High Church Modernism and the loss of Faith

Vinicius provides another fascinating analysis of some disturbing errors which are being promulgated by ‘traditionalist’ commentators. His previous articles on High Church Modernism can be found here, here and here.

When Peter Kwasniewski defined that all pre-Vatican II magisterium was “up for grabs” (see High Church Modernism part II) he opened up a process that leads to the loss of faith. He points people in heterodox and occultist directions, sometimes saying he doesn’t embrace every single false notion (without specifying which).

*Christ Rescuing Peter from Drowning. Lorenzo Veneziano, 1370* SOURCE

At first sight, this looks furtive. But it may be beyond Kwasniewski’s ability to clearly state what he believes the Church should be, because he can’t “know” it due to the conciliarist nature of his ideology: both past and future Church teaching can vary because “beliefs” are merely “liturgical acclamations” expressing the unity of the assembled Christian community (as in Tim Flanders’ “freedom and truth” below).

If anyone thinks that Kwasniewski will “at least” conserve the liturgy as it was they need to think again. He openly praises the liturgical chaos, decadence and heterodoxy of the contrived eighteenth-century “Gallican” liturgies as the template for the “future” of the Latin rite. This goes well with his chaotic view of ecclesiastical utopia resembling the Council of Constance.

A previous article (the High Church Modernist Synodal Way) looked at Kwasniewski’s heretical view that the Popes derive their authority immediately from the Church as a body of laity and faithful instead of from Christ. This modernist, Protestantising stance even places doubt on whether the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Writing to a member of a schismatic Eastern Church he declares: “I do not think there is any absolutely decisive and unobjectionable “proof” that one must be in union with the Catholic Church centred in Rome”.¹

Kwasniewski’s terms become relativistic:

“The Latin and Greek churches have … [each] preserved certain truths or features better than the other has done”.

In a footnote, Peter Kwasniewski simultaneously says he doesn’t question the Catholic Church’s note of Unity yet frontally contradicts it again, claiming, “There is an objective woundedness” to the Catholic Church … by the lack of the Eastern provinces”.

According to Catholic dogma the Church lacks nothing to its unity, but Kwasniewski declares that it does lack, existentially, because the Orthodox churches are not part of it. What is more, they have “preserved certain truth or features” better than the Catholic Church.

This is untrue. Kwasniewski only provides contingent reasons of personal preference for not joining an Orthodox church himself. ²

Nothing about the One True Church here.

Kwasniewski supplies the premises but not the full detail of his fluid notion of Catholic belief.

These problems tie in with the High Church Modernist Synodal way, which views “belief” as dependant on, and subsequent to the “assembled Eucharistic community”.

Unconsolable over the scarcity of a notorious book attacking the dogma of papal infallibility, Kwasniewski gives it a plug: “it’s absurd that this book is out of print” ³ .

The book (Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, by Brian Tierney) rejects papal infallibility and the irreversibility of defined dogma.

Kwasniewski later defended the advertisement: despite being “wrong on certain points” it was a shame this “scholarly work” was hard to find. It was a similar tack with Tomberg’s Meditations on the Tarot, a monstrous treatise on occultism that promotes “friendship” with devils, which had a few “problems” but “led” Kwasniewski to “tradition”; he recently published a book centred on the defence of Tomberg’s views.

Let’s see what kind of tradition Tierney’s book leads to.

Straight off the mark, it doubles down on modernist ecclesiology. Like the recent Kwasniewski/Vigilius Manifesto (see the High Church Modernist Synodal Way), Tierney was upset that Vatican II did not “revise” the dogma of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I. ⁴

Writing in 1972 as part of the post-conciliar steamrolling of traditional Catholicism (including ecclesiology), Tierney viewed with great “hope” Hans Kung’s “Infallible? An Inquiry” (1970) and Dutch bishop Francis Simons, a modernist who flatly rejected papal infallibility, as the future course for the Church. Tierney offered his historical “expertise” to help theologians “get out of” the “cul de sac” of papal infallibility.

“Tradition” redefined as the assembled Christian community, not defined doctrine

To illustrate the “early Church’s understanding of scripture”, Tierney quotes Fr. George Tavard, a modernist ecumenist at Vatican II, who declared the ordination of women “necessary for the survival of the Church” (16).

Tierney “criticises” Dollinger, (who was condemned for denying the dogmas of Vatican I) for not going “far enough”. (15) Tierney denies tradition and Church magisterium in Protestant fashion, claiming that the Catholic understanding of tradition was invented in the thirteenth
century.

He asserts that before that, Saint Paul’s injunction to hold to what had been passed down, “whether by word or by our epistle” referred only to “liturgical or pious practices”.

As further “proof”, he cites Tavard again. (16) A denial of the jurisdictional supremacy of the papacy is the core of this work, which tries to find support for the conciliarist heresy that a Council is superior to the Pope (46). Tierney carefully avoids properly discussing Saint Thomas Aquinas’ unambiguous defence of papal authority and infallibility, which he says is a “dubious tradition” to cite (246).

The upshot of Tierney’s scholarship is: The Church “has always been prone to error and ‘unfailing in faith’”. (280) Finally, Tierney demands the Church “renounce” the dogma of papal infallibility. (281)

Tierney’s paradox of a Catholic Church that has always been “prone to error” yet full of “faith”, might inspire a modernist Church on its long “search” without dogma, and which “believes” without knowing the truth.

But how do these errors square with Peter Kwasnieski’s claim that he does not reject Vatican I? Does he also refer those who follow his link to Tierney to a work that systematically rebuts each of Tierney’s mistaken historical claims?

He ought to, because the sole purpose of the work was to provide reasons not to believe the Catholic faith on several points. Is it too unkind to conclude that Kwasniewski just believes in Tierney’s “history” and wants us to as well?

At One Peter Five, Kwasniewski’s coreligionist Tim Flanders pushes a similar line. Blurring the distinction between dogma and theological opinion, Flanders declares, “It is not for the lay people to judge clerical questions”. ⁵

Under this heading, Flanders endorses without murmur the appearance in Vatican II texts of a merging of sacramental orders with episcopal jurisdiction. Flanders states that he can’t have an opinion on it because he’s not a cleric, but nevertheless Vatican II has “changed” the previous Catholic understanding (even though current Vatican practice contradicts the Vatican II innovation by delegating jurisdiction to lay people). Yet, as a “layman”, he has no problem ascribing dogmatic certitude to a modernist-inspired anomaly, which he doesn’t understand anyway.

The path to nowhere

The key to this paradox is Flanders and Kwasniewski’s adoption of the “pilgrim Church”, the “eucharistic community” as the source of expressions of belief. Once we accept this, “belief” follows the “being” of the ecclesial community.

Cardinal Marx couldn’t put it better.

Catholic belief becomes fuzzy, starting with what is “non-essential”. The first step is to affirm that, although “lay people” can’t know what to think about matters of “theological opinion”, it is legitimate for all (including clergy) to revisit all kinds of bizarre, even semi-heretical ideas in the name of rejecting Thomistic “exclusivism”.

Flanders directs readers to an article, “Aquinas didn’t know everything” ⁶ that excitedly argues for huge “possibilities” after taking away Saint Thomas’ canonical status: we could embrace Duns Scotus’ view that devils could have committed minor as well as major sins, and that they can “repent”.

Potentially, therefore, devils could go to heaven. This ties in well with Tomberg’s views on “befriending” them. Pets going to heaven is another achievement which abandoning Thomism is said to allow.

The article sums up Flanders’ position: Thomism is simply another set of opinions like “scottism… and Karol Wojtyła’s phenomenological personalism) that are not of the faith—or de fide, as they say—but are compatible with the faith. Let us be free to enjoy them”.

The Church says otherwise. Since Trent, it has clearly stated that Thomism is the best philosophical and theological approach. Thomism stands in the way of modernist ideas, whether of high or low church kind.

Flanders says, “The only thing I will be rigid about is the dogmata”, but contradicts this by his denial of the existence of the Church as a divinely-chartered society existing independently from civil society. In his haste to question everything that is not a “dogma”, Flanders tramples upon flowers of the Church’s life like the practice of frequent communion (much as Cardinal Fernandez tramples upon Marian
theology and devotion for not being “dogma”), rubbishing it as “Pius X’s frequent communion revolution” and the foretaste of “iconoclasm”. ⁷

But who are the iconoclasts here?

In the name of dispensing with what is not a “core Catholic belief” the high church modernists have so far proved to be very destructive of icons: papal infallibility can be “revised” or discarded; the Pope gets his authority from a parliamentary Church, devils are not enemies of God (Tomberg), and can be befriended and go to heaven; the Church lacks its essential Note of Unity; frequent communion is an iconoclastic revolution of Pius X; the Church merges into civil society as in Anglicanism and Lutheranism; Saint Thomas Aquinas is out, unless dressed-up as a neo-Platonist occultist; the Church is infested by Tomberg’s evil and long-condemned occultist ideas. All this is done to save the Church from its “cursed” last millennium.

Flanders’ roadmap to “freedom and truth”

In a recent post, Tim Flanders declares,

“If we fail to follow the path of dialogos, the SSPX and Rome will continue to talk past each other… Only when we embrace the fact that ‘being is communion’”, will there be understanding and truth.⁸

The “being is communion” quote linked a work by Greek Orthodox bishop John Zizioulas (1931-2023). The book isn’t presented as an interesting scholarly work with “a few problems”, but as the “solution”.

It’s worth looking at what it says because it mirrors what Kwasniewski and Flanders are promoting, and says things they perhaps feel not yet able to say.

The book not only rejects Catholic belief concerning the Mass and the constitution of the Church; it even rejects standard Orthodox Church beliefs, adopting a view based on modern existentialist philosophy and falsely claiming a basis in fourth-century Fathers of the Church.

The central thesis of the book is the modern error that the human person has no existence per se except in relation to other persons. This attacks the existence of the human being, a body/soul composite whose very nature embodies personhood. It’s a post-Enlightenment error; Marxists have a similar view.

Chesterton argues ferociously against this.⁹ One thing seems clear; when Kwasniewski and Flanders speak of renewed unity with Orthodox Churches, they mean unity with modernism like this:

For Zizioulas, the Eucharist is not a sacrament.¹⁰ He rejects “pre-Vatican II” Catholic ecclesiology and praises the post Vatican II tendencies (24-25). He attacks the Catholic faith concerning the Trinity (40); rejects the natural ontological existence of the human person by virtue of being a body/soul composite.

Instead individual personhood itself is “Original sin”: “This individualised and individualising Adam in us is our original sin… A human being left to himself cannot be a person”. He then cites Sarte as an authority (107). Apart from contradicting Christian doctrine, where does this leave the unborn and those who lose reason or never attain it, and who are not in a “social relationship”. Are they not persons too?

The Church, grace and the sacraments are subverted: “Between Christ-truth and ourselves there is no gap to be filled by means of grace” (111); “The resurrectional aspect of baptism is therefore nothing other than incorporation into the community” (113);

In the Eucharist, Christ “dwells” as the “communion” of the “community” (115). Zizioulas never clearly says that the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist is not something distinct from the community itself. He sees the Mass as essentially a gathering of the community and a meal, “The Eucharist, understood properly as a community” (165, 203.). There is no mention of the Real presence or of the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass.

For Zizioulas, “truth” is the expression of the assembled Eucharistic community: the revelation of “Christ-truth” continues up to the present in the “continuing Pentecost” of the Church; invoking the “conciliarism” of “the early Church”, he implies that “Revelation”” has not ended (116).

But perhaps this does not matter much:

“Credal definitions carry no relation with truth in themselves but only in their being doxological acclamations of the worshipping community” (117).

This is as extreme as the worst modernist ghettoes in the post-conciliar Church (Zizioulas continually praises Yves Congar). It is also the key to understanding how Kwasniewski views even the definitions of all the Ecumenical Councils, and why he feels free to question traditional papal magisterium and revisit Vatican I: dogmas have “no meaning” outside the “eucharistic assembly”.

It also illustrates what Kwasniewski means when he speaks of lex orandi determining lex credendi. The “community” rules.

For Zizioulas, the Councils were expressions of the truth simply “because the bishops were the heads of their communities… The communities’ unity in identity is the foundation of conciliar infallibility” (117); “The apostolic succession has to pass to the community through communion” (116).

Rather than priestly orders conferring an indelible character on the ordinand, Zizioulas states that orders cannot be exercised except as part of a community (164); “in episcopal succession, therefore, we
essentially have succession of communities” (198); Baptism is also an “ordination”, “There is no such thing as “non-ordained persons” in the Church” (216); ordination and ministry are defined through the relation to the community (220); if a priest or bishop is separated from his community “he ceases to be an ordained person” (233).

He admits that “Christian tradition itself” is guilty of distinguishing between the Church and civil society as Catholic teaching does; foreshadowing Morello’s neo-pagan animism, Zizioulas asserts “Salvation” consists in “enchantment” of nature. Humanity’s purpose is “to make nature too, capable of communion” (119).

Finally, in line with the recent Kwasniewski/Vigilius Manifesto: “Vatican II has given hope and promise to many people… [but] Vatican II has not completed its work” (141). Zizioulas hoped for a “Vatican III to push communion to its ontological conclusions”. He hoped it would do something about that “stumbling block”, the “ministry of the Pope” (142)”.

Zizoulas’ ideas are not original. They are not even “Orthodox”; he dislikes the Orthodox Church of the last several centuries, describing it as a “Babylonian captivity”, much like Morello and Kwasniewski’s view of the traditional Catholic Church as being “hexed” for the last thousand years.

But Zizioulas mirrors our Catholic modernists in the Orthodox Churches, where this mentality is even further advanced – one ought not be misled by the liturgies. What “being as communion” fails to appreciate is that there is no “communion” without the Catholic faith, or without the visible foundation of unity on earth, which is the Pope, who is not empowered by the community immediately (as Kwasniewski asserts), but receives his authority directly from Christ.

Communalism leads to loss of the faith

By throwing up for grabs the pre-conciliar Church, the high church modernists expose the faith of their followers to fracture. This was the case of Rod Dreher and Steve Skojec, who both held views like those of Kwasniewski and Flanders long before losing the faith.

Flanders declares that a “diabolically controlled” Trad internet discourse caused his predecessor at One Peter Five to lose the faith.¹¹

But this is not true. It is high church modernism that left people like Skojec with no intellectual defences for their faith. Flanders posted a link to Steve Skojec’s material: “you should really go subscribe to his substack”.

But why? Presumably not to read the self-absorbed scepticism that fills it. It seems, however, that Skojec still shares the same ideological framework as Kwasniewski and Flanders.

One of his posts, ostensibly dealing with the nastiness of the Church saying adherence to doctrine is not optional, asserts:

“I don’t think we need any “dogma” at all. You need teaching, sure. But the Church leaves herself no room to say, “Hey, we got that one pretty wrong which is why we’re changing this”; “why is say, believing in papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception as important as believing in the Trinity or the Incarnation? It gets hairy in the particulars.” ¹²

Is this so radically different from Tierney and Peter Kwasniewski’s notion that traditional infallible magisterium is up for grabs and Vatican I needs correcting (as in his Vigilius Manifesto)?

What is striking about Skojec’s material is how the same anti-dogmatic, anti-traditional mentality got him there in the first place. He no longer accepts Catholic magisterium, and logically “we don’t know what to believe anymore. We don’t know how to discern what is true from what is false”.

But Kwasniewski said this magisterium (which would have told him exactly what to believe) was “up for grabs”. Now, for Kwasniewski, reinventing traditional Catholicism might be a fascinating livelihood; for any normal Catholic, it is soul-destroying.

Skojec says,

“People are becoming less religious, and traditional religions are fragmenting… a growing consensus that we are… not alone in the universe… may lead to public disclosure [about “aliens”] and widespread ontological shock”.

Traditional Catholics can experience and resist this crisis, like others in the past, because we believe Our Lord’s promise to the Church and to Saint Peter who is with us in the papacy. But if we think the Church is an “assembled communion” empowering its leadership and doctrine, resolving the Church crisis becomes a human undertaking with no objective template to work by.

Kwasniewski may say the template is the Gallican rituals of eighteenth-century France, fourteenth-century conciliarism, and whatever we decide to pick and choose from Vatican II and its aftermath, or indeed from the rest of the Church’s Councils. If Steve Skojec agreed with him, he would be taking up just another opinion with small chance of success.

Kwasniewski says he doesn’t leave the Church because the Latin rite happens to be his home and some aspects of Orthodoxy aren’t comfortable. But these things are contingent and can change. Kwasniewski is full of his project to reinvent the Church of the last half millennium which disgusts him, into something he can feel comfortable in, and gets applauded by people who think he’s doing something else.

But those of his followers who are truly ideologised don’t have such interesting lives. What happens to their faith when they’ve finished reading Tomberg, Tierney and Zizoulas?

What premises have Kwasniewski and Flanders provided young Catholics to stay in the Church when those authors persuade them that the Faith is wrong?

By Vinicius. Vinicius is a Melbourne-based historian-researcher focussing on early modernity as the Christian Western alternative to ideological, Enlightenment modernity.

ENDNOTES