Peter Kwasniewski discusses Dominic J. Grigio’s forensic and exhaustive new study of the tumultuous and profoundly problematic reign of the late pontiff who died a year ago on April 21st.
Leo is showing himself to be the perfect disciple of Francis. He is amplifying and intensifying Francis’s agenda, though with a much more pleasant façade than Francis had.
And we witness Holy Father's relationship with the American Democrat Party. One and a half hours with the advisor to Obama, David Axelrod? The lack of prudence in this regard is astonishing, but he is letting us know quite boldly his sympathies. I hear the Holy Father was quite upfront on various social media before his election in his contempt for restored immigration policy instituted by President Trump.
Our still new Pope appears to cling to the inferior priestly/religious formation which was/remains endemic to the post-conciliar debacle beginning in the seventies. Protracted adolescent loyalty to mentors and their brutalized theological concepts has mutilated now two generations of priests and religious. Given his office you would think Leo would have seen through the errors but it it appears you can only climb to the top if you maintain allegiance to the program.
The episcopate is a frightening scandal from top to bottom. They have trashed their own credence to a degree which is unimaginable. We are as sheep without a temporal shepherd.
I am an older man. I recall when the N.O. Was trotted out in my second year of college …. Total trauma and I was sickened by this. The trauma has continued unabated for 60 years. I tried a sojourn in Protestantism but there is too much don’t confuse me with the truth going on there. Back to Catholicism because I could not deny John 6 and the church fathers. Reverted in 2009 just in time for round one of sex abuse scandals. Then shortly followed by Pope BXVI resignation followed by Bergoglio on the scene. I then endured Bergo removing my bishop because he freely used his unlimited power to remove those who refused to be silent in the midst of his cascade of errors. Now Leo is another social justice warrior/politico from S.A. Who is more political than spiritual….but, he does like to dress up nicely and “ play Pope”. To this boomer, it seems that I am unlikely to see any correction in the course of the Church in my lifetime and this genuinely saddens and discourages me.
Oscar, my Dad left the church because of Vatican II and the abrupt changes to every aspect of the Holy Mass, the Nave, and the Sanctuary. I made my 1st Communion (the last of my siblings) and we never went back.
Two of us returned but the others never have. My Dad died very young and unexpectedly -outside of the church (Lord, have mercy on his soul.)
The Francis Pontificate really helped me understand why he left- BUT I also constantly remind myself it is JESUS that is the Church, now and forever.
Please stay and fight for Jesus’s Church, for the sake of your children and grandchildren and for your own soul.
Orthodoxy is more appealing the more I read about the Divine Liturgy. They do not seem to be infected with the virus of Pride that has caused our hierarchy to be manipulators of the tyranny of novelty rather than protectors of the Faith. Leo is just a massive disappointment.
There is another important book about Pope Francis--"The Jesuits: Nearing the End" by Stephen Morrissey. It is very scholarly, but researched and scholarly in a different way, and it is endorsed by Peter Kwasniewski. Basically its theme is that the Jesuits succumbed to Modernism, though condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the early years of the nineteenth century and carried Modernism's heresies for reform of Church doctrine into Jesuit education and thence to the wider Church. The villains are Jesuits Karl Rahner and Pedro Arrupe-- Rahner for his heavy duty theological support, carrying the heresies into Vatican II and writing copiously afterwards. Pedro Arrupe installed Rahner's theology into Jesuit education, substituting social justice ideology for all evangelization including missionaries and liberation wars, and "modernizing" seminary formation in the sixties. Rahner's and Arrupe's contributions to Jesuit decline constituted much of what seminarians were taught after the Council and ALL of what Bergoglio was formed on in the seventies, which is why his papacy was both "turbulent" and "disastrous."
It is wonderful that this work has come out. I think that even more we need a similar one on the errors (so far) of Leo XIV. This could have even more impact if taken seriously by Catholic "influencers."
Undoubtedly this is a book everyone who cares about what has happened during this dreadful pontificate should read. If Os Justi published it, it must be important. But though it may be true
that some faithful would like to forget the whole miserable period, or those naive souls who would buy a used car from that pope and would prefer to keep their illusions, a problem remains: the
length of the book. If it can be read as a reference source, well and good, but for some of us,
though intensely interested, we won't live long enough to read it! It would be great to have
a shorter book with a numerical list of the atrocities, with just enough information to reveal the
Truth. I realize that is what Fr Grigio has tried to do, but 800+ pages is daunting for many readers. As for the many Catholics who just don't read; if there is an answer to that problem let it be known!
Meanwhile, surely clergy and Religious should be studying it assiduously so that they can at least, explain what has distressed so many of us. In any case, may God bless Fr Grigio's and Os Justi's en-
Vatican I is not the problem, as Peter K. argues, thereby diminishing the Magisterium. Vatican I was a gift to the church to prepare her to recognize an impostor. The impostor Bergoglio was not pope, and we know this precisely because Vatican I is true. If Bergoglio was the pope, then Vatican I was indeed false. But Vatican I was not false, because the Magisterium never teaches falsehood. Therefore, since Vatican I was not false, and tells us correctly that the pope cannot teach error, Bergoglio was logically not the pope. Peter K needs to go back to logic class and start with correct premises. Then he will stop saying things that make no sense.
“Thanks to Vatican I, we can dismiss Pope Francis’s errors quickly and easily with a clear conscience because they don’t even come close to meeting those requirements.”
No, thanks to Vatican I we can know that a man who claims to be pope while definitely changing the catechism to prohibit the death penalty, bless same-sex couples in church, and admit adulterers to holy communion cannot be the Successor of Peter.
Because, according to Vatican I, “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
If Francis was pope, then what Vatican I tells us to believe about the pope is false. But Vatican I is entirely true, thanks be to God. Therefore, Francis could not possibly have been the pope.
What choice do you have with Pastor aeternus from Vat i and reaffirmed with Vat 2? There are no limits, no guardrails to the Pope's control over the liturgy, none, zero. That's why Card. Fernandez cited Pastor Aeternus as the dogmatic weapon it is to enforce obedience. You will NEVER be free of power of a Pope to enforce change so long as you.have to submit to him as per Pastor Aeternus. It's either the weirdness of sedevavantism, or recogition that Papal claims is a bridge too far. 60 years from now, it will only otherwise worse for you
This is all well and done with good intentions with which I agree but it leaves this layperson wondering what he is to do.
The laity are powerless, ignored and maltreated by many “ Shepherds” so I don’t see anything changing from a human level. I believe only a direct intervention by the Almighty will change things!
I know this sounds hopeless but since 2013, I have written many letters and made phone calls to a variety of hierarchs on a many issue the result has been NO RESPONSE, NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
I am sorry but I feel it is downward from here unless God intervenes!
Leo is showing himself to be the perfect disciple of Francis. He is amplifying and intensifying Francis’s agenda, though with a much more pleasant façade than Francis had.
And we witness Holy Father's relationship with the American Democrat Party. One and a half hours with the advisor to Obama, David Axelrod? The lack of prudence in this regard is astonishing, but he is letting us know quite boldly his sympathies. I hear the Holy Father was quite upfront on various social media before his election in his contempt for restored immigration policy instituted by President Trump.
Our still new Pope appears to cling to the inferior priestly/religious formation which was/remains endemic to the post-conciliar debacle beginning in the seventies. Protracted adolescent loyalty to mentors and their brutalized theological concepts has mutilated now two generations of priests and religious. Given his office you would think Leo would have seen through the errors but it it appears you can only climb to the top if you maintain allegiance to the program.
The episcopate is a frightening scandal from top to bottom. They have trashed their own credence to a degree which is unimaginable. We are as sheep without a temporal shepherd.
Holy father? 🤔
I'm perplexed. Are you unfamiliar on how we address the successor of St. Peter, or do you merely withhold that due respect from this Pope?
Yes, HOLY FATHER.
Let us pray the charism of the office catches up to him. Are you praying for him?
The water-boarding continues.
I think I am going to have to buy this book.
Its good, its huge, its comprehensive. Worth it.
Pope Francis pontificate was full of contradiction and confusion. A disaster.
May God pity his soul.
Still traumatized.
I am an older man. I recall when the N.O. Was trotted out in my second year of college …. Total trauma and I was sickened by this. The trauma has continued unabated for 60 years. I tried a sojourn in Protestantism but there is too much don’t confuse me with the truth going on there. Back to Catholicism because I could not deny John 6 and the church fathers. Reverted in 2009 just in time for round one of sex abuse scandals. Then shortly followed by Pope BXVI resignation followed by Bergoglio on the scene. I then endured Bergo removing my bishop because he freely used his unlimited power to remove those who refused to be silent in the midst of his cascade of errors. Now Leo is another social justice warrior/politico from S.A. Who is more political than spiritual….but, he does like to dress up nicely and “ play Pope”. To this boomer, it seems that I am unlikely to see any correction in the course of the Church in my lifetime and this genuinely saddens and discourages me.
Oscar, my Dad left the church because of Vatican II and the abrupt changes to every aspect of the Holy Mass, the Nave, and the Sanctuary. I made my 1st Communion (the last of my siblings) and we never went back.
Two of us returned but the others never have. My Dad died very young and unexpectedly -outside of the church (Lord, have mercy on his soul.)
The Francis Pontificate really helped me understand why he left- BUT I also constantly remind myself it is JESUS that is the Church, now and forever.
Please stay and fight for Jesus’s Church, for the sake of your children and grandchildren and for your own soul.
Orthodoxy is more appealing the more I read about the Divine Liturgy. They do not seem to be infected with the virus of Pride that has caused our hierarchy to be manipulators of the tyranny of novelty rather than protectors of the Faith. Leo is just a massive disappointment.
There is another important book about Pope Francis--"The Jesuits: Nearing the End" by Stephen Morrissey. It is very scholarly, but researched and scholarly in a different way, and it is endorsed by Peter Kwasniewski. Basically its theme is that the Jesuits succumbed to Modernism, though condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the early years of the nineteenth century and carried Modernism's heresies for reform of Church doctrine into Jesuit education and thence to the wider Church. The villains are Jesuits Karl Rahner and Pedro Arrupe-- Rahner for his heavy duty theological support, carrying the heresies into Vatican II and writing copiously afterwards. Pedro Arrupe installed Rahner's theology into Jesuit education, substituting social justice ideology for all evangelization including missionaries and liberation wars, and "modernizing" seminary formation in the sixties. Rahner's and Arrupe's contributions to Jesuit decline constituted much of what seminarians were taught after the Council and ALL of what Bergoglio was formed on in the seventies, which is why his papacy was both "turbulent" and "disastrous."
It is wonderful that this work has come out. I think that even more we need a similar one on the errors (so far) of Leo XIV. This could have even more impact if taken seriously by Catholic "influencers."
For 90% of Catholics ignorance is bliss.
Perhaps a generous soul could send a copy to the Holy Father.
Undoubtedly this is a book everyone who cares about what has happened during this dreadful pontificate should read. If Os Justi published it, it must be important. But though it may be true
that some faithful would like to forget the whole miserable period, or those naive souls who would buy a used car from that pope and would prefer to keep their illusions, a problem remains: the
length of the book. If it can be read as a reference source, well and good, but for some of us,
though intensely interested, we won't live long enough to read it! It would be great to have
a shorter book with a numerical list of the atrocities, with just enough information to reveal the
Truth. I realize that is what Fr Grigio has tried to do, but 800+ pages is daunting for many readers. As for the many Catholics who just don't read; if there is an answer to that problem let it be known!
Meanwhile, surely clergy and Religious should be studying it assiduously so that they can at least, explain what has distressed so many of us. In any case, may God bless Fr Grigio's and Os Justi's en-
deavor!
This is excellent. I have great respect for Peter K. Thanks so much for this important interview and book review!
Vatican I is not the problem, as Peter K. argues, thereby diminishing the Magisterium. Vatican I was a gift to the church to prepare her to recognize an impostor. The impostor Bergoglio was not pope, and we know this precisely because Vatican I is true. If Bergoglio was the pope, then Vatican I was indeed false. But Vatican I was not false, because the Magisterium never teaches falsehood. Therefore, since Vatican I was not false, and tells us correctly that the pope cannot teach error, Bergoglio was logically not the pope. Peter K needs to go back to logic class and start with correct premises. Then he will stop saying things that make no sense.
“Thanks to Vatican I, we can dismiss Pope Francis’s errors quickly and easily with a clear conscience because they don’t even come close to meeting those requirements.”
https://onepeterfive.com/spirit-vatican-one-post-revolutionary-political-problem/
No, thanks to Vatican I we can know that a man who claims to be pope while definitely changing the catechism to prohibit the death penalty, bless same-sex couples in church, and admit adulterers to holy communion cannot be the Successor of Peter.
Because, according to Vatican I, “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”
If Francis was pope, then what Vatican I tells us to believe about the pope is false. But Vatican I is entirely true, thanks be to God. Therefore, Francis could not possibly have been the pope.
Dr. Kwasniewski nowhere argues that Vatican I is the problem. Did you even read the above interview?
What choice do you have with Pastor aeternus from Vat i and reaffirmed with Vat 2? There are no limits, no guardrails to the Pope's control over the liturgy, none, zero. That's why Card. Fernandez cited Pastor Aeternus as the dogmatic weapon it is to enforce obedience. You will NEVER be free of power of a Pope to enforce change so long as you.have to submit to him as per Pastor Aeternus. It's either the weirdness of sedevavantism, or recogition that Papal claims is a bridge too far. 60 years from now, it will only otherwise worse for you
The worst Pope
This is all well and done with good intentions with which I agree but it leaves this layperson wondering what he is to do.
The laity are powerless, ignored and maltreated by many “ Shepherds” so I don’t see anything changing from a human level. I believe only a direct intervention by the Almighty will change things!
I know this sounds hopeless but since 2013, I have written many letters and made phone calls to a variety of hierarchs on a many issue the result has been NO RESPONSE, NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
I am sorry but I feel it is downward from here unless God intervenes!
Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us!