Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. John Lamont were both signatories to the “Easter Letter” that accused Pope Francis of heresy. I have written about the reactionary influence in that document, twice (one / two) and also commented upon the pushback even of Francis critics, who opposed the attempt to accuse him of formal heresy. Both these men are properly classified as radical Catholic reactionaries (see my carefully thought-out definition).
I recently summarized their glaring errors as follows:
4) Dr. John Lamont questioned the beatification of Pope St. John Paul II and asserted that the “teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church.”*5) Dr. Peter Kwasniewski thinks that Vatican II itself (not its distortion) is a seedbed of “progressivism and modernism” and that “John Paul II and Benedict XVI . . . were swimming in a lake of Kool-Aid rather than the ocean of Tradition . . . [and] were conflicted and inconsistent progressives.” He ties Pope Francis in with popes of the last 60 years: “Bergoglio is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger . . .” Agreeing with Fr. Thomas Kocik (and in glaring contradiction of Pope Benedict XVI), he thinks the Pauline / “New” / ordinary form Mass is “so radical a deconstruction and reconstruction of the Roman liturgy that it does not exist in the same tradition of organic development. It is a new departure, a new thing, not a revision of the old thing . . .”
“In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy.” Again, this is plainly referring to abuses, not the New Mass itself. If it were not, then why is it that Pope Benedict continued to celebrate the Pauline Mass? He could have stopped had he wanted to. Who could tell him otherwise?
Not to mention that if we took this interpretation of those words of his, it would completely contradict Summorum Pontificum. Moreover, Fr. Angelo Geiger, who blogs at the Mary Victrix site, who is himself a traditionalist and EF priest, has shown how the “banal” statement has been greatly distorted and taken out of context.
No offense, but you can have your postconciliar aggiornamentoed Balkanized toothless Catholicism, if you really want it. I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors, Councils, and Popes who preached a consistent and coherent doctrine.
I am completely and utterly orthodox, and you can’t prove otherwise. If you think so, prove it. Put up or shut up. I have more than 2300 posts online, which are easily searchable on my blog.
“I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors, Councils, and Popes.”
The Fathers played a key role in my conversion, as a result of reading Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. That’s why I have compiled three books of their quotations (one / two / three) and have a large page of articles and links about them. So to try to pit them against me, as if I love or follow them any less than you do, is ridiculous beyond measure. For heaven’s sake, there are many things we can agree on. Why make them imaginary points of difference?
Of course I love the Doctors, too. I have my books, The Quotable Augustine and The Quotable Summa Theologica, as well as Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives: which contains much material from several other Doctors of the Church (particularly female ones).
It’s rich and ludicrously ironic for you to claim that you are the one following “Councils”: seeing what you think about Vatican II: which cannot be found to be any different in origin or nature than any other ecumenical council, as Pope Benedict XVI made very clear in The Ratzinger Report and as pope.
You guys love to cite him when you think he agrees with you (as John Lamont did above, regarding the grossly distorted use of his “banal” statement). But when he disagrees, you will say he is wrong at the drop of a hat. That’s not the traditional respect and reverence for popes that has characterized pious Catholics for 2000 years. It’s the opposite.
You claim you are following popes all through history, but somehow arbitrarily want to act as if the ones of the last sixty years are fundamentally different. You ought to get consistent and become a sedevacantist. This half-baked reactionary extremism that you adopt is relentlessly self-contradictory and arbitrary.
“Postconciliar Catholicism” is still the same Catholicism of the ages — the same Church with the same dogma — as it has always been. If you deny that, then you have to either deny the validity of the 2nd Vatican Council (be like the Old Catholics in 1870) or deny the indefectibility of the Church. Those are the only two choices.
There is plenty where you and I can agree, as to liberal bishops, laxity, tragic condoning of sexual sin, etc. I’m all for reform there and have issued extremely strong statements about it. But that is not “the Church” or “Catholicism.” It’s the poor and sinful choices of men, that have always been present since the beginning, when St. Paul rebuked the first pope.
You are the one who is incoherent and inconsistent. Sedevacantism is a far more serious error but at least we have to give it credit for being self-consistent: unlike your reactionary, pick-and-choose “Liberalism-Lite” / cafeteria Catholic position.
I do sincerely thank both of you (despite our disagreement) for at least showing up here and making some comment; attempting any interaction at all. This is so rare these days that I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude.