September 14, 2022

September 14, 2022 By
. . . and Has the Impudent Audacity to Attack St. John Henry Cardinal Newman as a Modernist and Nominalist

The “hit piece” on The Catholic Monitor web page (extreme reactionary; possibly sedevacantist or “Benevacantist”) against myself and Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is website (“Might Francis Catholics be ‘Proximate to Heresy’?”: 9-13-22) is atrocious. My first impulse was to ignore it as absurd and flat-out unserious and laughable, but the falsehoods in it are so outrageous, that I suppose I ought to address it, since there are more than enough people out there who will take anything they hear or read as Gospel TRVTH and believe this sort of unsubstantiated slop.

I also reply — it should be said — far more for the sake of truth than for my own personal sake (I am insulted on a weekly basis: that’s of little concern to me). Falsehood and lies are not good. We all know where they come from. They harm the people who promulgate them far more than the recipients. Thus, it’s actually an act of charity to correct this sort of massive calumny. The article also (groundlessly) goes after St. John Henry Cardinal Newman and the First Vatican Council, so I am in very good company.

Oddly enough, His Excellency, The Most Reverend René Henry Gracida, the 99-year-old Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, has seen fit to link to this trash on his site, Abyssus Abyssum Invocat / Deep Calls to Deep on 9-13-22. He disgraces his office in doing so.
*
We don’t even know who wrote this filth. I sure don’t blame him or her for not attaching their name to it. It’s very poorly written, even before we get to the ludicrous content. It repeats itself over and over and is quite devoid of any structure or logical progression of thought. It’s amateurish and plain silly. The words from the article will be in blue below.
*
It seems that Francis Catholics
*
Um, I am an orthodox Catholic, and all Catholics by definition ought to give proper reverence and deference to popes, and accept all that the Church requires them to believe (as I do). Unfortunately, that is widely not the case today, especially in “rugged individualist” and Protestant-soaked America. I’m not a “Francis Catholic.” I am a Catholic who believes that popes are the supreme heads of the Holy Catholic Church, and (it shouldn’t be necessary to point out, but now is) should not be lied about and treated contemptuously.
*
like Dave Armstrong and Mike Lewis both appear to believe that Francis’s Amoris Laetitia teaching allowing Communion for adulterers
*
It does not allow Communion for adulterers, but rather, simply expands and develops the pastoral thinking of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I can’t explain all that in this article, but readers can consult my Review: The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia (Pedro Gabriel) [5-10-22], and several articles by the theologian, Dr. Robert Fastiggi:
*
Does Amoris Laetitia 303 Really Undermine Catholic Moral Teaching? (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 9-26-17)
*
*
Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein,  La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 10-4-17)
*
*
*
Responding to the Five Dubia from Amoris Laetitia Itself (Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Vatican Insider / La Stampa, 3-9-18)
*
Dr. Fastiggi on Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis, & Aquinas (Dr. Robert Fastiggi & Dave Armstrong; 2-1-21)
*
Dr. Fastiggi, Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Dogmatic Theology and Christology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, is of impeccable orthodoxy. He was the editor and translator of the 43rd edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (Ignatius Press, 2012), and he revised and updated Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Baronius Press, 2018). Both wonderful resources are indispensable in my work of apologetics, and I have them permanently on one of my bookshelves just three feet away from my keyboard.
*
is infallible 
*
I never said any such thing. If the writer of this trash thinks I did, then let him or her document it. No one’s opinions are easier to search and discover than my own. I have over 4,000 articles online, and 50 published books. There is such a thing as a search engine. It’s on my blog, and one can also consult Google Advanced Search. I did the latter myself, and searched “Amoris laetitia” on my blog, along with the terms “infallible” and “infallibility.” Anyone can make a similar search and confirm that I have never made such a ridiculous claim.
*
and “ALL” his “statements… are infallible”:
*
This is even more absurd and ridiculous. The article is purportedly citing someone. It’s not me. I was writing about the nuances and differing levels of infallibility way back in 1999 (that’s 23 years ag0), in my article, Infallibility, Councils, and Levels of Church Authority: Explanation of the Subtleties of Church Teaching and Debate with Several Radical Catholic Reactionaries.
*
Any Catholic with a basic working knowledge of official Catholic theology knows that the definition of papal infallibility in Vatican I (in Pastor aeternus) strictly limited when the pope possesses the charism of infallibility. Anyone who doesn’t know this will now. Here is what was stated:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
The article is lying about my views. Don’t believe it, folks. If anyone wants to know what I believe, all they have to do is ask me. Since I am an orthodox, magisterial, traditional Catholic, I fully accept — give assent to — the decrees of an ecumenical council, including the one above.
*
. . . Lewis (and his collaborator Armstrong) . . . 
*
We’re not “collaborators.” I’ve never written an article for Where Peter Is, though I support its work. Mike doesn’t hang around my blog or Facebook page. We occasionally interact and we support each other’s work. I suspect that we also might have serious differences in political outlook (I am a “Reaganite” conservative Republican and strong Trump supporter).
*
He seems to think Francis cannot fall into heresy . . .
*
Now that’s a different proposition. I believe that he can’t do so because it is the unarguable teaching of Vatican I (not II).What follows is from the First Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus on the Church of Christ: Session 4: July 18, 1870: the same magisterial proclamation that declared papal infallibility to be a dogma on the highest level: i.e., unable to be dissented against by any Catholic. Bolding is my own, in order to highlight the most significant portions:

[Prologue]  And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation laid by God’s own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrow the Church: We, therefore, for the preservation, safe keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church; and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors so hurtful to the flock of Christ. [“proscribe with sentence of condemnation the contrary erroneous opinions so detrimental to the Lord’s flock”: p. 610: D #3052]

[Chapter 3] And since, by the divine right of apostolic primacy, one Roman Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may reopen the judgement of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgement. [“the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision”: p. 613: D #3063]

Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgements of the Roman Pontiffs to an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

[Chapter 4] And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. [“. . . has always been preserved immaculate  and sacred doctrine honored”: p. 614: D #3066] Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. . . .

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long established custom of Churches and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith cannot fail. [“where the faith cannot suffer impairment, the injuries to the faith might be repaired”: p. 615: D #3069] . . .

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.” [“this See of Peter always remains untainted by any error . . .”: p. 615: D #3070]

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

For more on papal indefectibility, see:
*
*
*
*
Lewis (and his collaborator Armstrong) who are Pachamama apologists
*
I’m not his “collaborator” and I am a Catholic apologist, thank you, whose first book was enthusiastically endorsed in a Foreword by Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ: a man beloved of many traditionalists and even reactionaries.
*
The Pachamama fiasco was also filled with propagandistic lies. Search “Pachamama” in my collection of 292 defenses of the pope by others, for many informative articles about this damnable calumny against the Holy Father and the ceremonies in question.
*
apparently there has never been a anti-pope in Catholic history
*
I never said that. Of course there were. I deny that Pope Francis is that.
*
they reject Thomistic realism and it’s principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church
*
I’m quite familiar with the laws of logic and contradiction and utilize them constantly in my work. I’m not a Thomist (it’s not required!), but I have the greatest respect for St. Thomas, as well as Thomists, used to have a web page about him on my large website, and edited the book, The Quotable Summa Theologica (2013).
*
and believe that Cardinal John Henry Newman’s speculations on “Development of Doctrine” as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction  . . . it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine. . . . Newman’s philosophy appears to be tinted [sic] with nominalism. . . . Even more important, “Development of Doctrine” is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.
*
Sheer nonsense. Cardinal Newman was declared a saint. This anonymous clown [one Fred Martinez has responded on the site, and controls the comments there] can’t even extend the respect towards him of his new title. Then he lies about one of the greatest theological minds in the history of the Church.  It would come as a shock to Pope St. Pius X that Cardinal Newman is supposedly some wretched modernist / heterodox dissident and theological liberal.
*
An Irish bishop defended Newman in 1908 from the false charges that he was a modernist and a liberal, and that his theory of development was no different than modernist “evolution of dogma” which Pope St. Pius X had condemned (and that he was condemned by his encyclical Pascendi). The document’s title is: Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and it was written by Edward Thomas O’Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick (1908). Here is an excerpt:

(3) With regard to the theory of the development of Christian Doctrine, two questions entirely distinct from one another have to be considered in relation to Newman: (a) is his theory admissible according to the principles of Catholic Theology, and (b) is it covered, or touched in any wise, by the condemnations of the recent Encyclical.

The first of these questions I leave on one side now, venturing merely to express, with all submission, my personal opinion, little as it is worth, that in its broad outlines it is thoroughly sound and orthodox, and most serviceable for the interpretation of the facts of the history of dogma.

As to the second, I cannot see how there can be room for doubt. Newman’s whole doctrine was not only different from that of the Modernists, but so contrary to it in essence and fundamental principle, that I cannot conceive how, by any implication, it could be involved in their condemnation. Nothing less than an explicit statement by the supreme authority of the Holy See would convince me to the contrary. I see no common ground in both systems. The word development is the only thing which they hold in common. They do not mean the same thing by Christianity, by dogma, by religion, by Church. They do not start from the same first principles, and consequently they are as separate as the poles.

Pope St. Pius X himself – in the same year: 1908 – wrote a letter to Bishop O’Dwyer, thoroughly approving of his pamphlet. The original Latin of Pope St. Pius X’s letter is online at the Newman Reader, along with the English translation (I have added paragraph breaks):

English translation, provided by Michael Davies, also included in Davies’ Lead Kindly Light: The Life of John Henry Newman, Neumann Press, 2001.

LETTER
In which Pope Pius X approves the work of the Bishop of Limerick
on the writings of Cardinal Newman.
To his Venerable Brother
Edward Thomas Bishop of Limerick

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man. It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Document had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation of a distinguished person.

And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught. Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See.

Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness. For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate.

Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so.

Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning.

We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so.

Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith.

To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circumstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God’s goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Pius PP. X

The anonymous buffoon who wrote this vapid article cited two scholars against St. Cardinal Newman. I cite Pope St. Pius X’s glowing endorsement of Cardinal Newman and his theory of the development of doctrine. Take your pick . . .
*
***
*
Photo credit: Pope St. Pius X; Library of Congress photograph [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
***
*
Summary: “The Catholic Monitor” decided to do a ridiculous hit piece of myself, Mike Lewis, and even St. Cardinal Newman: filled with lies and calumnies. I dismantle it.
*
***
September 8, 2021

September 8, 2021 By

Fr. Hugh Somerville Knapman, OSB has taken umbrage at my citing of a few of his words in my recent article, Traditionis Custodes Results: No Fallen Sky (I Called It) (9-6-21). His reply, posted on his site, One Foot in the Cloister, is entitled, “Apologetics or Polemics” (9-7-21). His words will be in blue.

*****

I always hate to disagree with a priest (whether privately or publicly). I have immense respect for all priests. But (as they are the first to admit), they can be wrong at times, just like the rest of us, and in this case, seeing that many priests have been extremely critical of the Holy Father, it seems to me a case of “goose and gander.” If they can do that, I can do this.

Sadly, in this instance, the criticism sent my way is a variation on a theme that I have encountered off and on through the years:

1) I criticize radical Catholic reactionary thinking: usually with regard to Pope Francis or Vatican II or the New (Pauline) Mass.

2) Rather than deal with my specific criticisms (and/or defenses of what particular thing they are lambasting), a person who disagrees with me attacks me personally.

3) Generally, the ad hominem attacks involved at that point are calling me a “papolater” or “ultramontanist” or “modernist” (I just dealt with this approach 13 days ago). In this case, it is chiefly mischaracterizing me as a mere “polemicist” as opposed to an “apologist.”

4) As a common variation on the latter theme, the tactic is to pretend that I “used” to just devote myself to [good and helpful] apologetics, but I supposedly no longer do, and am now solely or overwhelmingly doing “polemics” or “attacking” the reactionaries as my raison d’être. Quite often, a blast at me being a “convert” is included in this.

5) #4 is demonstrably untrue, as I will prove beyond doubt as I proceed. Criticizing reactionaries is a tiny part of my overall work, and I have been doing it (as a tiny part) for the entire 25 years I have been online. It’s nothing new. If Fr. Hugh had simply perused my website for ten minutes, he would have readily observed this.

6) As an extra bonus, rhetoric of this sort is often accompanied by unsubtle insinuations that I am filled with pride; that “it’s all about him [me]” etc. Thus, it entails judging my interior motivations and my soul, which is always ill-advised and a very tricky business (to put it mildly).

THERE IS ALWAYS a little frisson of alarm through my frail flesh whenever Google Alerts tells me my name has appeared afresh on the internet. Thankfully it is rare, and overwhelmingly the mention proves to be benign, often merely incidental. Occasionally it is not. Today is such a day.

