remember. God does not forget, nor should we. We must take this man down. And we must not obey him, as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski demonstrates in these excerpts above and the book I will most certainly buy when published. We must vigorously oppose him for the sake of our souls and those who are not yet aware of this mortal threat to their eternal souls - in the name of rightful authority, properly understood.

Aqua said...

The picture I linked to above fails to adequately convey the outrage of the Stang held by this man. Not just any old Stang - Our Lord Jesus Christ is subsumed into the wood, into the natural elements, of the magic Stang. He is there ... but only as within and part of the power of the Stang.

It is truly an abomination. It boggles the mind, when you stop and think. And yet ... it has passed down the memory hole. Yet, there it is - the man commonly accepted as Pope, presenting Jesus Christ Our Lord, on the Cross, subsumed into the magical wood of a Wiccan Stang.

And that is what the first bifurcated Papacy in the history of Christendom leads to - an abomination of two Popes leads to a Wicca religion advanced by the "active" member outside the divinely ordained Office. We don't call full stop at the beginning, we don't call full stop at any step along the way (they still pray for the intentions of the "Holy Father" Pope Francis at my SSPX Parish - which are as pictured above ... really?!) and so this thing keeps metastasizing its way to some horrible conclusion.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

The "traditional" intentions of the Holy Father are what we are praying for when we make that intention. There are six of them

"What are the 6 intentions of the Pope? The 6 objective intentions of the Holy Father are as follows:

The Exaltation of the Church
The Propagation of the Faith
The Extirpation of Heresy
The Conversion of Sinners
The Concord between Christian Princes
The Further Welfare of the Christian People"

I think we can all agree those things are worth praying for. There's a fuller explanation at this website:

Aqua said...

Mary Ann,

This makes no sense to me - given what your article says about legitimate and illegitimate authority. I know this seems tiresome to you, but I truly don't get it. It borders on demoralizing to me. I want to be part of this Church and I think I have found a way that makes sense, the article above is part and parcel of my inner resolve - but the Pope is the Rock and no one (even SSPX) seems to care about the Mother of all illegitimate authority at the genesis of this disaster. So I continue ur to write ... sorry. I am just ... perplexed. I can't continue to be Catholic and just accept a Holy Father that is leading my family to witchcraft, debauchery and hell. And so fwiw -

The actual, real intentions of the Pope, named in Mass throughout the world, including SSPX, are *precisely* opposite those six listed above. Precisely. And not by random accident, but chosen and stated position from the beginning, ver and over and over again - growing in force, not receding.

That prayer must not be said in or before Holy Mass, knowing what we know about the true objective of the man for whom it is offered to God.

The article you discussed above is about the *necessity* to disobey illegitimate authority. What can be more illegitimate than a Pope who does not possess the Munus, the Office - as *required*, specifically, by Canon Law. Two Popes - one with, one without. The one without is advancing Wicca religion within Holy Mother Church and blasphemy in our holiest shrines, Basicllicas and their holy Altars ... not to mention the destruction of Dogma and the Holy Liturgy from which it is sourced.

It is one thing to pray, but I truly believe if we pray without acting in physical tangible ways on those prayers, then that is not efficacious prayer. "Act, and God will act for you. Work and He will work for you." (St. Joan of Arc - who was burned at the stake by the Hierarchy for heresy).

This man who is holding Our Lord high upon and subsumed within his evil Stang before the Church and the world must be resisted in real, tangible ways. I know you disagree strongly - that it just doesn't matter. But if we just passively accept these outrages *which are sourced in the Mother of all outrages - two visible Popes*, then regardless of our prayers, God will not deliver us. I am convinced of it.

Your article from Dr. Kwasniewski advances the idea that we MUST resist illegitimate authority. We must therefor understand which is, and which is not, and why it is so. I presume this guidance applies to *everything*, and not just *some* things. Illegitimate authority began at the illegal conclave upon the violation of Canon Law 332.2. That is objectively true. We have a duty to act in every case, not just a select and personally chosen few. Illegitimate authority, once defined and known, must be resisted and disobeyed - according to the article you discuss above.

P. O'Brien said...

The thought I cannot escape is that Francis is doing what Paul VI did, although not as completely. And yet Paul has been canonized. How? How can I give any credence to canonizations? My answer is that I think Francis to be an antipope. But was Paul VI an antipope? Have all of the "popes" since John XXIII been antipopes? That does solve some problems. And Benedict? Well, he would certainly be the best of the antipopes. And does an antipope necessarily know that he is an antipope?

Debbie said...

Mary Ann, one thing I forgot to mention when you asked, is there anything I would do different if I hadn't decided one way or the other if Francis was the pope? Yes, I'd go back the praying for "the pope" in both my private prayers and at the Te igitur. Now I pray for Pope Benedict in both. Personally, I believe it's important that Benedict receive his rightful prayers, most especially at Mass.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I think all of us here love the Church and are pursuing the truth. We live in such confusing times. Aqua, I think we agree about most things. I think Francis is evil. I think what he's doing to Holy Mother Church is evil. I follow the doctrine of the Church and Holy Tradition and oppose Francis in every deviation from those sacred truths. I have no problem praying for the traditional intentions of the Church because they are the same across the ages. But I leave God and the hierarchy to deal with things that I can't control. Sadly, those who hold the keys are almost all either bad or cowardly. It seems to me that we are in the same awful situation of the laity during the Arian heresy. So I continue to muddle along praying and trying to be faithful to Jesus Christ. The sad situation is that if Francis is pope we are in the hands of an evil monster. And if Benedict is hope we are in the hands of a coward who ran away from the fight as Peter was doing when Jesus asked him, "Quo vadis." Neither is a particular happy place to be. Let's pray for one other that each of us is exactly where the Lord wants us to be. I appreciate all of you for your obvious love of Jesus and His Church and for your thoughtful, heartfelt comments. I'm offering my rosary for you all today.

Debbie said...

Thank you Mary Ann....I'll do the same, offer my Rosary for you and all here.

Aqua said...

I thought the Hierarchy mattered more than this.

Interesting thought experiment: what happens if Xi Xinping is elected Pope at the next conclave. He is "ordained" Priest by his Chinese Bishops, subsequent to which - Pope Mao, also known as President Xi.

And ... why can't such a thing happen? Given the Emeritus innovation - why not? If it is the will of the Hierarchy, the ruling Cardinals, why not?

It's like I told my FSSP Priest seven years ago, (related at the time to AL), who told me about that (similar or the same to now) to stop worrying about things far away that didn't concern me in my (lowly) state. I said: "Not so far away, even if you choose to ignore them. They are coming for you directly in your personal Mass and in your personal Confession box. It may seem far away now, but in God's eyes, in the perspective of His mystical Bride, distance doesn't matter and they *are* coming - it is just a matter of time". Well ... they're here for him now. It is why I keep asking the public question: "Why not, FSSP, take down the rails and being in the bongos, guitars, EMs, altar girls and turn around to face the People"? Why not?

And in the union of pagan OW government with the RCC, insistently desired by this man some call Pope, I do believe the same dilemma it is coming *personally* for us all. Most just ignore it. Not my problem. But it seems to me, as a convert who converted *FOR THE AUTHORITY* of the Hierarchy and Tradition, a Catholic CAN'T just ignore a heretical Papacy; on obviously illegal Papacy according to Canon Law, which governs precisely the resignation and election of *OUR* Pope (as opposed to the "Hierarchy's" Pope). Which is the conclusion of this article - which is what puzzles me.

*Why not a Pope Mao* - who takes the "holy" name of Mao Zedong of the Peoples)? The Hierarchy now includes communist Chinese Bishops whose ordaini government is likely sustaining e RCC with communist money. Name him in the Mass, if he is ordained "Priest" by the Hierarchy and voted in by Cardinals? What will it take to reach any particular red line with those *granted to us by God* to govern us justly, legitimately within the framework of the Dogmatic Deposit of Faith, ordained validly according to the laying on of hands within the Sacred Magisterium of the eternal Church?

We MUST have the Pope and he must be legitimate. Pope Francis the *active* non-Munus Pope is no more legitimate than would be a Pope Mao (Xi Xinping for instance) the unifying OWG Pope Of The Peoples.

Aqua said...

Aqua out.

Sorry about the wordiness.

It just makes no sense to me - the logic of the article above and the unquestioning acceptance of this un-Munused Pope (1 of 2).

Not referencing you, in particular, Mary Ann, but your view as representative of SSPX (my final refuge) and the entire traditional Catholic community. No one can make sense of it (Emeritus, two Popes, non-Munused Pope, total Judas witchcraft, debauched heretic Pope, ignore everything he says Pope) except to say, with my former FSSP Priest, it doesn't matter, just ignore it. And I can't do that, if I wish to remain Catholic.

Sorry to take over your combox. Aqua out ("yeah ... right", they all said).

Debbie said...

