It would be perfectly understandable if the title to this post caused readers to laugh out loud in derision. It’s difficult for a tradition-loving Catholic (if you’ll forgive the redundancy) to imagine anything more inane than to suggest that the anti-modernist Pope St. Pius X had his own modernist tendencies.
That said, this is no laughing matter.
Maybe not, but seriously, no one with any credibility at all would ever make such an allegation even privately, much less publicly. And what’s more, no moderately well-formed Catholic would bother giving the accuser the time of day.
Wrong on all counts.
Paradoxically, the pope who fought valiantly against doctrinal modernism exemplified liturgical modernism by rupturing the principle of the inviolability of longstanding tradition in the name of easing up pastoral burdens. (Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the FSSP, New Liturgical Movement, 4 February 2019)
Yes, you read that correctly: Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, one of the most prominent and influential leaders of the Resist-the-Pope movement, is convinced that his personal opinion regarding the limits of papal authority (among other things) is of such soaring ecclesiastical erudition that he is at ease indicting Pope St. Pius X (of all people!) of being an exemplar of modernist thought, and this on a pubic forum.
More stunning still is the realization that Kwasniewski didn’t arrive at this overblown assessment of his own insights recently, rather, this more-Catholic-than-Pius X attitude has been informing his articles, books, and seminar presentations, etc. for more than half-a-decade.
This fall from humility would be tragic enough if Peter was just some ordinary bloke with an internet connection, but the fact that he has been blessed with a substantial following makes it even more so.
I recently had the privilege of hosting Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch on the akaCatholic Podcast to discuss in some detail just how far Peter Kwasniewski’s attitude concerning the superior-subject relationship that is the papacy has strayed from the mind of the Church. Specifically, we looked at his opinions regarding the Roman Pontiff’s sole authority over matters liturgical.
SPOILER ALERT: Peter’s opinions give every appearance of being just that, one man’s opinion.
I’ve said it many times before and I’ll repeat it once more: In my limited interaction with Peter, despite disagreement, he has always been gentlemanly and approachable. Though I take no pleasure in saying so, it seems that something has changed…
After seeing the video podcast below, which was posted on social media this weekend, evidently some of Peter’s followers were moved to ask if he was planning to offer a rebuttal. In other words, it appears that even his own audience would like to know exactly which pre-conciliar Catholic teachings he is relying upon in order to justify asserting his own liturgical preferences over and above the rulings issued by the popes, including Pope St. Pius X whom he accuses of “liturgical modernism.”
That certainly strikes me as a fair question. Be that as it may, Peter’s unfortunate reply to the question, will you respond?, reads in part:
My answer is no: I do not engage sedevacantists. Their understanding of papal authority is dominated by the approximately 150-year period since Vatican I (they rarely cite documents prior to “Pastor Aeternus”), i.e., the period of peak ultramontanism, which has tended to morph into a hyperpapalism contrary to both faith and reason.
NB: Peter is suggesting that documents prior to Pastor Aeternus actually exist which give the pope’s subjects the authority to overrule his legislation on matters liturgical. I would like to know what those documents are and precisely what they have to say. So too, it appears, do his followers.
And yet, the best he can offer is, I do not engage sedevacantists, an odd response given that the issue at hand concerns his attitude toward papal authority, no one else’s.
In any case, I’ve offered to host Peter on the akaCatholic Podcast to defend his defiance of papal liturgical legislation. Perhaps he will accept. Better still, perhaps he will allow for a healthy debate with another guest of similar academic standing. We’ll see.
In the meantime, the podcast (lengthy, but well worth the time) is below.
Please share this podcast with those who follow Dr. Kwasniewski. It is they who need this information the most.