I’m glad it is rare for Fr. Hugh. I have to deal with such mentions almost on a weekly basis (since my 3,800+ articles and 50 books are “out there”), and usually they are negative in nature (as presently). It’s all part of the package of being an apologist.

[he cites Scott Hahn as an apologist marked by “happy zeal”]

Not all convert apologists are so positive. America seems to have a goodly share of convert apologists who began well and have deteriorated into polemicists. 

This is the shot taken against converts (#4 above), as if we are especially prone to error in a way that cradle Catholics are not. And we already have the either/or caricature of “once a helpful apologist, now only a useless polemicist” (also #4). This is bearing false witness, if he is trying to apply it to me, as I will show.

They even seem to manifest what is called by many now hyper-papalism, and any word of criticism, however mild, oblique or muted, against Pope Francis is the dog-whistle for them to attack. And attack is the word.

This is the tired “papolater” / “ultramontanist” accusation (#3 above), so often sadly trotted out at the slightest criticism of reactionary thinking and behavior. It’s simply not true of myself, as I recently clarified for the 100th time. I wrote tongue-in-cheek there:

It’s the usual canard that any papal defender must be an “ultramontanist” or “papolater” who thinks the color of socks that the pope picks out or a weather report from the Holy Father are infallible.

They do not practise apologetics any more; the trade they now ply is polemics. It is not attractive. In fact, there is something sinister about it.

What’s sinister is that this is a lie; it’s a falsehood, a whopper, bearing false witness. It is not true about me and never has been. I have about 50 separate and distinct web pages on my blog. Only one — though it is extensive; but so are most of my web pages — is devoted to the reactionaries (about 2% of the whole). I’ve written fifty books. Just two (4%) are devoted to reactionaries. Note that my first one on the topic was dated December 2002 in its first edition. That’s almost 19 years ago. Obviously, I was dealing with the topic back then, and it was a small minority of all that I dealt with, then, just as now. Nothing has changed at all.

If it is true that I do so at least “more” than I used to, that would be due to the fact that Pope Francis is daily attacked by reactionaries, and so there is more occasion to counter-respond, in a way that wasn’t present with Pope St. John Paul II (though he was assuredly attacked, and I defended him) and Pope Benedict XVI (ditto). Apologetics is often driven by the events of the day. It’s my duty as an apologist to defend the Holy Father, generally, and particularly if he is unjustly attacked. So I do so. Then I get falsely — and absurdly — accused of doing only this.

If anyone doubts that I have been dealing with this topic during the entire time I have engaged in online apologetics, they ought to be made aware of papers of mine on these topics dated 7-30-99 and 8-1-99: listed on my appropriate web page. That’s over 22 years ago. I have many other papers from years ago listed there. For example:

Syllabus of 60 Radical Catholic Reactionary Errors [2000]

Debate on the Reactionary Group, The Remnant [1-24-00]

Critique of The Remnant [2000]

Debate: My “Syllabus of 60 Catholic Reactionary Errors” [11-24-00]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. an Optimistic Faith [1-21-01]

Dietrich von Hildebrand & Legitimate Traditionalism (2-27-02; terminology and a few other minor things revised on 4-18-20)

Why Not Kick Modernist Dissenters Out of the Church? [3-7-02]

2nd Conversion? Reactionary Absurdities Satirized [10-7-03]

Vatican I on Papal Infallibility: “Ultramontanism”? [3-29-04]

Mark Shea is one such. Indeed his worsening online content caused the termination of his connection with EWTN and its journal, National Catholic Register.

That’s right. At the time I was a vociferous (public and private) defender of National Catholic Register, against his attacks. Partially as a result, they hired me and I started regularly writing for them in September 2016 (258 articles from then till now). In all those articles, neither “traditionalist” nor “reactionary” ever appears. I wrote about Pope Francis exactly one time (on 9-30-17), and that was a mild criticism: urging him to answer the dubia. It’s all apologetics and theology. Yet Fr. Hugh claims all I do is polemics.

Another is Dave Armstrong.

Again, this is a lie, as I have already shown is the case, and I will offer more undeniable proof before I am done.

Armstrong began his convert’s apologetical career with very useful works demonstrating to Protestants how the Catholic Church is more biblically faithful than the so-called bible-based evangelical, reformed and generally Protestant denominations. They were just as useful for cradle Catholics. But now he has become a polemicist, but with a twist. More on that later.

This is absolute nonsense; hogwash! I’ve done exactly the same from the beginning. I take on all major errors, both outside and inside the Church. If Fr. Hugh insists on claiming that all I do is criticize reactionaries, then how does he explain the list of my forty most recent blog papers (over the last six weeks)? Here they are:

“Pope Francis is SO Confusing!”: A Spirited Reply (9-7-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #1]

Traditionis Custodes Results: No Fallen Sky (I Called It) (9-6-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #2]

The Orthodoxy of Pope Francis (9-6-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #3]

Hebrews 10:12, Vulgate, & the Mass (James White’s Lie) (9-3-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #1]

COVID: Catholics Can’t Avoid “Remote Cooperation with Evil” (9-3-21) [COVID #1]

Pearce’s Potshots #46: Who Wrote the Gospel of John? (9-2-21) [contra-atheist / pro-Bible apologetics #1]

Limited Atonement: Refutation of James White (9-1-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #2]

Bible on Germ Theory: An Atheist Hems & Haws (8-31-21) [Bible & Science apologetics #1]

Pearce’s Potshots #45: “Unholy Questions” for God (8-29-21) [contra-atheist / pro-Bible apologetics #2]

A “Biblical” Immaculate Conception? (vs. James White) (8-27-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #3]

Baptismal Regeneration: Refutation of James White (8-27-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #4]

Tower of Babel, Baked Bricks, Bitumen, & Archaeology (8-26-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #1]

My Supposed “Papolatry”: Outrageous Reactionary Lies (8-26-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #4]

Reply to Engwer’s Alleged “Absence of a Papacy” (8-25-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #5]

Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History (8-25-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #2]

Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy (8-24-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #3]

Natural Immunity from COVID: Four Scientific Studies (8-22-21) [COVID #2]

COVID Vaccines, Conscience, & the Pope: a Catholic Dialogue (8-21-21) [COVID #3]

Quails, Wandering Hebrews, & Biblical Accuracy (8-17-21) [Bible & Science apologetics #2]

Pearce’s Potshots #44: Jairus’ Daughter “Contradiction”? (8-17-21) [contra-atheist / pro-Bible apologetics #3]

In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (8-16-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #4]

Debate: Conscience vs. COVID Vaccines / Natural & Herd Immunity (8-16-21) [COVID #4]

Unvaccinated People, Conscience, Condescension, & Coercion (8-14-21) [COVID #5]

Overly Strict Parenting: Catholic Traditionalist Self-Critique (8-13-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #5]

The Amsterdam Apparitions: Where Are We Now? (8-13-21) [Catholic apologetics #1] [25]

Parting of the Red Sea: Feasible Scientific Explanation? (8-11-21) [Bible & Science apologetics #3]

Plagues of Egypt: Possible Natural Explanations (8-11-21) [Bible & Science apologetics #4]

Joseph in Egypt, Archaeology, & Historiography (8-7-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #5]

Why Folks Like the New Catholic Answer Bible (8-5-21) [Catholic apologetics #2]

Archaeology Verifies 13th c. BC Cities Listed in Joshua (8-5-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #6]

Pearce’s Potshots #43: Joshua’s Conquest & Archaeology (8-3-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #7]

Dialogue w Traditionalist “Hurt” by Traditionis Custodes (8-2-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #6]

Traditionis Custodes: Sky Hasn’t Fallen (Bishops) (8-2-21) [trad / reactionary / Pope Francis issues #7]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (7-31-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #8]

Abraham, Warring Kings of Genesis 14, & History (7-31-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #9] [35]

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority (7-28-21) [contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics #6]

Was Sodom Destroyed by a Meteor in Abraham’s Time? (7-27-21) [Bible & Science apologetics #5]

Abraham & Hebron: Archaeology Backs Up the Bible (7-24-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #10]

Abraham, Salem, Mt. Moriah, Jerusalem, & Archaeology (7-24-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #11]

Abraham’s Shechem Lines Up With Archaeology (7-23-21) [Bible & Archaeology apologetics #12]

We see, then, that there were only seven articles out of 40, about the reactionary / traditionalist / Pope Francis stuff , or 17.5% of the whole. That is hardly “all” I do, is it? Here’s the entire breakdown:

Bible & archaeology (12 = 30%)

reactionary / traditionalist / Pope Francis stuff [7 = 17.5%]

contra-Protestant / pro-Catholic apologetics (6 = 15%)

COVID (5 = 12.5%)

Bible & science apologetics (5 = 12.5%)

contra-atheist / pro-Bible apologetics (3 = 7.5%)

Catholic apologetics [i.e., non-debate treatments] (2 = 5%)

28 out of 40 (70%) are about apologetics, and I would say the reactionary criticism is apologetics, too, because as I see it, I am defending Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father. So it’s really 35 out of 40, or 87.5% apologetics, with five additional articles on COVID (of obvious import).

The article begins with the perpendicular pronoun, and this is the key to understanding the apologetic polemics of such as Armstrong. It is all about them. A man has to earn his living, of course, but when a Catholic apologist becomes the product, there is a grave problem.

More personal attacks . . . I was simply noting:

I catch so much hell from radical Catholic reactionaries for my criticism of their errors and excesses that I do think it is worthwhile (not to mention educational: if they will accept it) to point out to them that I was dead-on in my predictions about what would happen after the issuance of Pope Francis’ Motu proprio Traditionis Custodes.

Yes, it’s polemics, which is not always a bad thing; in this case it was educational; in effect, “learn from history!”. It depends on what the polemics are about and how they are done. Jesus and Paul and the prophets engaged in tons of polemics and jeremiads. The latter word is even derived from the prophet Jeremiah. So they can’t possibly all be “bad.” Most of the polemics against Pope Francis are, I submit, “bad.”

So Armstrong, ignoring the bishops who have outright forbidden the old Mass in toto, looks at the many bishops who have not suppressed the old Mass but have allowed the status quo ante to continue. 

I’m simply observing at this point. I have inquired as to the reasons why particular bishops have totally prohibited the Old Mass. So far I haven’t seen any reasons. One person showed me how two bishops did that but provided no reasons. I immediately responded that this was a bad thing: that they should explain why, with reasoning and fact, per Traditionis. I am all for traditional liturgy. That’s why I was a member at a parish that performed Latin Masses (ordinary form) for 25 years. And it’s why I’ve written a lot about liturgical abuses.

What he does not acknowledge is that in these cases the bishops have been clear that this indulgence is temporary, while they decide a more lasting response, since the motu proprio caught them on the hop (collegiality did not extend to warning the bishops it seems).

Time will tell. My position is clear and has been constant: the Old Mass should only be suppressed in cases where there is rampant radical Catholic reactionary thinking in the immediate environment, which does no good for anyone.

So, Dave is right that the sky has not fallen in for traditionalists…yet. We’ll see how prophetic he is in a year’s time.

Yes we will. If the rough percentage of suppression is the same, will Fr. Hugh admit that I was an accurate prognosticator then? Of course, many of the alarmists in July were confident that the Old Mass was gonna be entirely prohibited. That is plainly not happening anytime soon, if ever. So they are already manifestly shown to be hysterically wrong. Fr. Hugh’s own statement that I cited (because he was cited — along with myself — in a survey by Peter Kwasniewski) was:

the old Mass was good in the “old days” (all 1400+ years of them) but is not good for today, and so cannot be countenanced in the modern Church. [link]

This implies that the goal of the pope is total abolition of it. So far there is no sign of such a thing; quite the contrary. So we’ll see how prophetic he is, too, in a year’s time. But my original citation of Fr. Hugh from the same article, shows how radical his views really are:

Color coding:

red = defectibility; the idea that the Church and/or pope can fall away from the faith and apostatize. It’s the most radical reactionary idea of all. * purple = Pope Francis is a bad man, tyrant, deceiver, uncaring, cruel, modernist, stinkin’ theological liberal, pulls the wings off of flies, burns ants with magnifying glasses, is stupid & ignorant, is not to be respected or believed, etc. * green = Vatican II stinks, is of lesser authority than Trent & other ecumenical councils; it was a liberal revolution, cause of all ills in the Church, etc. [in one case, Vatican I was also trashed].
the old Mass was good in the “old days” (all 1400+ years of them) but is not good for today, and so cannot be countenanced in the modern Church. It is the liturgical expression of situational ethics, and the relativisation of absolute truth, Whatever it is, this is not Christianity in any authentic sense, one could reasonably argue that this is a bitter fruit not of Vatican II, but Vatican I, Collegiality has disappeared as a meaningful doctrine, This is not a pastoral document; it is a political one, If anything, it is Jacobin, It is hard to recall an exercise of authority as self-defeating as TC, Though in his name, TC was not written by Francis, TC is not progress, but aggressive defensiveness.

But it is really about Dave anyway. It is him the whole way through:

Nonsense. It’s a piece of provocative polemics and “I told you so!”: just as I made very clear at the beginning. But it’s not all I do. That’s the lie that has motivated me to write this response. I don’t like being lied about and grossly misrepresented. Nobody does. I respond for the sake of my apostolate. I am literally harmed by “hit pieces” like this: both my reputation and name, and my livelihood. So I respond for the sake of the ministry: which is a good thing, because it is ordained by God, through calling, just as Fr. Hugh was called to be a priest.

There seems to be a radical insecurity underlying polemics like this. 

Right. Now we’re into pseudo-psychoanalysis. He thinks he can read my heart and my inner states of being.

Having converted to popery, . . . 

Um, I converted to the Holy Catholic Church, thank you. Part of that is an infallible pope, not an inspired one or impeccable one. As I noted in reply to the last attack on me, in my conversion story in Surprised by Truth, the pope was never mentioned as any sort of reason why I converted. That’s a matter of record. Fr. Hugh can either criticize / debate me, or a straw man caricature that is supposedly “me.”

these ex-evangelical converts must now double-down on hyper-papalism to shore up their own faith. Or so it seems.

This is the lie, reiterated, that I am a “hyper-papalist” / “ultramontanist” blah blah blah: which has never been the case at all. I came in largely because of Cardinal Newman’s reasoning, and he is the furthest thing from that. Yes, I was an evangelical, and I am proud of the great deal of truth I learned while in their ranks. They often are far more committed to Bible study, prayer, and evangelism than Catholics are. We can learn much from them in practice. And they can learn a lot from us.

My involvement comes in that I am listed, indiscriminately among writers of often quite different hue and tone, as one of those who offered an “hysterical, unhinged, and ridiculous” response to the motu proprio.

They don’t have to all be exactly the same. What I was citing was what I thought was excessive reaction to Traditionis. I found out about him because Peter Kwasniewski listed him as a responder. For him to say that the old Mass “cannot be countenanced in the modern Church” (as if that is the pope’s thinking) is indeed a “ridiculous” response. Strong words, yes, but it’s directed to the folks who never have a second’s hesitation to use many strong words against the pope (most undeserved). They simply can’t take their own medicine. They insulate themselves from criticism and usually have no interest in critical comments or analysis of outsiders.

Moreover, he has not bothered to note subsequent posts which reflect further not only on the document itself but also on the impolitic attitudes of some traditionalists

It wasn’t my purpose. All writings have (or should have) a specific purpose and goal. I’m busy writing about apologetics 70% of the time, and about issues like COVID for another 13%. But I’m happy to hear it. Fr. Hugh would be welcome to highlight those comments of his in further dialogue, but he has already stated that he won’t be writing about me again (I’m persona non grata), so that includes (and precludes) any possible dialogue. He simply wants to “hit and run.”

But perspective and context would spoil the force of his self-promoting polemic:

More personal attacks . . .

It is of note that Armstrong does not really engage with the arguments of any of these writers, most but not all of whom are traditionalists.

That’s right. It wasn’t my purpose, which was to simply document what they said and what has been the actual result so far (which appears to not warrant their alarmism and hysteria). As I wrote when I first cited Fr. Hugh and others:

I am particularly documenting the personal trashing and sinful attempts to read the pope’s mind and heart; judging his motives. This is the purpose of this article; not to exhaustively engage in every argument against Traditionis custodes. That is for another time and another article. [italics and bolding in original]

My recent article that Fr. Hugh objects to was a piece of “polemical sociology.” People like Erasmus and St. Thomas More and many others (Malcolm Muggeridge in recent years) have done similar things throughout history.

Nor does he engage in any way with the upset that prompts them to express their misgivings and hurt. He does not care about them or their feelings. 

That doesn’t follow from what I have written. I would say that I care about them in telling the truth to them (a loving rebuke), even if in this case it is forceful and a “hard truth” to accept. The prophets did the same; so did Paul and Jesus. People often didn’t like hearing what they said (leading to both being killed). That is love. One can’t simply take one polemical piece and act as if that is all a writer does. It would be like pretending that all Jesus ever did was excoriate the Pharisees (Matthew 23) and whip the moneychangers. If that’s all we knew about Jesus we’d have a radically different view of Him, wouldn’t we? But we must speak the “whole truth and nothing but the truth” about other people.

Nor does he try to argue how the attempt to curtail the most vigorous part of the western, first-world Church might be justified in any pastoral or evangelistic way, nor what it says that most of the vigour and new life in our section of the Church lies precisely in the more traditional observance.

I dealt with these sorts of things, at least in part, in my first response to Traditionis and some subsequent ones: including a dialogue. Fr. Hugh seems to think I am incapable of dialogue with a traditionalist or what I would classify as a reactionary. He is obviously unaware of my seven cordial dialogues with Timothy Flanders: associate of Taylor Marshall and currently editor at the major reactionary site, One Peter Five:

Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall [7-8-19]

Dialogue w Ally of Taylor Marshall, Timothy Flanders [7-17-19]

Dialogue w 1P5 Writer Timothy Flanders: Introduction [2-1-20]

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency? [2-25-20]

Is Vatican II Analogous to “Failed” Lateran Council V? [8-11-20]

Dialogue #6 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders [8-24-20]

Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders (Highlighting Papal Indefectibility, Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I in 1870, & the “Charitable Anathema”) [12-1-20]

We have a pretty warm relationship. And we will keep dialoguing. And we do because he doesn’t pretend that all I do is this kind of stuff. He recognizes that I am a legitimate Catholic apologist who is — by God’s enabling grace — helping to bring people into the Church and others to stay there.

For you see, he is a polemicist, not an apologist.

Now we’re back to the either/or slanderous lies.

Vitriol drips from his pen. It is sad to behold. Read him by all means, but at your own risk, for you will be exposed to what is essentially Catholicism à l’Armstrong, and not the faith of Christ unadulterated. If you can stomach it, go for it. But you might want to vaccinate yourself first.

Your choice, readers!

Or far better, read some Frank Sheed, Fulton Sheen, Scott Hahn, Carol Robinson… the list is longer of apologists who will nourish your faith rather than fan your passions.

By all means, go read them. I have about thirty books in my own library from the first three. Scott Hahn wrote the Foreword to my second book (he volunteered; I didn’t even ask him), so he must have seen something in me. He has written glowing recommendations and once asked me to be a speaker at the Defending the Faith Conference in Steubenville (I respectfully declined because I hardly do any speaking). He once wanted me to directly work with him as well (finances precluded it at the time). I have defended him several times when he was attacked (with his thanks expressed). So this is hardly a “Hahn vs. Armstrong” scenario.

It should be said that no further word will be offered on Armstrong here, no matter what fresh outrage he might commit.

As I said, Fr. Hugh clearly has no interest in actual dialogue, or hearing any other side. It’s strictly “hit and run.” And that is infinitely more objectionable than one piece of mine in which I indulged in “I told you so!” polemics: for a good cause.

***

Photo credit: geralt (7-27-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: A priest decided that because I criticized reactionary overreaction to the regulation of the Old Mass, that I no longer do any apologetics at all; that I am supposedly only a “polemicist” now.

 

August 13, 2021

August 13, 2021 By

I cross-posted the following two tweets on my Facebook page on 8-3-21:

