Dr. Kwasniewski Reacts to Novus Ordo Watch Critique: I Don’t Engage Sedevacantists!

Oh yes, we’ve noticed… 

Dr. Kwasniewski Reacts to Novus Ordo Watch Critique: I Don’t Engage Sedevacantists!

Earlier this month, yours truly joined Louie Verrecchio for a video podcast to respond to a recent article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski regarding papal authority and the Sacred Liturgy. The video was released on Apr. 4 on Verrecchio’s channel and a day later on Novus Ordo Watch’s:

On Apr. 6, Kwasniewski published a comment on Facebook and on Twitter explaining that people had asked him if he was going to respond, which he answered in the negative because “I do not engage sedevacantists.” That’s a bummer, but we understand: He’d have very little to gain from doing so and a lot to lose.

On Apr. 11, Dr. K included a virtually identical note about the matter also in his “Weekly Roundup” post on his personal blog at Substack, and it is this one we will quote here in full:

Dialogue with sedes?

A small outfit called “Novus Ordo Watch” created a video that attempted to refute my position on the permissibility of praying with the pre-55 Roman Rite (and, more generally, my position on the limits of papal authority with regard to liturgical tradition). People asked me if I would respond to it.

My answer was no (beyond the considerable body of work I have already written or edited on the subject). The reason: 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.

If the price of a supposedly “perfect obedience to the all-powerful pope” is the necessity of holding that the See of Rome has been empty since Pius XII, then I’m not remotely interested. It is not I but Novus Ordo Watch that has effectively founded a new “Catholicism without the Pope” (or a “Catholicism with a Pope who meets our tailor-made specifications,” which, I would submit, amounts to the same thing), and I will have nothing to do with it. Contrary to the almost Euclidean purity of the sedevacantist account of what the pope “must be like,” reality is terribly messy, the fallen world is not logical, and we must roll with the punches as well as we can.

And yes, I am well aware that comments like these will only unleash a further barrage of anti-Kwasniewski posts; I’m not sure what such entities as Where Peter Is and Novus Ordo Watch — extremes that paradoxically meet — would do for ideas if I ever stopped writing!

(Peter Kwasniewski, “Dr. K’s Weekly Roundup, April 11th Edition”, Tradition & Sanity, Apr. 11, 2025)

This comment contains enough objectionable material to warrant further commentary, so of course we’re going to react to it — even if it means confirming the professor’s self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kwasniewski begins by stating that the video in question “attempted to refute my position on the permissibility of praying with the pre-55 Roman Rite….” Understandably, Kwasniewski speaks of a mere attempt, but a number of his readers must have found that attempt rather successful, since they approached him to see if he would respond: “People asked me if I would respond to it.”

That his answer would be in the negative was easy to guess, since he has never responded to any other of the detailed critiques we have published of him over the years (except one time when he notified us that we had gotten one of his credentials wrong). What is of interest, however, is the reason the professor gives for his decision not to respond: “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.”

One would think that if sedevacantists are so wrong, that would precisely be a reason to engage them, but maybe not. What’s really troubling, however, is the displeasure Kwasniewski shows that sedevacantists would get their understanding of the Papacy from the time of the First Vatican Council (1870), which issued a dogmatic constitution on the Papacy (Pastor Aeternus). How dare we! The next thing you know is we get our understanding of the Most Holy Trinity from the periods following the First Council of Nicea and the First Council of Constantinople!

Aside from that, it is an exaggeration to say we only “rarely” cite pre-Vatican I magisterial pronouncements concerning the Papacy. That is simply not the case. We quote it where it is found, and it so happens that a good chunk of official teaching on the Papacy was published after Vatican I. If Kwasniewski thinks that he is in line with the pre-Vatican I magisterium on the Papacy, we suggest he review Pope Pius VI’s bull Super Soliditate (1786) to find that he is sorely mistaken.

Dr. K’s complaint that the time since Vatican I has been a period of “peak ultramontanism” is no problem for a Catholic, since “Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanism are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Years ago, we published a long and detailed 3-part essay refuting Kwasniewski on Ultramontanism, but of course the professor never bothered to respond, since, as we now know, he doesn’t engage Sedevacantists:

Frighteningly, Kwasniewski and his recognize-and-resist confreres have somewhat succeeded in making people believe that Ultramontanism is a problem or, even worse, a heresy. A Novus Ordo priest by the name of Jeffrey Kirby has also foolishly denounced it as such:

Ah, but Kwasniewski says that Ultramontanism “has tended to morph into a hyperpapalism contrary to both faith and reason”. As we have demonstrated before, what Kwasniewski scorns as “hyperpapalism” is, for the most part, simply the Catholic doctrine as taught by the Church’s magisterium. He rejects it not because it runs afoul of magisterial teaching but because he cannot square it with the ‘pontificate’ of Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’); and since he absolutely refuses to entertain the idea that Bergoglio could be a fake pope, he has maneuvered himself into having to “rethink the Papacy” instead.

Kwasniewski’s errors in this regard have been amply documented and dismantled on this very web site. Here are some examples:

Kwasniewski is effectively trying to establish a new (and dangerously false) kind of traditionalism, one that is not based on the Roman Catholic Faith as it was known, believed, and taught until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but one that freely subjects the Catholic magisterium to his own lights. Yet that is the very thing condemned by Pope Pius XII on Sep. 10, 1957, when he told the Jesuits: “May there never be room among you for that proud spirit of ‘free inquiry’ which is more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one, and which does not hesitate to submit to one’s own critical judgment even norms issued by the Apostolic See” (Allocution Vos Omnes; in The Pope Speaks, vol. 4, n. 4 [Spring, 1958], pp. 447-453).

Pope St. Pius X had said basically the same thing on May 10, 1909, when he addressed a group of Catholic university students thus:

Do not let yourselves be deceived by the subtle declarations of others who do not cease to pretend that they wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight for her so that she will not lose the masses, to work for the Church so that she will come to understand the times and so to win back the people and attach them to herself. Judge these men according to their works. If they maltreat and despise the ministers of the Church and even the Pope; if they try by every means to minimize their authority, to evade their direction, and to disregard their counsels; if they do not fear to raise the standard of rebellion, what Church are these men speaking about? Not, certainly, of that Church established super fundamentum Apostolorum et Prophetarum, ipso summo angulari lapide, Christo Jesus: “upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph 2:20). So We must have ever before our mind’s eye that counsel of St. Paul to the Galatians: “If we ourselves or if an angel should teach you any other Gospel than that which we have taught you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8).

(Pope Pius X, Address Con Vera Soddisfazione)

On Nov. 18, 1912, the same holy Pope instructed priests of the Apostolic Union:

…[W]hen we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.

(Pope St. Pius X, Allocution Vi Ringrazio Diletti; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], pp. 693-695; underlining added. Translation taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 750,752.)

But there we go again, quoting from that awful post-Vatican I time period of the last 150 years….

In his excellent work Liberalism is a Sin, which was endorsed by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII in 1887, Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany writes that Liberalism “denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect — not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents” (Chapter 3; buy paperback here). This sounds awfully close to what Kwasniewski proposes as authentic Catholic traditionalism, doesn’t it?

Thanks to the workings of Divine Providence, the same Fr. Sarda also had a few words to say about Ultramontanism in light of Liberals’ disdain for it:

Ultramontanism will never cause you to loose your soul; Liberalism is a broad road to the infernal abyss. (Chapter 14)

The moderate Liberal does not detest the Pope; he may even express admiration for his sagacity; he only blames certain pretensions of the Roman Curia and certain exaggerations of Ultramontanism, which do not fall in with the trend of modern thought. (Chapter 16)

We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. (Chapter 21)

Ultramontanism is Catholicity intact and armed cap-a-pie [from head to foot]. It is Catholicity consistent in all its parts, the logical concatenation of Catholic principles to their fullest conclusions in doctrine and practice. Hence the fierce and unholy opposition with which it is constantly assailed. The foe well knows that to rout the vanguard is to demoralize the entire army; hence their rage and fury against the invincible phalanx which always stands fully armed, sleeplessly vigilant and eternally uncompromising. (Chapter 33)

If people like Kwasniewski oppose Ultramontanism, they do so at their own peril (and the peril of those who follow them).