Amen Aqua! Kick the can down the road for our children and grandchildren to deal with....not a good option. This is why I come so often to the comboxes, as I cannot articulate what you have said here.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

It's all heart-rending. But what does deciding the pope isn't the pope mean in practical terms, Aqua? Will you leave the Church? What does it mean to say "I can't [just ignore it] if I wish to remain Catholic." Back in the 1980's my parents were in the diocese of Baltimore with Archbishop Borders. One Sunday he did an interview show with the Jesuit heretic priest Fr. Robert Drinan, pro-abortion Congressman. My mom said Daddy was so angry he was stomping around the house saying he was going to leave the Church. Mom just asked, "Where will you go?" If you leave, where will you go? I say stay and fight -- with prayer, with the power of the pen, with letters to the bishops and prayer vigils at the chanceries, with refusal to obey abusive and canonically wrong dictats, etc. Frankly, I don't know what else to do, but I will never let the bastards and the heretics drive me out.

Aqua said...

Mary Ann,
"... what does deciding the pope isn't the pope mean in practical terms, Aqua?"

It means to stop accepting a lie and living with the hypocrisy of praying for the Pope's intentions in Holy Mass, and then calling the same Pope an evil clown after Mass; Holy Father one moment and evil clown the next; Holy Father on one hand,but ignore, resist and overturn everything he says on the other.

It means to stop accepting a lie and living with a deformed Papacy and pretending as if a retired Emeritus Pope is perfectly normal.

It means to stop accepting a lie and living with a Pope who was installed lawlessly, illegally, objectively in direct violation of Canon Law that governs resignations and elections.

As with the current growing resistance to Covid vaccine regimes, it starts with an inner assent among individuals within the masses that "I do not accept, I will not comply, I will resist and ultimately I will overthrow the illegal regime with every act I take and every particle of my strength". The regime doesn't care if we are angry and upset, (they probably prefer it), as long as we remain afraid, submissive, compliant and accepting of their authority to rule and that we defend them to others as legitimate. The regime cares very much, however, when a million outraged people stop accepting their terms, march on Parliament and demand the removal and prosecution of their illegitimate tormentors who have usurped power that does not belong to them.

It starts with an inner assent to Truth, which leads to meaningful action based on that assent. In the case of Covid regime resistance - the massive marches of the people are after the individual inner persuasions against the PsyOp was complete.

"What does it mean, in practical terms"? Individually demand an end to the Papal PsyOp that insists deformation and heresy is all perfectly normal; that a Pope can retire and remain; that another Pope can rule without the Munus; that Popes throughout time have encouraged the Faithful to worship the devil and engage in debauchery.

The Pope is the Rock instituted by Christ as the visible cornerstone of His Church. Violence has been done to this divine institution. We can't ignore that and just move on to other things. Resolution begins there, and only there because the Church began there and only there. And it must start with us, we the Faithful, just as Bishop Fulton Sheen predicted. Individually. And then, by God's grace, collectively.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

But when we pray "for the intentions of the Holy Father" we don't name him. God knows who he is and those prayers will apply to the legitimate pope if the man occupying the chair isn't he. And they will also apply to Christ's Church.

Aqua said...

"In short: if we are convinced that something essential, something decisive, in the Faith is under attack from the pope or any other hierarch, we are not only permitted to refuse to do what is being asked or commanded, not only permitted to refuse to give up what is being unjustly taken away or forbidden; we are obliged to refuse. Sitting on the fence is not an option.” (Dr. Kwasniewski, excerpted above from his upcoming book on obedience; "Like Daniel, he, Kwasniewski, spells out the evil being committed", as you yourself commented).

All I am saying is that if this is true, then it applies not just topically but universally. The Papacy, the cornerstone upon which the visible Church is built by Christ Himself, has been objectively deformed by an objectively illegal act in violation of Canon Law, and "sitting on the fence is not an option". There are consequences to sitting on the fence in the face of unjust acts, as the author rightly posits, and nothing can be more unjust than deforming and pirating the Papacy from Our Lord. Once "refusal" has been determined as an act of justice, acting on that in any number of infinite ways is essential - starting with naming the name of the true Pope in Mass, during Rosary, to one's Priest, Bishop, friends.

Aqua said...

BTW, the "deformation" I am referring to is "Pope Emeritus".

Before we ever get to the name of the second Pope that accompanies this innovation within the Papacy - this deformation, this new name is unacceptable within Christendom.

There can be no "Pope Emeritus". Nowhere does anyone even attempt to justify from Scripture and Tradition upon what this new nnovation is based. Where are the footnotes that connects this new name to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, once delivered.

That is what I, as a faithful Catholic, demand from my Church Fathers: footnotes and connections that justify their actions, absent which I stand on Tradition and maintain defense of the Papacy as given to us by Our Lord in every generation until now.