A hard pill for many TLM devotees to swallow is the fact that kids from these families are leaving the Church at the same rate as everyone else. (Traditionalist Fr. Ryan Hilderbrand: 8-2-21)
I’ve seen this in my own life. Overly strict TLM [Traditional Latin Mass] families (or even NO [Novus Ordo / New Mass] families – but TLM families do this more) almost always have kids who go nuts the minute they get some freedom. (Traditionalist / reactionary Steve Skojec: 8-2-21)
Much discussion then ensued:
*
Victor Ravelo (VR): Why would it be hard for them to “swallow the pill?” The language here is unnecessary. I don’t attend the Latin Mass, but can’t we just leave these people in peace?
*
Dave Armstrong (DA): These are self-critiques of people in the movement. They’re relevant because so many TLM folks blithely assume that they are so much more orthodox and better Catholics than the rest of us peasants. That’s why it’s a “hard pill”: because it wasn’t supposed to be that way.
*
Don’t doubt me on that: I have been watching these groups as an apologist for over 25 years. Therefore, if the above is true, it is one counter to such self-absorbed claims.
*
I’m more than happy to let them worship as they please and do whatever they like. Unfortunately, too many among them want to run down those of us who worship differently, along with the pope, Vatican II, and the Pauline Mass. Given that, they deserve every bit of criticism they receive. Goose and gander. If they wanna dish it out, then they gotta take it, too. But again, the above is self-criticism, so I think it carries much more force. That’s why I cited this, because it was thought-provoking.
*
VR: That’s not my experience of “those folks,” but I certainly respect your opinion. I guess they know better than to approach me in an arrogant manner because I’ve never experienced it.
*
DA: I guess, after one has been falsely called a “modernist” or “theological liberal” innumerable times [yours truly] one gets a certain impression of felt superiority from the accusers.
*
This is one reason why I draw a sharp distinction between legitimate traditionalists (which I am close in spirit to in many ways) and radical Catholic reactionaries. It is the latter class where these deficient attitudes are rampant.
*
VR: Is that contact from behind the keyboard? I wonder if in-person dialogue would feel differently.
*
DA: Largely Internet, because that is part of what I do: monitor the public expression of traditionalists / reactionaries. But I have known them in person, too. I’ve had several in my home at my group discussions: including Phillip Campbell, who runs the influential Unam Sanctam Catholicam site. I haven’t met Timothy Flanders, but we have a warm personal relationship as a result of many constructive dialogues.
I attended a Novus Ordo Latin Mass for 25 years and several TLM Masses as well: going back as far as 1990, when I crossed the river from Detroit to Windsor, Canada, to attend one when it wasn’t even available in metro Detroit yet.
*
Michael Speyrer: because it would force them to accept the reality a lot of this has nothing to do with whether for not you sing Gregorian chant at mass.
*
Nick Alexander: There is no guaranteed approach to raising kids in the faith. The best one can do is to provide a balance of experiences, coupled with solid home apologetics. Don’t allow the kids to grow up resentful of missing out of something, but be there for those moments where you could counteract any lies from the world.
*
DA: I think the best way is to model what being a disciple of Jesus ought to be like: someone who loves others like Jesus loves us and follows the moral teachings of the Bible and Holy Mother Church. By God’s grace and a lot of sweat and toil parents must strive to always do that, and to quickly repent when we fail to do so. Our children are watching us very closely.
*
Ian Rutherford (IR): I’m still waiting for someone to provide something other than anecdotal evidence here.
*
DA: I’m not sure that exists, but maybe.
*
IR: It seems that taking anecdotes as general fact when most TLM families have probably not even been going to the TLM long enough to have kids graduating high school is a bit of a leap.
*
DA: It was a self-critique. Take it up with them on Twitter. I’m just the messenger. If we figure since 2007 and Summorum Pontificum, that’s 14 years: enough time to raise a child from kindergarten to 19 years old (i.e., post-high school and into college age). So now we’re seeing how that works out. Again, I had no opinion on this (hardly ever gave it a thought). I’m simply noting here what traditionalists / reactionaries themselves say.
*
IR: I actually did ask on Twitter and didn’t get a reply.
*
DA: Let me know when you do. Fr. Ryan thought Skojec had written something about this, but Skojec didn’t recall any such article. But he did concur from his experience. And he is in a position to know, dontcha think? Anecdotalism is not nothing or of no import. It’s simply not to the level of scientifically controlled studies and polling. Every wise doctor incorporates the anecdotes and reports of their patients.
*
Trebor Lefebvre (TL):  Dave, the staff of the small, independent Catholic colleges in the the US would have some valuable experience in this regard. They’ve see a few generations of students now, and it would be interesting to know their general observations.
*
DA: Yes it would. Of course, the students who would go to such colleges are already the “cream of the crop” and so wouldn’t be accurately representative of Catholic kids as a class.
*
TL: the experience of these college admins would offer insights into a general (non-scientific) comparison of so-called strict traditional-style Catholic families vs. relaxed traditional-style Catholic families. I consider myself a traditional-style Catholic, and I’m never quite sure of the best balance on strict vs. relaxed.
*
DA: Agreed. I just think it would be much better to do a scientific study of the entire class of self-described traditionalists and then of the larger Catholic community, to learn more about rates of defection of the next generation of kids from the faith. That would be fascinating to me: as one who has a degree in sociology (and as an apologist).
*
Mike Johnson (MJ): “Overly strict TLM families”. Yes, I have witnessed this myself. The key here being “overly strict”. Applies not only to TLM or even just Catholics. I’ve seen it play out with a Mormon family too.
*
DA: I agree. It reminds me of a variation on the “PK” and “MK” syndrome (that we used to refer to as evangelicals): “pastor’s kids” and “missionary kids.” It’s in the DNA of adolescents to rebel against over-strictness. Skojec (who ran one of the most prominent reactionary sites: One Peter Five) is saying that TLM families on the whole are more guilty of this excessive strictness. I think he is in a position to know, so I take him at his word.
*
IR: What does “overly strict” or “excessive strictness” actually mean? Is it putting filters on the internet? Not allowing your kids to have smart phones? Monitoring what they read, watch, and listen to? Making them learn the faith? Dressing modestly? Not allowing dating? What is the threshold between letting your kids get eaten by the world and “overly strict”?
*
DA: They would have to clarify that. Every parent has to grapple with establishing a happy medium between total “license” and excessive “legalism.” And that’s an issue in the Christian life generally speaking.
*
MJ: Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a hard dividing line. Each child has a different personality and what may be too strict for one, may be perfectly fine for another. We’re dealing with people, after all, not inanimate matter. In the one Catholic family I know that this happened in, only one of the children left and went in the opposite direction. The rest were fine.
*
DA: Very true.
*
Wendy Rodriguez Baiyewu (WRB): The CCD has not been very effective. My four kids that attended both elementary and high Catholic Schools and they are now fallen away. The worldly pleasures are more enticing to them. I used to attend the TLM every month, but not anymore for six years now!
*
DA: Catholic education is yet another sad tale of gross deficiency . . . so sorry to hear of this.
*
WRB: One son went to Gonzaga College high school, the other DeMatha, [my] daughter [went to] St John’s College High school, and my last daughter attended Don Bosco Christo Rey High School: in the DC area!
*
DA: I don’t trust any of them anymore unless they are painstakingly examined as a rare exception to the rule: doctrinally orthodox and morally traditional.
*
Julian Barkin: I would add a caveat: mind you, in Canada a separate (read: Catholic, publicly funded with tax dollars) system is a constitutional right (for now …. If Trudeau or the liberals stay in power who knows.) That caveat is that TLM families at least the children are choosing willfully to reject that environment. Rather with the Novus Ordo families I blame more external influences such as parental lack of devotion to the Faith such as Mass attendance; weak preaching from priests dare they are “cancelled” or “ghetto-ized” and or demoted to associate pastor. Basically, the Novus Ordo kids and honest Catholic parents have much going against them, many ways the Devil is corrupting the faithful, where as the TLM kids seem to be making this choice on their own.
*
Unfortunately I’ve seen this indirectly first hand, from the perspective of seeing former youth ministry kids grow into teens, only to see on their social media (you can be part of a mutual group on Instagram or Facebook and you can control what is displayed and your access … including brief background info,) … that they’ve joined groups of social justice including LGBQT2AIS and everything in between advocacy groups ….. in a “C”atholic/separate school no less.
*
DA: Of course, my solution to all this is homeschooling, but those parents have to be good Catholic role models and good orthodox educators. All four of our children and now two daughters-in-law (now ranging from ages 19 to 30), are solid orthodox Catholics, with traditional Catholic morals. We’re extremely proud of them. We’ve seen a huge difference between the kids in the youth groups, just between the teenage years of our oldest child (born in 1991) and our youngest daughter (born in 2001). Lots of defections from orthodoxy (especially in morals) among my daughter’s friends. It’s alarming. The sexual deviations alone are outrageous and highly disturbing.
*
Now that is anecdotal too, but clearly it is a trend downward. The Church and parents are abysmally failing to keep the youngest generation in the faith. I’m trying to do all I can (i.e., for non-family) through apologetics, which is proven to help people have a stronger faith and a knowledgeable faith, and hence, to be less likely to fall away.
*
Ben Andrew: Dropping a big ol “citation needed” on this one. My experience has been exactly the opposite. Not to mention, there are known statistics that directly contradict the claim made, show far more faithfulness among TLM attendees [provides some data].
*
DA: But (technically) that’s not what this discussion is about: which is: do traditionalist kids fall away from the faith at the same rate as non-traditionalist Catholic kids?
*
Patti Sheffield: That study has flaws that this author identified well. [link provided]
*
Paul Hoffer: It does not matter what form of the Mass one uses: NO, TLM, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Sarum rite, Anglican use, etc., if children do not learn to adore Christ in the Eucharist, they are not going to attend when they have a choice. “We do not sin when we adore Christ in the Eucharist; we do sin when we do not adore Christ in the Eucharist.” (St. Augustine)
*
Gary Joseph Gornowicz Jr: Interesting to think about. I think that the pivot is are you ready to be a Sacramental adult? Or do you want to shack up for the next 5 -10 years?
*
Monica Bosque (MB): This is nothing to celebrate. Raising children is one of the most daunting challenges that exists. Even the most cursory review of the children of Biblical Patriarchs backs this up (Adam’s son, Cain; Noah’s son, Ham; Isaac’s son, Esau; Jacob’s son, Reuben; David’s sons, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah. I could go on and on.) It’s sad this rift exists, but not surprising as this is the nature of humankind, which is to say, sinful. . . . I should have resisted the urge to comment, but it all just seems wrong.
*
DA: Who’s celebrating? I thought it was significant because it was two traditionalists saying this. That’s the only reason I posted it. I didn’t force them to say what they did. Again, as I have said, if you are offended by the observation or disagree with it, take it up with them. They are on Twitter.
*
MB: I was very happy to see that you made a distinction between those that simply enjoy and prefer the TLM and those who hold radical beliefs. It just saddens me to see our Church become so splintered. I desire unity, and pray for it daily. I guess reading this post (really, some of the comments, to be honest) at the end of a wearisome day felt like an added brick to the load. I’m thinking of getting off social media altogether, even though I love some of the connections I’ve made. Something to pray about, I guess.
*
Clare Rita Kosmalski: Monica, don’t be discouraged. The Church has always been “splintered,” as you say, even from conflicts described in the New Testament. It’s a testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit that the Church still exists. Stay the course!
*
MB: Thank you for that positive perspective! That’s a very encouraging thought!
*
Matt McDonald: Almost as bad as the kids from underly strict families.
*
Deacon Adrian Ng: It’s true even here in Asia. There was an SSPX family whose kids really hated it and left to join the local Novus Ordo parish!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Mediamodifier (1-13-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]
*
***
*
Summary: Fr. Ryan Hilderbrand & Steve Skojec, two traditionalists, tweeted that traditionalist kids fall away from the faith, due to overly strict parenting, at the same rate as non-traditionalist kids.
*
March 9, 2021

March 9, 2021 By

Fr. Z, a radical Catholic reactionary, who appears to take the position (among many other strange and scandalous things) — or at the very least has seriously considered the notion — that Pope Benedict is still the pope, challenged defenders of Pope Francis in a recent post (3-4-21), after extolling the latest trendy pope-bashing book:

This is a compendium of things which – to be blunt – does not make Francis, Cardinals, Bishop look good.  Quite the opposite.   The book is provocative. . . .

Whether you are a staunch supporter of Francis and his crew or you are a sharp critic, …

You might be able to dismiss one or two smart people who have problems with, say, certain aspects of Amoris laetitia.  You might be able to brush aside as an isolated incident when Francis says something weird to a journalist.

When you start to collect all of these things, odd sayings and teachings, reactions to them, into one volume so that you can see a picture emerging, you can’t simply brush it aside.

The cumulative force of the things collected in this book may just prompt questions.   Just scanning through the table of contents and the useful index makes you go, “Whoa!  There’s a lot here.” . . .

[T]his is a compendium which produces a cumulative effect.

What I would say to those who are 1000% in favor of everything that’s been going on for the last few years, and who think this is a bad book, blah blah, is:

If you think this compendium is bad, then produce your own book, respond to it.  Collect into one volume your supportive open letters and explanatory essays.  Let people see the cumulative effect of your no-doubt-incontrovertible position, bound to persuade.

Rather than respond with “Shut up you kooks!”, put up or shut up yourselves. [bolding in original]

Three days later, he reiterated his challenge:

I posted about the new highly critical Compendium about the odd teachings of Francis . . . In that post, I said that, if someone had a contrary view let him come up with his own compendium favorable toward Francis.

And the next day (3-8-21), again:

I wrote to those who will dislike the very existence of such a book . . . and who will summarily dismiss it’s [sic] conclusions, that they themselves should put together their own compendium, a defense of all that Francis is, has said, and has done. . . .

What I am looking for is a compendium … like the other guys did; that compendium book . . .

If [Mike] Lewis creates such a compendium (not just points to the whole site) great!  I’ll acknowledge and when I have time, perhaps I’ll look at it with an open mind.  If it already exists, great!  Ditto.

If he does it/did it readers here and elsewhere could have something useful.

Mike Lewis began a site called Where Peter Is, which does indeed do what Fr. Z calls for: it systematically defends the pope. But the same effort was being undertaken years before that: by yours truly. Already by January 2014 (less than a year into Pope Francis’ reign), I produced the book, Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition.

But that was only the beginning. Since then I have more or less continually defended Pope Francis from innumerable smears and slanders and calumnies, having written (by this date of 3-9-21) no less than 185 of my own articles in my compendium, Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis. This includes detailed (and usually multiple) replies to all the major critics of the pope (especially the ones who have written books).

Moreover, I have collected another 269 articles from others along the same lines, in my compendium, Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks. By my math, that is 454 articles defending Pope Francis. If we add the nine chapters of my book, it totals 463 separate pieces. Is that enough of a “compendium” to satisfy Fr. Z’s challenge? He himself said such a compendium would be “useful” and “great”.  Yeah, I agree, which is why I make these two available for whomever will exhibit an open mind and read them.

But that’s the question: whether the pope-bashers or “papal nitpickers” or otherwise suspicious and/or confused people will read such articles. You can bring the horse to the stream but you can’t make it drink. There is little indication that the major pope-bashers do read material critical of their views.

Hence, Steve Skojec of One Peter Five infamy blows off anything I write in this area, with utter disdain and mockery. The folks at The Remnant (e.g., Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt) do the same. Taylor Marshall immediately blocked me on his Twitter page, with my first critique of his pathetic book, and continued with personal insults, such as “haters gonna hate”: referring to me in one of his ubiquitous videos. Phil Lawler also was quite rude and insulting when I tried to engage in respectful dialogue with him, after daring (what effrontery!) to critique his book. So was (I’m sad to say) Karl Keating. I could go on, but believe me, all these examples are altogether typical.

The only exceptions I have seen to this “rule” are Peter Kwasniewski, who actually sent me a friend request on MeWe (which I accepted and sent him one in return on Facebook), and Timothy Flanders, an associate of Taylor Marshall and regular columnist at One Peter Five, with whom I have engaged in a succession of excellent and fruitful dialogues. They actually talk to people with views that are different from the ones they themselves hold and recognize very extensive Catholic common ground (just as I never deny that reactionaries are Catholics). Kudos to them for doing so. I sincerely respect that.

Is Fr. Z any different from the pope-bashers who systematically ignore any critique of their attacks? Probably not, judging by his response to Mike Lewis’ recent critique of his views. He stated:

Mr. Lewis, I never look at your site.  I didn’t know it, or you, even existed until quite recently. . . .

Look.  I haven’t spent time at that blog and I absolutely won’t have time to do so in the near future.

Where Peter Is has been in existence for three years. Fr. Z didn’t even know it existed. No doubt he has never heard of me, either, even though I have 50 published books (about half “officially”: not just self-published), and a blog that has over 3,200 articles and has been in existence for 24 years this month. He likely won’t respond to me, either, once he learns that I do exist, and have defended Pope Francis from the beginning (now almost eight years). I would love to be wrong about that. We’ll see! I’m always willing to dialogue with anyone, as long as they remain civil and stay on topic.

In any event, his challenge certainly has been met.

***

Photo credit: Jorel Pi (6-16-08) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

March 4, 2021

March 4, 2021 By

[see book and purchase information]

***

This back-and-forth occurred on my [always public] Facebook page on 3-4 December 2020. Karl Keating was initially responding to my article, Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing (12-3-20). His words will be in blue.

***

I only glanced at Dave’s article–which, I see, is a response to something written as long ago as March 2019! I don’t intend to read the article thoroughly: not enough interest in the topic . . . But, if I were to read Dave’s article, however much I might end up agreeing with his argument, I would remain put off by his name calling: “radical Catholic reactionary.”
*
I have read his justification for using this and other loaded terms, but I still find the justification weak and counterproductive. I wish he’d just stop it. If he wants to call Peter Kwasniewski  a “Traditionalist,” that’s okay, since that term doesn’t carry a heavy sense of opprobrium the way “radical Catholic reactionary” does. The latter phrase immediately tells the reader that Dave isn’t interested in playing fair . . . I long had been unhappy with the way Dave name-called those he opposed–I think even intellectual opponents deserve to be treated respectfully. 
*
I don’t see how an article being 20 months old is relevant to anything, but since you brought it up, my friend Timothy Flanders brought up a citation from Newman that I was unfamiliar with; then later noted that Dr. Kwasniewski cited it in this article. So I replied. I’m weird that way. People ask me questions, and I tend to address them: all the more when it has to do with Cardinal Newman: who has been my hero for thirty years.
*
You comment without even reading the article. As to my coined term, you and I discussed that back in 2012 or 2013 when I coined it [see an example of what was being discussed]. You didn’t find it offensive then; you simply thought a better title could be had. But that’s a long time ago now, when we could simply talk as fellow apologists: back in the days when I defended you and Catholic Answers when I met Michael Voris in person, after he had been blasting you and others for making too much money (so he thought).
*
The term was specifically coined because traditionalists themselves were fed up with being called rad trads (then — if not still — in frequent use at Catholic Answers), and I wanted to find a term which would distinguish legitimate traditionalists from the more extreme faction. In other words, it was out of courtesy to fellow orthodox Catholics.
*
I will continue to treat you with respect as the “father of modern Catholic apologetics”, and recommend your books. But I’m most unimpressed with the ethics of your behavior and moving to the far ecclesiological right over the past few years. Meanwhile, you seem to care less about Dr. Kwasniewski’s grave errors, than you do with my term that classifies what they are.
*
I just added two paragraphs of his to the end, after they were pointed out to me today by Dr. Robert Fastiggi:
*
To Fr. Longenecker’s question, then — “What shall we do about Vatican II?” — I suggest we leave it alone, leave it behind, leave it in peace, along with Lyons I, Lateran V, and other councils you’ve never heard of, and turn our minds and hands to better things ahead: . . .
*
If I might change the conversation, I would say a more pressing question is: “What shall we do about Vatican I?” This past Sunday, December 8, marked the 150th anniversary of the opening of a council that would forever change the way Catholics perceived and interacted with the papacy — the impetus for a runaway hyperpapalism capable of leveling centuries of tradition. In many ways, we are more threatened today by the spirit of Vatican I, which it will take a mighty exorcism to drive away.
*
I guess blasting me publicly and worrying about my terminology is far more important than this outrageous statement from a Catholic, huh Karl?
*
I have been disappointed with the way you treat writers with whom you disagree, whether in few or many things. You have trouble dealing sympathetically with people who don’t follow your party line. Some of them might be completely wrong about something, but even they don’t deserve to be slapped with labels intended to bias readers or to have their arguments poorly represented. I could say more, but there’s no point. I’m not here to argue your characterizations of me or of anyone else. 
*
Labels such as “radical Catholic reactionary” [either that or another one for the same purpose] are 1) necessary for classification and analytical purposes, and 2) simply part and parcel of religious sociology (and the latter was my major in college).
*
You may not like my choice of words, but whether you do or not, and whether you are arguably objectively right about it or not, some sort of words will continue to be used to describe the same group, and nothing would be gained, nor the apologetically crucial and necessary discussion moved forward, even if I denounced and stopped using my own carefully considered choice. I was trying to apply religious sociology, and offered extensive rationales for my usage: that no one (including yourself) has truly seriously interacted with at all, let alone refuted.
*
Before I coined it, probably the most commonly used term was rad trad. In fact, it was a controversy at Catholic Answers that most immediately motivated me to come up with a better term. You don’t like my term; I don’t like rad trad . . . Who’s to say who is right? It has to be discussed. But few — including you — are willing to seriously engage that topic. I am. The problem won’t go away on its own.
*
Other titles previously used were Lefebvrites, ultra-traditionalists, extreme traditionalists [used by both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis], or (one I favored) quasi-schismatics, while we in turn are called by them “neo-Catholics” or “Novus Ordo Catholics” or “Vatican II Catholics” or simply, modernists / liberals (and lately, the delightful “Bergoglians”).
*
The problems of classification and theology won’t go away. You offer no help in the matter (although quite capable of it); you simply trash my use and pretend that it is solely motivated by childish ad hominem tactics. This won’t do, and you’re not gonna get away with your evasive belittling of my serious attempts to grapple with it, as an apologist and amateur sociologist, on my own page.
*
***
*
Related Reading
*

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: Essential Characteristics [2002]

“Radtrad”: Origins, History, & Debates on Definition [3-18-13; rev. 8-1-13 and 8-8-13]

On the Use of “Traditionalist” Preceding the Name of “Catholic”  [7-3-13]

Pope Francis & Pope Benedict XVI Refer to “Extreme Traditionalism” [8-5-13]

Thoughts on the Discarded Term, Radtrad (and on the Discussion About Ditching It, and Attacks on My Sincerity) [8-6-13]

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

“Traditionalist” Concerns Over Labeling and Classifications (Karl Keating’s Word Usage as a “Test Case”) [8-8-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Keating & Double Standards on “Traditionalist” Labeling [6-3-18]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

Definition of “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Dialogue (With Particular Reference to [Traditionalist] Timothy Gordon) [9-6-20]

***
*
Summary: I coined the term, “radical Catholic reactionary” in 2013 precisely in order to differentiate far more extreme self-described “traditionalists” from legitimate, mainstream Catholic traditionalists.
*
***
January 30, 2021

January 30, 2021 By

Steven O’Reilly is a radical Catholic reactionary. He wrote “A Response to Dave Armstrong” on 1-28-21. He thinks Pope Francis is a heretic, even though Vatican I dogmatically declared that such a state of affairs is in fact impossible. This is my reply.

*****

Instead, Mr. Armstrong pointed me to Dr. Fastiggi. Why, therefore, should I care about Mr. Armstrong’s opinion?

Exactly! I agree with this: you shouldn’t care about my opinion at all, since you think I am in “denial” and am not an apologist, and am merely a Francis toady. I submit that denying a person is what he has professionally been for nineteen years is at least as insulting as the description “reactionary”: which I defend at great length in many articles (you or anyone else are welcome to critique those).

Yet here you are again trying to press me into a discussion about the same ol’ thing that I answered three or four times. I wrote [in past replies to Steven]:

I answered in my first reply: “I leave those fine-tuned questions mostly to theologians.” I read what they say and I have posted the ones I agree with. Bottom line: [Amoris Laetitia] is orthodox and wholly in line with previous tradition.

Fine points are for moral theologians, and neither you nor I are that.

I stand by everything he [Dr. Fastiggi] argues. He’s a personal friend of mine, and of unimpeachable orthodoxy.

If Bob disagrees with Walford, then I agree with him. It’s as simple as that. Dr. Fastiggi is editor of the revised Denzinger and Ott both. He’s the man for systematic theology, in my opinion.

[see Dr. Fastiggi’s articles defending the theological and moral orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia: one / two / three / four]

You were obviously banned because you were trolling: beating this dead horse that I answered over and over. That’s not discussion. And it would pollute my blog if I let it prevail. That violates my discussion policy.

My opinion today remains exactly the same. So why you are trying to goad me into a discussion is a mystery. If I had more to add to the topic I certainly would. But I don’t. If that is another mark against me in your book, then so be it.

As to my being able to interact with those of a reactionary opinion: I have engaged in now seven lengthy dialogues over a year-and-a-half with Timothy Flanders, who is a regular columnist at One Peter Five and associate of Taylor Marshall (who instantly banned me on his Twitter page at my first disagreement with him, — just as he bans and disses even fellow reactionaries — after recommending my books on his site for years). See:

Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall

Dialogue w Ally of Taylor Marshall, Timothy Flanders

Dialogue w 1P5 Writer Timothy Flanders: Introduction

Dialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency?

Is Vatican II Analogous to “Failed” Lateran Council V?

Dialogue #6 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders

Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders

I hear now that Timothy is writing a book about cooperation between traditionalists [actually, what I would call “reactionary”] and “conservative” [what I would call simply “orthodox”] Catholics. I think he will almost certainly draw from our dialogues in that effort. I’m delighted to see it. He’s a class act.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski recently sought to be a friend at MeWe and I accepted his request (and I just sent him a friend request on Facebook, too). We have dialogued in the past. I informed him of several replies to his writing over the last year or two and he ignored them (while continuing to occasionally reference me in his articles). Perhaps he has had a change of heart now and we can resume our dialogues.

I tried to engage in dialogue with Phil Lawler. He had no interest (because I disagreed with his book). Karl Keating (whom I do not consider a reactionary) blasted me about my use of “reactionary” recently. So I said that we should have a discussion about it. He wasn’t interested. One detects a certain pattern there, doesn’t one?

So you see that I am indeed open to dialogue with reactionaries, as long as it doesn’t descend to a silly personal level and/or is not obnoxious and drone-like, as this effort of yours continues to be. I don’t get goaded into worthless “dialogues.” But if there is great constructive discussion to be had: such as with Timothy Flanders, I’m all for it. The more the merrier . . .

Thanks for letting me air my opinion and God bless.

***

Photo credit: cover of Steven O’Reilly’s book at its page on Amazon.com.

***

January 11, 2021

January 11, 2021 By

All of the following verbal diarrhea took place on his Twitter page, on 1-11-21:

*****

Steve Skojec says that he doesn’t “profess the same faith as Francis” and that if a Catholic must profess the same faith as the supreme head of the Church, then, by golly, he’s “not in communion with him.” And he’s not because the pope is not “in communion with the Church.”

He thinks the pope is “a heretic.”

He pontificates that the pope “doesn’t adhere to the same religious beliefs” that Catholics have and is “arguably not really Catholic.” And he expresses this rotgut even while knowing full well that “The Church says things like this can’t happen.” Yet they do, anyway. Yeah, I can’t figure it out, either. Maybe I should stop trying . . .

He complains that we poor, put-upon Catholics are burdened by having to believe in the quaint doctrine of the indefectibility of Church and pope “rather than our eyes and minds.” At least he has wits enough to acknowledge that this is “a problem.”

He believes it’s so bad in the One True Church established by Christ by His commissio0ning of St. Peter as pope that “everything that matters” has “changed. “

He is frustrated in not being “allowed to think” that indefectibility is not a true and required doctrine for all Catholics to adhere to.

He’s starting to seriously question the old-fashioned notion that “the Church can’t be wrong” in its proclaimed doctrines.

* * * * * * * *

You heard it here first, folks (and in many previous posts of mine about Skojec and his dangerous foolishness). I’ve seen this outcome for at least two years now. He’s headed for SSPX or sedevacantism or Anglicanism. He can’t survive with this extreme amount of internal contradiction and cognitive dissonance.

Yes, the Church requires belief in indefectibility of the Church and the pope (for the latter, see Vatican I, “Pastor aeternus”). He clearly doesn’t believe in either. He has outright stated it as regards the pope and Vatican II, and is just a hair away from saying it about the Church as well.

Radical Catholic reactionaries like Skojec are always on the edge of denying ecclesial indefectibility (I have noted this for over 20 years).

Related Reading

The Reactionary Mantra of My Supposed “Change” [5-28-16]

*
*
*
*
*
*
***
December 8, 2020

December 8, 2020 By
[all quotations from my pseudo-“critics” are from Twitter]
Steve Skojec (Oct 21): I’m super duper looking forward to watching Catholic theologians and apologists making excuses for this over the next week. It’s going to be yet another strong showing for the Technical Justification Squad.
This was the controversy over same-sex civil unions, which has now been thoroughly covered by several people. Here was my article on it:
 
It goes without saying that none of them were even seriously examined, as far as I can tell, let alone refuted by the reactionary luminaries.
Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): I am sure the folks at “Where Peter Is?” are busy typing up their articles on this. 
Blue Collar Uniate (Oct 21): Can’t forget to include Dave Armstrong. He might beat them to the punch and have published book before noon.
*
Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): Yes… He’ll write an article about the “rad trads”, “reactionaries”, etc…and whatever crazy labels he has, used to avoid the real arguments. DA is in denial. But…I see him red pilling before the WPI folks, or Walford, etc., who are the Francis bitter enders.
 
Steve Skojec (Oct 21): Super@DaveArmstrong58 is well into “intentionally stupid” territory at this point. I can’t imagine it’s helping to sell his books, but that’s none of my business.
Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): I have no doubt a day of reckoning for the Francis years will come. A future pope will anathematize him in my humble opinion. When that day comes, “apologists” such as Dave, and WPI will be seen for what they were. Francis toadies.
This is our lovely, almost utopian, idyllic postmodernist culture that we live in today. Everything is echo chambers and private bubbles, backslapping rah-rahs and preaching to the choir. If anyone dares dissent or disagree, above all, we must never interact with them. That would never do. Instead, it’s all mockery and “feeding frenzy” insults. Lie about others supposedly refusing to engage in “real arguments” while you yourself hypocritically exemplify that very shortcoming.
 