On the flip side, Dr. K is quite capable of defending the Papacy when he deems it appropriate, such as when it is denied by the Eastern Orthodox. And so the professor recently published “An Irenic Response to an Orthodox Convert’s Critique of the Papacy”, in which he made the case for the Papacy, in part by pointing out that the Church must have a “court of final appeal”. Funny that! He should have entitled his piece “An Ironic Response” instead, considering that he does not shy away from pretending to overrule that final court himself when he sees the need. The following meme makes that point vividly:

Next, Kwasniewski explains: “If the price of a supposedly ‘perfect obedience to the all-powerful pope’ is the necessity of holding that the See of Rome has been empty since Pius XII, then I’m not remotely interested.” No doubt, that is correct: He is not remotely interested.

That says a lot about him, however: that he would reject so nonchalantly the Catholic magisterial evidence in exchange for having ‘Popes’ that he himself would say cannot even be safely followed. In other words, Kwasniewski is much more content to “rethink” the Papacy altogether than to “rethink” the last six Vatican leaders, that is, to recognize that they have not been real Popes. It’s a fool’s bargain that promises to be as successful as liberalizing conservatism in the hopes of getting more conservatives. In the end, you will have neither. That he should mock the Catholic teaching that’s on the books as “perfect obedience to the all-powerful pope” is only to be expected, considering his anti-papal theology.

Of course saying “there has been no Pope since Pius XII and we don’t know what we can do about it” isn’t exactly an attractive message to communicate for a man who writes and lectures on theology for a living; but if that is the price for keeping Roman Catholic doctrine unchanged (instead of “rethinking” the Papacy), it is worth it.

Kwasniewski argues: “It is not I but Novus Ordo Watch that has effectively founded a new ‘Catholicism without the Pope’ (or a ‘Catholicism with a Pope who meets our tailor-made specifications,’ which, I would submit, amounts to the same thing)….” While it may indeed be Catholicism without an actual Pope for the time being, it is certainly not a Catholicism without the Papacy. That, in fact, is what Dr. K sells, as already shown. In philosophical terms, we can say that the Sedevacantist has no Pope per accidens but certainly the Pope (Papacy) per se; it is Kwasniewski’s false traditionalism that has no real Pope (Papacy) per se since he had to make up a new concept of Papacy altogether — one that provides a Pope in name but not in fact.

It is not clear to the present writer why Dr. Kwasniewski insists on Catholics always having a Pope anyway if the Pope’s teachings, laws, liturgical decisions, canonized saints, etc., are perpetually subject to review and nullification by self-appointed papal correctors like himself.

Let’s keep in mind that Kwasniewski is on record saying that…

That is Kwasniewski’s idea of Catholicism with a Pope. One may be excused for wondering: What does he need a Pope for?

No, thanks, Dr. K, we’d rather adhere to the actual Catholic teaching on the Papacy and confess our ignorance as to what exactly happened and how we will get out of it. One can be saved without having all the answers; but one cannot be saved without adhering to the true Faith. Likewise, one can be saved without ever assisting at a true Roman Catholic Mass (if one has no Mass available, for example); but one cannot be saved without submission to the Roman Pontiff (in whose absence, if the Holy See be vacant, one must retain at least the willingness to submit to the Pope).

Kwasniewski concludes by saying: “Contrary to the almost Euclidean purity of the sedevacantist account of what the pope ‘must be like,’ reality is terribly messy, the fallen world is not logical, and we must roll with the punches as well as we can.”

First, notice that he says this on his own authority; for he does not cite a single Catholic magisterial source to that effect (and presumably cannot, else he would have gladly done it). Let’s remind him that what he derides as “Euclidean purity”, once again, is from the Catholic magisterium and the teaching as it shows up in the dogmatic manuals. It therefore is reality.

Secondly, juxtaposing Catholic doctrine with a “reality” that modifies the teachings according to the perceived needs of the moment, such an idea could have come straight from the mouth of a Neo-Modernist. That, in fact, is the sort of argument made in favor of situation ethics, the ‘new morality’ that is happy to abandon ‘idealistic’ rigid moral norms in favor of a ‘realistic’ flexible approach that takes into account that messy “reality”. In the Bergoglian pseudo-magisterium, that translates into such blasphemies as God positively willing other religions and God approving of adultery in some cases, as taught in Amoris Laetitia, n. 303 (see here).

In his zeal for what he might consider an ultra-pure traditionalism, and no doubt boosted by his immense popularity among his target audience, Kwasniewski is totally oblivious to the fact that he’s sacrificing Catholicism in the process.

He may call it rolling with the punches, but in actual fact it is but a Pyrrhic victory.

Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.