Catholic social media is still abuzz over the recent Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles published by the Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith, and few commenters, it seems, are receiving it with “an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.” (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)
Trad, Inc.’s reaction to the text in particular has been especially valuable in shining the light of truth and clarity – for those sincerely seeking as much – on an otherwise dark and confusing situation, one that extends well beyond the DDF’s assault on Marian piety.
This brings us to the whimsical tale of Peter Pelican and the Bright Red Line.
Peter Pelican picked apart a peck of papal papers. A peck of papal papers, Peter Pelican picked. If Peter Pelican picked apart a peck of papal papers, how many papal papers did Peter Pelican pick?
Just kidding! Unfortunately, what we’re about to examine isn’t a silly little children’s rhyme, but rather a real life story about how sincere persons are unwittingly being led astray.
Concerning “the language of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces” as found in the DDF Note, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski wrote:
This language has been very carefully explored, explained, and justified by a formidable number of theologians. It has been used by a string of popes. It is hallowed by liturgical and devotional usage. It’s not eligible for cancellation.
This being so, according to Peter, where the document stated that such titles are inappropriate, “it crosses a bright red line.”
Did you get that?
Evidently, Peter understands that those teachings that are found in the papal magisterium of “a string of popes” are authoritative, they are irrevocable (or as he put it, ineligible for cancellation), and what’s more, they are binding in the sense that they draw a bright red line beyond which the faithful, clerics included, dare not cross without breaching the confines of Catholic truth.
He is, of course, entirely correct, but one of the things that stands out most is the fact that he doesn’t attempt to substantiate his claim by declaring that the Marian titles under discussion are infallible. This is noteworthy.
You see, Peter has a history of operating under the assumption that unless a given teaching is solemnly taught as infallible, all are free to debate it and perhaps even to reject it out of hand. For example, he has long been on record claiming that canonizations are not infallible and thus are open to being picked apart, ridiculed, and rejected.
In fact, just days before Jorge Bergoglio (a man that Peter insists was a true pope) “canonized” Giovanni Batista Montini (a man that Peter also insists was a true pope), Peter penned an article titled: Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’
He justified this opinion in an interview with Eric Sammons, saying:
The majority opinion is that canonizations are infallible, but that’s not solemnly taught by the Church and there is, therefore, a debate that can be had between the majority and the minority positions.
Note that the majority opinion in this case includes not only many of the Church’s venerable pre-conciliar theologians (aka manualists), but also the witness of holy popes and Doctors. (See HERE for an extensive discussion of the topic.)
Even so, Peter believes that simply because the matter hasn’t been formally settled by way of a solemn declaration, he is free to publicly voice his dissenting opinion.
And yet, with respect to the titles of Our Lady, Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, despite not being solemnly taught by the Church, Peter now insists that the matter is settled. At the same time, however, he also said in his interview with Eric Sammons (linked above), “The ordinary papal magisterium can be in error.”
Why the inconsistency?
The answer is simple. Inconsonant theological thinking is precisely what one might expect of those who routinely take a stand against the (allegedly) authoritative magisterium of the men they call pope. In other words, they act as their own rule of faith.
Now, don’t get me wrong. One does very well to reject the so-called magisterium of such men as Paul VI, Leo XIV, and every papal poser in between. Doing so while insisting that these men are true Roman Pontiffs, however, is another matter altogether. In fact, this behavior is absolutely antithetical to Catholicism.
The “solution” is at once simple and, evidently, painful (better stated, costly) to admit: Every single one of the post-conciliar characters who have laid dubious claim to the Roman Pontificate, each in their own way publicly manifested a false faith, namely, the conciliar faith [sic] as opposed to the Catholic faith. As such, these men were no more guarantors of the Church’s unity of faith, as all true popes are, than the man in the moon.
In any case, this isn’t just a Peter Kwasniewski problem, far from it; this decidedly un-Catholic manner of behaving is endemic to the entire Resist-the-Pope movement. In other words, the Pelican pond itself is contaminated with a Protestant view of the papacy:
It’s good when I agree with it, it’s evil when I don’t.
Before we move on, one notes that the Paul VI canonization (so-called) took place seven years and two putative popes ago. And so, one wonders:
Is there a point in time when Peter, according to his own stated principles, will be compelled to declare: The name ‘St. Paul VI’ has been used by a string of popes. It even has its own liturgical feast day. It must, therefore, be considered ineligible for cancellation!
Even more illustrative of the inconsistencies that characterize the Resist-the-Pope movement concerns Peter’s public criticism of Vatican Council II. In his conversation with Eric Sammons, he said:
There are real problems in the formulations of some Vatican II documents. Dignitatis humanae certainly. Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism, which doesn’t clearly talk about the conversion of Protestants back to the Catholic faith or the Orthodox for that matter. And certainly Nostra Aetate about Christians and Muslims adoring the same God.
According to the “string of popes” criteria, however – which in this case includes no less than half-a-dozen claimants to the Roman Pontificate, each of whom have interpreted and implemented the Council’s teachings in ways that contradict the true faith – it would seem that the Vatican II documents also stand behind a bright red line, ineligible for cancellation.
And yet, he has no problem picking the Council apart.
Arguably, given that Peter and many of his collaborators in the Resist-the-Pope movement consider Vatican II to have been a valid ecumenical council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, his posture toward its teachings is even more egregious than the anti-Marian antics of Tucho & Co. (the CEO of which is Leo) and their treatment of Our Lady.
About Leo’s role in the Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles, Peter wrote:
And for those who nervously say: “But the pope approved it (even if not in forma specifica), and so it’s Leo’s, not Tucho’s!,” I reply: whatever else this document is, if it repeats traditional teaching then it can be accepted, and where it deviates, it cannot be accepted.
The mere suggestion that Tucho (or any other conciliar church Dicastery head) is able to act as a free agent without sanction from the man-in-white is patently absurd. I suppose the good news with respect to those who might suggest as much is that they realize, at least of some level, that a true pope simply cannot be a party to a text that deviates from authentic Catholic tradition.
And so the question must be asked: How does one most certainly determine what is, and what is not, a traditional teaching that can be accepted? [HINT: It doesn’t require a subscription to Pelican+ to find out.]
The inconvenient answer – for the Resist-the-Pope movement anyway – is ultimately to be found in that rascally papal magisterium of the true popes. But this poses a problem for men like Peter since he believes that the papal magisterium “can be in error.” The result is a vicious cycle that begins and ends in the very same place, namely, his own personal opinion.
Know this: Once a man chooses to look to himself as his own rule of faith over and against the men he calls pope, his views on any number of issues will inevitably drift further and further away from what is truly Catholic.
How far, you may ask?
So far, in fact, that a day might even come when that man feels justified in claiming that Pope St. Pius X “exemplified liturgical modernism!” (Peter actually did exactly this.)
To be very clear, the point of this post is not to disparage Peter Kwasniewski. Whether he likes it or not (and I sense that he likes it very much) he is one of the most prominent leaders of the Resist-the-Pope movement to be found in the English-speaking world.
The example he is providing – albeit a bad example not to be emulated – is of tremendous value in that it illustrates beyond all doubt just how utterly lacking that entire movement is in Catholic consistency, whereas the one true faith is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
In other words, the Holy Catholic Church, guided as she is by the Holy Ghost, does not, and indeed cannot, teach anything – be it via the Roman Congregations or the pope himself – that contradicts what the Saints, Doctors, and authoritative papal magisterium has previously taught.
This brings us to another leader in the Resist-the-Pope movement, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who in response to the DDF’s Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles published an article titled:
Those interested can click the link provided to read the article in its entirety, but the headline alone tells the tale.
Both Bishop Schneider and Peter Kwasniewski are correct, at least in part:
The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, the witness of the holy popes, the Saints, the Doctors, the liturgical and devotional tradition of the Church, these cannot err. Their teachings scribe what Peter referred to as a “bright red line,” one that is not to be crossed by those who wish to remain in the light of Catholic truth.
And yet, the Second Vatican Council – as Peter seems to realize – obliterated that line in no uncertain terms. Its teachings on religious liberty, the heretical communities, the Muslims and the Jews, for example, are entirely incompatible with the bi-millennial tradition of the Church, which (to quote Bishop Schneider) could not have been mistaken.
The only logical conclusion that one can possibly draw, therefore, is that the Council is not the act of the Supreme Magisterium that it claims to be, and this for the simple reason that the faith it professes is not Catholic.
This necessarily means that the church that exists to propagate the false conciliar faith is also not Catholic, and neither are the men who lead it. Beware of following anyone who insists that they are lest you too find yourself drifting further and further away from what is truly Catholic.