Meanwhile, in the past week I engaged in very good dialogue for now the seventh time in a series, with Timothy Flanders, who writes regularly at Skojec’s site, One Peter Five:
*
Dialogue #7 w 1P5 Columnist Timothy Flanders (12-1-20)
 
A key section of the above post was edited down as: Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding?
 
Timothy himself asked me about a Cardinal Newman citation, noted by reactionary and Skojec pal Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, so I addressed that in great depth:
*
Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing (12-3-20)
 
I followed this up with an analysis of Kwasniewski’s rejection now of Vatican I (not just II):
*

Peter Kwasniewski: Gotta Exorcise Vatican I (1870) (12-4-20)

“Exorcise” was Dr. Kwasniewski’s own chosen term, by the way, not mine.
*

Now — agree or disagree — all of these are substantive, vigorously argued papers on the topics. But it’ll be a cold day in hell before Skojec, O’Reilly, or Kwasniewski himself ever seriously address the arguments therein. Only Timothy Flanders so far has done so (to his eternal credit). Only he shows any interest in dialoguing with a critic of these ideas. Yet I’m the one ludicrously accused of trying to “avoid the real arguments” and of being “in denial” and being “intentionally stupid.” Dr. Kwasniewski sent an insult my way almost exactly a year ago:

Those who broach such issues are not engaged in a serious way, but are written off as “radical Catholic reactionaries” whom everyone should be strong-armed — or Armstronged? — to avoid like the plague. I suppose that’s one way to deal with uncomfortable truths, but it’s not recommended for those seeking the real causes of today’s crisis.

I replied, in my post four days ago, with no less than eleven examples of reactionaries and reactionary sites (that invariably ban me) utterly ignoring my arguments; well, twelve including Kwasniewski, who now refuses to defend his views, too. It’s pure, unmixed hypocrisy. I’m clearly perceived as a big critic of their movement: — the big boogeyman — , or else they wouldn’t drop my name and lob the insults so often. They know it. Hence, they mention the excellent site Where Peter Is (stalwart defenders of the Holy Father) in their insults above, but when they want to note one person who opposes them, it’s my name, for some reason, that so often comes up.

But they want no part of any serious reply to my critiques. It’s not in their interest. It’s not in the plan. Any criticism has to be utterly ignored (Democrat-style and anti-Catholic Protestant-style) as un-“serious”. To address them in effect grants to them an ordinary respectability, and reactionaries will avoid that like the plague, because then they would have the intellectual burden of having to defend their dubious and indefensible views. See how it works?

I say, put up or shut up. But at least — if nothing else — we can enjoy the entertainment of the high comedy of the above schtick, while these folks continue to run from, mock, and utterly ignore any substantive and/or comprehensive arguments against their quasi-schismatic positions.

*

***
*
Photo credit: Peter Kwasniewski (left) with Steve Skojec, posted on the latter’s Twitter site on 12-5-20.
*
***
December 4, 2020

December 4, 2020 By

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a radical Catholic reactionary writer and speaker. His words will be in blue.

*****

“What shall we do about Vatican I?” This past Sunday, December 8, marked the 150th anniversary of the opening of a council that would forever change the way Catholics perceived and interacted with the papacy — the impetus for a runaway hyperpapalism capable of leveling centuries of tradition. In many ways, we are more threatened today by the spirit of Vatican I, which it will take a mighty exorcism to drive away. (“The Second Vatican Council Is Now Far Spent,” One Peter Five, 12-11-19)

This is a remarkable and striking development within the reactionary movement, but it’s also quite predictable if one ponders it a bit, as I shall argue below. People usually think consistently within their own paradigm, so that if they go down one wrong road, they will also go down several more that flow from the same false premise(s). I’ve been making two related points for many years now:

1) If a person habitually bashes and trashes a sitting pope (which Catholics by nature ought not do), then he or she will start bashing other popes besides the current one, as well.

2) If a person habitually bashes and trashes popes, then by the same “diabolical logic” he or she will start trashing the other (and most recent) largest source of authority in the extraordinary magisterium: the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

We’ve seen both of these tendencies come to pass before our eyes, in the increasing bashing of Popes Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II and St. Paul VI in particular (even among those who are not reactionaries: just so-called “conservative” Catholics), and also St. John XXIII: in other words, all of the “post-Vatican II popes.” I won’t even document instances here. They can be found on my Traditionalists & Reactionaries page and Papacy & Infallibility page (search their names), and on my Church page (search Vatican II); also in my collection of defenses of Pope Francis (now numbering 181).

Now this new element is starting to creep in, and it makes sense, once the quasi-schismatic and anti-authoritarian nature of the reactionary mindset is properly and fully understood. It’s a Luther-like (i.e., Protestant-like) and liberal Catholic-like aversion to binding Church authority, in the form of popes and councils. Holy Mother Church teaches us that these are infallible, generally speaking: lots of complexities and nuances in the application.

But those who champ at the bit against authority willfully rebelled against popes and councils. Luther made it a plank of his entire revolution that they contradicted themselves, hence, were not infallible, and — following the logic through — were therefore not in the final analysis part of the rule of faith. Only Scripture was a final and infallible guide (sola Scriptura). That was actually the biggest sea-change of the Protestant Revolt: far more than faith alone / sola fide (because Catholicism actually agreed far more with Protestants on grace and justification and soteriology, than they realized.

Liberal and nominal Catholics think similarly, since in their tragic lack of supernatural faith they disavow both an inspired Scripture and infallible popes and councils. They dismissed Vatican II by simply — cleverly — talking more about its supposed “spirit” than its actual documents and complete continuity with existing Catholic tradition. Orthodoxy accepts the authority of ecumenical councils, but only the first seven; then it arbitrarily dismisses any others past that time (the eighth century). And of course, it rejects papal supremacy and infallibility, granting the bishop of Rome only a more or less egalitarian “primacy of honor.”

So we see the spectacle now of reactionaries deliberately trashing and undermining the authority, not just of Vatican Two, but of Vatican One (1870). They have a motive to go after it (rather than the still sacred and unimpeachable Trent, in their eyes), because it specifically defined papal infallibility. Now, when that occurred, it meant that there was relatively more authority residing in the papacy, and since they tend to dislike papal authority, this would then become a “negative” thing in their eyes.

But in fact, it really changed little or nothing, because, like all doctrinal developments, the proclamation of papal infallibility only dogmatized at the highest level what was already very extensively understood and practiced for many centuries, and in kernel form, from the very beginning of the Church.

The other thing that would bother a reactionary about Vatican I is the fact that its decree on papal infallibility (Pastor aeternus) also made explicit and clear — here is its most egregious error or “trend-setting” mark in their eyes — that popes cannot fall into heresy (i.e., papal indefectibility); certainly not, particularly, in the sense of proclaiming heresies to be truths and binding Catholics to them. I now have two (I think, very important in their topic) articles about this on my blog:

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]

If a pope can’t fall into or teach heresy (so dogmatized Vatican I), then this virtually makes a mockery of the massive currently fashionable bandwagon of trashing and questioning Pope Francis at every turn, doesn’t it? It’s like the dramatic removal of the entire limb that the bashers are sitting way out on, in the giant “tree” of the anti-Francis movement. Once it’s removed, they all come crashing down, along with their false notions and slanders of the pope: complaining and wailing all the way down.

So they must now find a way to start undermining and trashing Vatican I. And so what does quintessential reactionary Dr. Kwasniewski do? He starts talking about the odious, reprehensible “spirit of Vatican I” (his exact words!), which “will take a mighty exorcism to drive away.” He even shamelessly threw in other councils, too, in his disdainful, most un-Catholic dismissal of conciliar authority:

I suggest we leave it [Vatican II] alone, leave it behind, leave it in peace, along with Lyons I, Lateran V, and other councils you’ve never heard of, and turn our minds and hands to better things ahead . . . 

We must, then, add a third defining element to the current sad, pathetic development of reactionary error and rebellion against Holy Mother Church and Sacred Tradition:

3) If a reactionary habitually bashes and trashes the Second Vatican Council, then they will also go on to trash other councils: above all, Vatican I, since it made dogma the truth that popes can never be heretics, which undermines and demolishes the entire papal-bashing premise and primary outward characteristic — and arguably the essence — of the radical Catholic reactionary outlook. 

The reactionaries even have an historical model of rejection of Vatican I that they can draw inspiration from: German hyper-rationalist historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, who outright rejected the decree on papal infallibility, and was excommunicated. He went on to head the schismatic breakaway group called “Old Catholics”, which had precursors going back to the 16th century. It continues on today, with membership of about 115,000.

By the way, here are some of the current beliefs of the “Old Catholic Church”: which supposedly was dedicated to preserving apostolic tradition in its entirety, over against the alleged unacceptable “innovations” of Vatican I:

Christ-Catholic Swiss bishop Urs Küry dismissed the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation because this Scholastic interpretation presumes to explain the Eucharist using the metaphysical concept of “substance”. Like the Orthodox approach to the Eucharist, Old Catholics, he says, ought to accept an unexplainable divine mystery as such and should not cleave to or insist upon a particular theory of the sacrament. Because of this approach, Old Catholics hold an open view to most issues, including the role of women in the Church, the role of married people within ordained ministry, the morality of same sex relationships, the use of conscience when deciding whether to use artificial contraception, and liturgical reforms such as open communion. Its liturgy has not significantly departed from the Tridentine Mass, as is shown in the translation of the German altar book (missal).

In 1994 the German bishops decided to ordain women as priests, and put this into practice on 27 May 1996. Similar decisions and practices followed in Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In 2020, the Swiss church also voted in favour of same-sex marriage. Marriages between two men and two women will be conducted in the same manner as heterosexual marriages. The UU allows those who are divorced to have a new marriage in the church, and has no particular teaching on abortion, leaving such decisions to the married couple. (Wikipedia)

There you have it, folks: pure liberal Protestantism; basically liberal Episcopalianism with Tridentine liturgy to make it falsely appear as “traditional.” Yet in a gathering in Munich in 1871, the stated goals of the schism were, among other things, “adherence to the ancient Catholic faith” and “rejection of new Catholic dogmas.” We see how well they have preserved those worthy goals. My, how things change, huh?

Yesterday I critiqued a pitiful attempt by Dr. Kwasniewski (who edited a book of Newman quotations last year) to enlist St. John Henry Cardinal Newman as a fellow enemy of Vatican I. He miserably failed, and it was an exercise of sophistry from A to Z. It was Newman who excoriated and refuted the grave and wrongheaded hyper-rationalistic errors of Döllinger and explicated exactly how and why he had gone off the tracks. Reactionaries today are following Döllinger’s lead, not Newman’s. Newman fully accepted Vatican I and papal infallibility as a highest-level dogma: since he had accepted papal infallibility even as an Anglican, and very firmly since his reception into the Church in 1845.

On a humorous note, I just discovered that I was mentioned in the same article:

Those who broach such issues are not engaged in a serious way, but are written off as “radical Catholic reactionaries” whom everyone should be strong-armed — or Armstronged? — to avoid like the plague. I suppose that’s one way to deal with uncomfortable truths, but it’s not recommended for those seeking the real causes of today’s crisis.

This is ridiculously laughable. I just finished my seventh installment of an ongoing dialogue with Timothy Flanders, who regularly writes for One Peter Five, where this article of Dr. Kwasniewski’s was published, and who is an associate of Taylor Marshall. We have gotten along with perfect cordiality, finding a fair degree of common ground as we communicate back and forth and listen to each other. I have a great deal of personal respect for him. Yet he basically holds the same views as Dr. Kwasniewski. He’s simply willing to dialogue about them and make common ground with non-traditionalist, passionately orthodox Catholics like myself (one who feels a great affinity to many emphases and beliefs of traditionalists). I think it’s a fabulous and constructive dialogue: one of my favorites I’ve ever been in (and I’ve been involved in well over a thousand by now, in 23 years of constant online apologetics, and another 16 years of apologetics before that).

Because of the almost complete unwillingness of reactionaries to dialogue, I’m banned at The Remnant and One Peter Five and Lifesite News. Steve Skojec treats me with the utmost contempt and mockery. Dialogue? What a joke . . . Taylor Marshall immediately banned me from his Twitter page as soon as I dared disagree with his book, even though he had highly recommended my work for years, and even carried an ad for it for several years on his site. Anytime you wanna talk, Taylor, I’m here . . . Phil Lawler, whose pope-trashing book I have critiqued (though I don’t classify him as a reactionary), engaged in very brief discussion with me, then decided he shouldn’t continue, and falsely accused me of absurd things that never happened. Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt at The Remnant treat me with dripping disdain and wholesale mockery.

Dr. Janet Smith, who has become increasingly reactionary in the last few years, wasn’t willing to dialogue with me about it. I appeared on her Facebook page a few times, but she quickly became hostile and personally insulting and made it clear I was no longer welcome. So I split. Takes two . . . Dr. Eduardo Echeverria first wrote to me regarding his recent book, where he turned against Pope Francis, asking if I’d like to review it (I had reviewed his earlier, pro-Francis version). I said I’d rather engage in public dialogue. He had no interest in that, and only wanted to chat in a restaurant, which is fine — and the exchange was at least cordial — , but I also wanted to have a serious dialogue in public, too. Again, takes two . . . Timothy Gordon commented on my blog after I noted that Taylor Marshall had cast him to the wind, and seemed to be open to dialogue, which I said I was quite pleased to enter into. I followed up several times but nothing has happened. Maybe Dr. Kwasniewski got to him and advised him to avoid me like the plague.

Need I go on with the endless examples? That’s eleven altogether typical ones, and Dr. Kwasniewski himself makes it a dirty dozen. At every turn, it seems, reactionaries — usually self-described as “traditionalists” — (with the very notable and refreshing exception of Timothy Flanders), are unwilling to engage in dialogue. This includes Dr. Kwasniewski, who used to dialogue with me (and I always thought that he was personally a friendly guy): who has no interest anymore to talk to me at all. Yet here he is accusing me of being the one unwilling to interact and talk. It’s the exact opposite of the truth. I’m here anytime he (or any other anti-Francis, anti-Vatican II — and I — reactionary) wants to defend his dubious viewpoints: regarding this article or my last one or any other. Bring it on! But, dear reader, don’t hold your breath waiting for him to do so. I would say it’s about as likely as the Second Coming taking place next week.

Along these lines, Fr. Longenecker still believes in the “hermeneutic of continuity” between the premodern Church and the Church of Vatican II. This hermeneutic died when Pope Benedict resigned. That act of abandoning the flock to the wolves symbolized the practical and theoretical abandonment of this vision of harmony (“if only we could just read what the 16 documents actually say!”) and its replacement by the more sober realization that the Council chose accommodation to the mind and modes of modernity over clear continuity with tradition. We are now reaping the rotten fruits of that choice. [my bolding; Pope Benedict is a bum and a liar, to boot . . . ]

We can see, moreover, the full magnitude of the evils that remained in the Church in spite of, and at times because of, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, . . . [gotta get St. John Paul in there too: with the obligatory non-use of “St.”!]

Remember what I wrote above about the reactionaries going after other popes prior to Francis? . . . this is textbook.

The architects of the Council, who, lucky for us, wrote and spoke freely about their intentions, were trying rather to domesticate the Modernism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, to make it mainstream and acceptable . . . 

That is, Vatican II was flat-out modernist . . .

There’s a lot more untrue slop in this article. I don’t have the patience to address all of it at the moment (I’m a human being, and not an infinitely patient one).

But mark my words: the reactionary mindset / mentality / movement has now moved beyond Pope Francis-bashing to the bashing of all popes since St. John XXIII: which has great similarities to the position (in this regard) of the sedevacantists and SSPX. They’ve moved beyond Vatican II-bashing, to Vatican I bashing: because the latter, in its declaration on papal infallibility and indefectibility, most assuredly doesn’t fit in with its agenda, and so must be discarded (or, more subtly and cleverly, ignored or minimized).

It just keeps getting worse and worse. And as it does, and as some of you now skeptical of my opinions begin to accept them, due to actual events and opinions rendered, please remember me in your prayers and realize that I tried to warn you (and the larger Church) about this, and analyze it, when very few others were willing to do so.

I predicted that they would start trashing Pope Benedict XVI, their former darling and “savior.” They did. Now it’s quite “fashionable” in their ranks. I predicted that they would increasingly go after Vatican II. They did (now we have bishops Vigano and Schneider expressly disavowing it). I didn’t predict this current urge to also diss Vatican I, but it fits the pattern perfectly (I see that clearly now) and I have laid it bare in this paper for all to see. Stay tuned: it will get worse (I do predict that), in all these tendencies. Once one goes down a wrong theological / spiritual path, it never gets better short of a full repentance and reversal. Pray for all these people, and pray for the millions who are, — or will be in the future –, tragically misled and extensively harmed by them.

***

Follow-Up Reading

“The Pope’s Boundenness to Tradition as a Legislative Limit: Replying to Ultramontanist Apologetics”—Full Text of Dr. Kwasniewski’s Denver Lecture (7-31-21)

Peter Kwasniewski vs. Papal Authority (Ron Conte, The Reproach of Christ, 8-3-21)

***

Photo credit: Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

December 3, 2020

December 3, 2020 By

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a radical Catholic reactionary writer and speaker. I am replying to his article, “Pope Francis to canonize a cardinal who criticized a Vatican Council and hoped for ‘another pope’” (Lifesite News, 3-12-19). His words will be in blue; those of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in green.

*****

Newman was anxious about such corruption taking place at the First Vatican Council concerning the proposed definition of papal infallibility—a belief on which he thought the less said, the better, not because he did not accept the pope as the God-given teacher of Christians and the final court of appeal, but because he knew that a party of “ultramontanes” was busy pushing a theologically unsound, philosophically unreasonable, historically untenable, and ecclesiastically damaging version of papal inerrancy that threatened to confuse the pope’s office with divine revelation itself, rather than seeing him more modestly as the guardian of tradition and the arbiter of controversy.

This much is true, and I have no quibble with it. It’s important to understand the following six things regarding Cardinal Newman and the First Vatican Council: particularly Pastor aeternus, which defined papal infallibility at the highest magisterial and dogmatic level:

1) Newman had accepted papal infallibility for many years before this: even stretching back to his Anglican days before 1845 (as I have thoroughly documented, over against anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists who groundlessly claimed otherwise).

2) He was an inopportunist as to the definition, even though he believed in the doctrine. All that meant was that in his own opinion, the right time had not yet come for the doctrine to be defined ex cathedra. As an analogous example today: I have fully accepted the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix since I converted in 1990 (I’ve enthusiastically defended it probably more than ten times), and indeed it is deeply entrenched in Catholic tradition. But I’m an inopportunist as to its being dogmatically defined. It may be that I’ll change my mind as time goes on. It’s a subjective and spiritual thing. But whatever the Church dogmatically decrees, I accept wholeheartedly in faith and obedience.

3) At the same time, Newman made it clear that if the council in 1870 did define the doctrine, he would bow to its authority, as greater than himself; and in fact he did do this. (“I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it.” — Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter to Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, 24 July 1870 / “I see nothing in the Definition which necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition, or History” — Letter of 27 July 1870 / “the wording of the Dogma has nothing very difficult in it. It expresses what, as an opinion, I have ever held myself with a host of other Catholics.” — Letter to O’Neill Daunt, 7 August 1870 / “Within the last few years I have been obliged to adopt a similar course towards those who said I could not receive the Vatican Decrees. I sent a sharp letter to the Guardian” — Letter to Sir William Henry Cope, 13 February 1875)

4) St. Cardinal Newman was concerned (beforehand and even after Pastor aeternus but before the end of the council) about the extent of the decree as related to papal power and jurisdiction, as Dr. Kwasniewski alluded to above: because of the undue and troubling influence at that time of the Ultramontane party, which wanted a more sweeping definition than actually occurred, by God’s guiding providence.

5) He also excoriated certain aspects of how council members and other advocates in the Catholic world behaved in deliberating upon and promulgating its decrees. This is an altogether distinct question from the decrees themselves, which he accepted. (“I deeply lament the violence which has been used in this matter” — Letter to Mrs. Wilson, 20 October 1870 / “it is impossible to deny that it was done with an imperiousness and overbearing wilfulness, which has been a great scandal” — Letter to Mrs. William Froude, c. Oct. 1871 / “right ends are often prosecuted by very unworthy means” — Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875)

6) Moreover, he was also somewhat concerned after the decree was passed, as to exactly how papal infallibility will be construed, defined in particulars, and exercised in practice.

I shall primarily be dealing with the issue in #6 below, in my reply.

[W]e might find the following excerpt from one of Newman’s letters ironic and timely. On August 21, 1870, a little over a month after the July 18 promulgation of Pastor Aeternus, Newman wrote to his dear friend Ambrose St. John:

I have various things to say about the Definition . . . [T]o me the serious thing is this, that, whereas it has not been usual to pass definition except in case of urgent and definite necessity, this definition, while it gives the Pope power, creates for him, in the very act of doing so, a precedent and a suggestion to use his power without necessity, when ever he will, when not called on to do so. I am telling people who write to me to have confidence—but I don’t know what I shall say to them, if the Pope did so act. And I am afraid moreover, that the tyrant majority [NB: this is how Newman refers to the bishops at Vatican I who voted for the definition!] is still aiming at enlarging the province of Infallibility. I can only say if all this takes place, we shall in matter of fact be under a new dispensation. But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes. Our friends seem to me to have made the fight at Rome something of a game or prize fight—but I may be wrong.

It is striking to see a soon-to-be-canonized saint entertaining such deep misgivings about an ecumenical Council lawfully convoked, about conciliar acts lawfully promulgated, and especially about the reigning Pope, who he hopes will be driven out of Rome or be replaced by a better Pope.

This is an extreme and distorted interpretation of the above, in light of all the many other related things that Cardinal Newman expressed (many of which I will cite below).

Newman, though a saint, was still a human being; saints are not perfect, and he seems (my take) to have had a momentary weakness of faith in this instance, writing to his best friend. He was simply worried (as we all are at times) about how the decree would work out in practice. The Church was on new dogmatic ground (though familiar traditional ground) and no one knew the future. And so Newman worried aloud: “this definition, while it gives the Pope power, creates . . . a precedent and a suggestion to use his power without necessity, . . . I don’t know what I shall say to them, if the Pope did so act.” [my italics and bolding] . . . “the tyrant majority [i.e., Ultramontanes; not necessarily referring only the bishops at the council] is still aiming at enlarging the province of Infallibility.” [my bolding]

In other words, he was concerned that more conciliar proclamations might move the “fine points” and working of papal infallibility in practice beyond where he thought it should go, and beyond that which Church history bore witness to with regard to papal exercise. But it didn’t happen. God was in control. In any event, this is not opposition to the council itself, but rather, fear of possible future less-than-ideal proclamations.

“I can only say if all this takes place, we shall in matter of fact be under a new dispensation.” [my italics and bolding] It had not yet happened, but he envisioned a possible undesired future where it did or could happen. He’s talking only hypotheticals. Famously, even St. Paul mentions a similar scenario in passing: 

1 Corinthians 15:14-20 (RSV) if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. [17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. [20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

It’s quite easy for us, with 150 years of hindsight not to worry about such things, because in God’s providence, popes have not abused the divinely granted and Church-proclaimed power of infallibility, and in fact they have taken the greatest pains to abide by the sensus fidelium and the expressed desires of bishops as well. Only one dogma has been proclaimed at the highest level by a pope since that time: the Bodily Assumption of Mary in 1950. I wrote about this in my paper:

The Papacy & Conciliarity (or, Collegiality): How Popes Routinely Consult & Involve Bishops, Priests, & Laity Prior to Momentous Decrees [9-13-14]

Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, (8 December 1854) in which he defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, noted the sought-after (overwhelming) consensus of the bishops:

[O]n February 2, 1849, we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. . . . 

We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

After consulting theologians Blessed Pope Pius IX consulted 603 bishops and 546 (91%) had responded affirmatively. Four or five thought it couldn’t be defined, 24 were “inopportunists” (i.e., believed that the time was not right, independently of the truth of the doctrine), and ten wanted a more indirect definition.

So in fact he was acting quite collegially and not “autocratically” 16 years before the definition, and Newman need not have worried so much. But he may not have known the facts above, and Pope Pius IX did have, so some think, a certain imperialistic streak.

Ven. Pope Pius XII — following the lead of earlier popes — acted in precisely the same way when he defined the Assumption. According to Alan Schreck (Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1984, 180):

In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. 

That’s no “top-down dictatorship.” It’s anything but. But hindsight is 20-20, as they say. Newman didn’t have this vantage-point in 1870. He was in the midst of perhaps the high-watermark of the Ultramontanes, who seemed like they would get their way. God saw to it that they didn’t.  But we never know what the future will hold. Newman was still concerned how the papal infallibility proclamation would work out “on the ground” and in particulars. Hence, in his diary, Newman wrote in 1870, after the definition was passed:

[N]othing has been passed as to what is meant by ‘ex cathedra’ – and this falls back to the Bishops and the Church to determine quite as much as before. Really therefore nothing has been passed of consequence. (Letters and Diaries, XXV, 219, cited in Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1988, 658)

And in 1872:

[A]s regards the force, limits, and consequents of the recent definitions, we have as yet nothing better to guide us, from the necessity of the case, than the Dublin Review and the Civilta Cattolica. We have yet to learn what is precisely meant by ‘inspiration’, as applied to a book, and in what cases and under what conditions the Pope is infallible. (Letter to Lord Howard of Glossop, 27 April 1872)

This shows what his concern was: the nuts and bolts and different levels of infallibility in the magisterium: which is an extraordinarily complicated issue (which I’ve also dealt with as an apologist: mostly citing others).

