Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
“Postconciliar” Reply to Peter Kwasniewski & John Lamont

“Postconciliar” Reply to Peter Kwasniewski & John Lamont

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:39 am by Dave Armstrong

“Postconciliar” Reply to Peter Kwasniewski & John Lamont 2026-06-06T00:39:32-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. John Lamont were both signatories to the “Easter Letter” that accused Pope Francis of heresy. I have written about the reactionary influence in that document, twice (one / two) and also commented upon the pushback even of Francis critics, who opposed the attempt to accuse him of formal heresy. Both these men are properly classified as radical Catholic reactionaries (see my carefully thought-out definition).

I recently summarized their glaring errors as follows:

4) Dr. John Lamont questioned the beatification of Pope St. John Paul II and asserted that the “teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church.”

5) Dr. Peter Kwasniewski thinks that Vatican II itself (not its distortion) is a seedbed of “progressivism and modernism” and that “John Paul II and Benedict XVI . . . were swimming in a lake of Kool-Aid rather than the ocean of Tradition . . . [and] were conflicted and inconsistent progressives.” He ties Pope Francis in with popes of the last 60 years: “Bergoglio is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyła, and Ratzinger . . .” Agreeing with Fr. Thomas Kocik (and in glaring contradiction of Pope Benedict XVI), he thinks the Pauline / “New” / ordinary form Mass is “so radical a deconstruction and reconstruction of the Roman liturgy that it does not exist in the same tradition of organic development. It is a new departure, a new thing, not a revision of the old thing . . .”

They both showed up on my Facebook page when a mutual friend, Brendan Triffett, tagged their names. In the dialogue below, Brendan’s words will be in purple, Dr. Kwasniewski’s in green, and Dr. Lamont’s in blue.

*****

I read your blog but I’m also FB friends with John Lamont and Peter Kwasniewski. I’m being tugged in two directions. I find those two theologians to be careful and level-headed–nothing like Taylor Marshall on that score. I know you disagree with them but I’d like to know how far you’d be willing to go in “admitting there is a problem with Pope Francis” given the worrying things they and others have carefully documented?

If there was supposedly such a problem with Pope Francis, why is it that even harsh critics of his like Phil Lawler disagreed with the “Easter Letter” accusing him of heresy? I debated Dr. Kwasniewski on “the reform of the reform”.

Either Pope Benedict XVI is lying or Dr. Kwasniewski is. One can’t have it both ways. I’ve made my choice.

Thanks heaps; will read.

The proof’s in the pudding. Study what happened in the liturgical reform, who did it, why, and what changed. It’s eye-opening, to say the least. Then have a look at the ever-decreasing number of people who are even attempting to defend Francis, whether the charge of heresy can stick or not. And then ask yourself: “How did we get to this point, where we can have a man as pope who wouldn’t have passed a first communion quiz in the days of Pope Pius X?”

Dr. Kwasniewski’s beef, as I have shown, is not just with Pope Francis (which is very fashionable today!), but also with Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope St. Paul VI, Vatican II, and the Pauline Mass.

Thanks again. Boy things are getting ugly at the Amazon review page as you’ve noted. Of course you’ve got to stand your ground which you are doing well. It’s a shame it gets to this, isn’t it? There is a psychology to the reactionary tribalism. I’ve likened it to ethno nationalists fed up with failed immigration policy. It’s almost a sort of collectivism, gathered around a militant leader who is full of bravado. We certainly need zeal and courage these days, but when they are not tempered by humility and balance, not to mention a supernatural charity, they become destructive caricatures.

Of course if Benedict XVI had said that the novus ordo is an organic development of the Catholic liturgy, and this statement was not true, that would mean that he was mistaken, not that he was lying. So ‘either Pope Benedict XVI is lying or Dr. Kwasniewski is’ is a silly argument. But in fact he has denied that it is an organic development. E.g. ‘The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.’ (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104). ‘We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy.’ Preface to The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber.