Newman, writing on 21 August 1870, while the council was still in session (it adjourned a month later on 20 September 1870), wrote that if the Ultramontane extremists somehow got their way (even after the papal infallibility definition), that “we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope.” It’s all hypotheticals which didn’t come to pass.

Thus, in no way is this analogous to an obstinate quasi-schismatic reactionary like Peter Kwasniewski, who thinks the pope is a heretic, that Vatican II is well-nigh worthless, as is the ordinary form / Pauline / “New” Mass. Newman does none of these things. He accepted what the council taught and was pleased by the new definition. He was worried about further events that never occurred. He had a momentary lapse of faith, which is no sin, or if so, not a serious one.  What Dr. Kwasniewski asserts regarding St. Cardinal Newman are outright falsehoods; bearing false witness:

entertaining such deep misgivings about an ecumenical Council lawfully convoked,

Newman did no such thing, as just shown.

about conciliar acts lawfully promulgated,

Again, he did not do this. If Dr. Kwasniewski disagrees, then let him attempt to prove it.

and especially about the reigning Pope, who he hopes will be driven out of Rome or be replaced by a better Pope.

He was only talking about this IF Blessed Pope Pius IX had exceeded his proclaimed papal power, which he did not do. We can easily see what Cardinal Newman thought of the First Vatican Council and ecumenical councils in general, before and after 1870:

Of course what the General Council speaks is the word of God . . .  (Letter to J. Walker of Scarborough, 10 Nov. 1867)

I have a firm belief, and have had all along, that a Greater power than that of any man or set of men will over-rule the deliberations of the Council to the determination of Catholic and Apostolic truth, and that what its Fathers eventually proclaim with one voice will be the Word of God. (Letter to the editor of The Standard, 15 March 1870)

. . . holding, as I do, the absolute divinity of any formal dogma, which an Ecumenical Council, as a Council, declares . . . (Letter to Sir John Simeon, 24 March 1870)

The Church is the Mother of high and low, of the rulers as well as of the ruled. Securus judicat orbis terrarum. If she declares by her various voices that the Pope is infallible in certain matters, in those matters infallible he is. What Bishops and people say all over the earth, that is the truth, whatever complaint we may have against certain ecclesiastical proceedings. Let us not oppose ourselves to the universal voice. (Letter to Père Hyacinthe, 24 November 1870)

As little as possible was passed at the Council—nothing about the Pope which I have not myself always held. (Letter to Mrs. William Froude, c. Oct. 1871)

I underwent then, no change of mind as regards the truth of the doctrine of the Pope’s infallibility in consequence of the Council.(Letter to the Guardian, 12 September 1872, in reply to John Moore Capes)

[I]ts definition of the Pope’s Infallibility was nothing short of the upshot of numberless historical facts looking that way, and of the multitudinous mind of theologians acting upon them. (LD xxix, 118; Letter to William Froude, 29 April 1879)

All that is supposedly “deep misgivings” about Vatican I? It’s an untrue and outrageous accusation! Can anyone in their right mind imagine a reactionary pope- and council-basher like Dr. Kwasnieski saying:

“I have a firm belief, and have had all along, that a Greater power than that of any man or set of men over-ruled the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council to the determination of Catholic and Apostolic truth, and that what its Fathers proclaimed with one voice was the Word of God.”

“Of course what Vatican II speaks is the word of God . . .”

“Vatican II passed nothing which I have not myself always held.”

“The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are nothing short of the upshot of numberless historical facts looking that way, and of the multitudinous mind of theologians acting upon them.”

Of course they cannot. And what did Cardinal Newman personally think of Blessed Pope Pius IX?:

The Pope treated us as if we were the only people in the world he had to care for. He is a most wonderful Pope. (Letter to William Monsell, 11 Feb. 1856)

The Holy Father himself is a true friend to me and to us . . . (Letter to Edward Bellasis, 6 Nov. 1857)

If ever there was a Pontiff, who had a claim on our veneration by his virtues, on our affection by his personal beating, and on our devotion by his sufferings, whose nature it is to show kindness, and whose portion it is to reap disappointment, it is his present Holiness. If ever a Pope deserved to live in the hearts of his own subjects, and to inspire at home the homage which he commands abroad, it is Pius the Ninth. From the hour that he ascended the throne he has aimed at the welfare of his States, temporal as well as spiritual, and up to this day he has gained in return little else than calumny and ingratitude. How great is his trial! but it is the lot of Popes, as of other men, to receive in their generation the least thanks, where they deserve the most. (Letter to Viscount Feilding, 13 Feb. 1860)

[N]o one can have been more loyal to the Holy See than I am. I love the Pope personally into the bargain. (Letter to Emily Bowles, 19 May 1863)

I believe the Pope is my friend, as he ever has been; but he is besieged by people of all sorts who have ever acted an unfriendly part towards me. (Letter to Mark Pattison, 4 Jan. 1867)

Later, it’s true, according to Newman biographies, that he became critical of the pope, but note that he came to know (unlike in his cited letter above from Dr. Kwasniewski and his temporary human lapse) that God would constrain any personal excesses of papal power:

We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a pope to live 20 years. It is anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, and does cruel things without meaning it. (sometime in 1870-1871; cited in Ker, ibid., p. 659)

The present pope cannot live long — he has lived too long — but, did he live Methusaleh’s age, he could not in his acts go beyond the limit which God has assigned to him — nor has he, though he wished it. (sometime in 1870-1871; cited in Ker, ibid., p. 658; my bolding)

Even so, Pope Pius IX (though an Ultramontane) asked Newman (the very opposite of that) to be a theological consultant at Vatican I. Newman refused, solely due to being too busy with other projects, including the Grammar of Assent.

Of course these real and hypothetical criticisms of the pope are perfectly permissible, and come under the category of the peccability of popes (lack of moral perfection) rather than infallibility (preservation by God from theological error when authoritatively proclaiming and binding the Church to any belief). So they are neither a disproof of Newman’s very high view of popes, nor any support for reactionary quasi-schismatic, quasi-heretical, and false, groundless  charges of heresy made about Pope Francis. Both liberals and reactionaries have tried to enlist St. Cardinal Newman on their side for 130 years, and they invariably fail (believe me, I know, as a Newman devotee and frequent defender). This time is no different.

I myself love Pope Francis and have defended him 180 times. Yet I (somewhat and partially analogous to Newman and Pius IX) have publicly criticized him in at least one non-theological respect having to do with his behavior (the two things are not incompatible at all, because they are apples and oranges):

I am, however, definitely increasingly alarmed at . . . some of his actions (especially dismissals of people) that appear to be imperious and expressive of a dislike even of respectful honest disagreements. (9-24-17)

[H]e seems to be “imperious” in personal manner and management style. (12-29-17)

[H]e is not a perfect human being . . . (12-29-17)

I’ve also stated that he appears to be somewhat “imperious” in demeanor. (4-13-18)

Is Francis perfect? No. Maybe he is imperious, or too scolding. He has faults like all of us. He’s confessing something . . . (5-3-20)

This is the only such personal criticism I have made of Pope Francis, if I recall correctly. And even so I qualify it, to make it clear that I am not positively asserting this, with supposed certainty (“appear[s] to be” / “seems to be” / “Maybe . . .”). Cardinal Newman was, of course, fully aware of these crucial distinctions, and wrote about papal peccability and lack of impeccability:

As to the scandalous lives of some Popes, to which you refer, we not only allow but glory in, as showing the Divine Care of the Church, that, even in the case of those very men, the See of Peter spoke truth, not falsehood – As in Balaam, as in Eli, as in Caiaphas, as in Judas, God was glorified, so has He been glorified, in that respect in which the Pope is His appointed teacher, in Alexander VI and Leo Tenth. They have never spoken false doctrine. But as to the cases of Liberius, Honorius etc, they are doubtful. For myself I do not see that Honorius, any more than Liberius, spoke any heresy ex Cathedra. (Letter to Mrs. Helbert, 10 Sep. 1869)

Doubtless, there is a great deal to deplore in the history of the Popes – but there is a bright side as well as a dark – and the bright side is, to say the least, as prominent as the dark. Protestant historians acknowledge it, and have expressed their admiration of the Popedom as an institution, and have been grateful for its beneficial operation and influence as sincerely as Catholics. . . . I detest many things historically connected with the Popes as much as you can; – but what I feel is this, that a Universal Church cannot, by the laws of human society, be held together without a head. (Letter to Anna Whitty, 9 Sep. 1870)

Even Caiphas prophesied; and Gregory XIII was not quite Caiphas. (Letter to the Editor of The Times, 9 September 1872)

The temporal prosperity, success, talent, renown of the papacy did not make me a Catholic, and its errors and misfortunes have no power to unsettle me. (Letter to John Rickards Mozley, 4 April 1875)

Infallibility and impeccability are ideas altogether separable. (Letter to Robert Charles Jenkins, 2 Dec. 1875)

No actions of a Pope are infallible, even St. Peter committed an act of dissimulation [Gal 2:11-13]. (Letter to Mrs. William Robinson Clark, 27 Sep. 1876)

Those who today have misgivings about the convoking of Vatican II by John XXIII, about various and sundry elements in the sixteen conciliar documents issued under Paul VI, and about the conduct of Pope Francis may take comfort in knowing that such difficulties of mind and problems of conscience are not incompatible with the Catholic Faith or with the foundational virtues of humility and obedience. 

Not on the basis of the example of Cardinal Newman: who said nothing at all against the conciliar decrees of Vatican I. When he did criticize Blessed Pope Pius IX in the latter’s later years, it was on a behavioral basis, not a theological one (which should be rare and by the right people, but is permissible). He didn’t accuse him of being a heretic, or of deliberately guiding the Church in the wrong direction, as the reactionaries habitually treat Pope Francis: uncharitably assuming that he is some sort of theological ignoramus. Cardinal Newman merely had a moment of weakness that was contradicted by what he said on the same topics before and after. Dr. Kwasniewski can’t enlist Newman for his unworthy quasi-schismatic cause.

Rather than making this failed argument, Dr. Kwasniewski ought to ponder his seeming disbelief in the indefectibility of the pope, which Vatican I made abundantly clear in Pastor aeternus. He’s guilty of not only approaching closely to schism, but also heresy. I’ve written about this twice now:

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]

In extreme contrast to Cardinal Newman’s pious and orthodox views, Dr. Kwasniewski not only rejects Pope Francis and Vatican II, but (no surprise to me), also Vatican I and several other earlier ecumenical councils. He actually wrote the following outrageous comment in an article dated 12-11-19):

To Fr. Longenecker’s question, then — “What shall we do about Vatican II?” — I suggest we leave it alone, leave it behind, leave it in peace, along with Lyons I, Lateran V, and other councils you’ve never heard of, and turn our minds and hands to better things ahead: . . . 

If I might change the conversation, I would say a more pressing question is: “What shall we do about Vatican I?” This past Sunday, December 8, marked the 150th anniversary of the opening of a council that would forever change the way Catholics perceived and interacted with the papacy — the impetus for a runaway hyperpapalism capable of leveling centuries of tradition. In many ways, we are more threatened today by the spirit of Vatican I, which it will take a mighty exorcism to drive away.

***

ADDENDUM: It turns out that Dr. Kwasniewski has edited a 524-page book of Newman quotations (I have edited three: one / two / three, which add up to 1072 pages). This suggests a good working knowledge of Cardinal Newman’s thinking, which makes it all the more reprehensible for him to charge Cardinal Newman with the same serious mistakes that he makes regarding council and popes. Cardinal Newman can no more be fit into the “reactionary” hole than he can be forced into the “theological liberal” category.

***

Photo credit: Pope Pius IX (c. 1864) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Jesus' Resurrection and the Laws of...
Formation Matters
2
Eucharist Revival, Not Culture War
A Little Bit of Nothing
3
Pope Francis On What Is Missing...
Formation Matters
4
Infinite Dignity: Seemingly Opposed Theologies Come...
Formation Matters
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Do You Have a Religion of Fear?
Fish (Gospel for 14 Apr., 2024)
Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper
Mexican President AMLO Defends Santa Muerte
How are Ownership and Stewardship Different?
Love, Not Debate, Is The Way
view all Catholic blogs