I think it’s quite clear that Pope Benedict in these two instances was talking about the Pauline Mass as practiced; i.e., the many liturgical abuses that, unfortunately, occur when it is celebrated. This is indicated by his phrase, “in its concrete realization”: which is referring to the overall reform (and its abuses), not the Pauline Mass itself, rightly understood.

“In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy.” Again, this is plainly referring to abuses, not the New Mass itself. If it were not, then why is it that Pope Benedict continued to celebrate the Pauline Mass? He could have stopped had he wanted to. Who could tell him otherwise?

Not to mention that if we took this interpretation of those words of his, it would completely contradict Summorum Pontificum. Moreover, Fr. Angelo Geiger, who blogs at the Mary Victrix site, who is himself a traditionalist and EF priest, has shown how the “banal” statement has been greatly distorted and taken out of context.

No offense, but you can have your postconciliar aggiornamentoed Balkanized toothless Catholicism, if you really want it. I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors, Councils, and Popes who preached a consistent and coherent doctrine.

I am completely and utterly orthodox, and you can’t prove otherwise. If you think so, prove it. Put up or shut up. I have more than 2300 posts online, which are easily searchable on my blog.

“I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors, Councils, and Popes.”

The Fathers played a key role in my conversion, as a result of reading Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. That’s why I have compiled three books of their quotations (one / two / three) and have a large page of articles and links about them. So to try to pit them against me, as if I love or follow them any less than you do, is ridiculous beyond measure. For heaven’s sake, there are many things we can agree on. Why make them imaginary points of difference?

Of course I love the Doctors, too. I have my books, The Quotable Augustine and The Quotable Summa Theologica, as well as Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives: which contains much material from several other Doctors of the Church (particularly female ones).

It’s rich and ludicrously ironic for you to claim that you are the one following “Councils”: seeing what you think about Vatican II: which cannot be found to be any different in origin or nature than any other ecumenical council, as Pope Benedict XVI made very clear in The Ratzinger Report and as pope.

You guys love to cite him when you think he agrees with you (as John Lamont did above, regarding the grossly distorted use of his “banal” statement). But when he disagrees, you will say he is wrong at the drop of a hat. That’s not the traditional respect and reverence for popes that has characterized pious Catholics for 2000 years. It’s the opposite.

You claim you are following popes all through history, but somehow arbitrarily want to act as if the ones of the last sixty years are fundamentally different. You ought to get consistent and become a sedevacantist. This half-baked reactionary extremism that you adopt is relentlessly self-contradictory and arbitrary.

“Postconciliar Catholicism” is still the same Catholicism of the ages — the same Church with the same dogma — as it has always been. If you deny that, then you have to either deny the validity of the 2nd Vatican Council (be like the Old Catholics in 1870) or deny the indefectibility of the Church. Those are the only two choices.

There is plenty where you and I can agree, as to liberal bishops, laxity, tragic condoning of sexual sin, etc. I’m all for reform there and have issued extremely strong statements about it. But that is not “the Church” or “Catholicism.” It’s the poor and sinful choices of men, that have always been present since the beginning, when St. Paul rebuked the first pope.

You are the one who is incoherent and inconsistent. Sedevacantism is a far more serious error but at least we have to give it credit for being self-consistent: unlike your reactionary, pick-and-choose “Liberalism-Lite” / cafeteria Catholic position.

I do sincerely thank both of you (despite our disagreement) for at least showing up here and making some comment; attempting any interaction at all. This is so rare these days that I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude.

***

Photo credit: ignote; First Vatican Council, contemporary painting (c. 1870) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

Pope Francis & heresy

Radical Catholic Reactionaries

schism

synod on the family

Previous Post

June 9, 2019

My Respect for Protestants / Catholic Ecumenical Principles

Next Post

June 10, 2019 Further Reflections on Mandatory Priestly Celibacy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz