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
Definition of “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Dialogue

Definition of “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Dialogue

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:43 am by Dave Armstrong

Definition of “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Dialogue 2026-06-06T00:43:04-04:00 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.

With Particular Reference to [Traditionalist] Timothy Gordon

This was a discussion on my Facebook page with Kyrby Caluna: a young zealous Catholic. His words will be in blue.

*****

To lump all “reactionaries” (a term that is unhelpful, and uncharitable) into one monolithic group is unjust, unfair, “reactionary”.

If indeed Timothy Gordon is not anti-Vatican II in the way that the standard reactionary, is, then he is not reactionary. I’d be delighted if that is the case.

I coined the term, “radical Catholic reactionary” in 2013 in order to differentiate extreme ways of thinking from legitimate traditionalism. It’s not “unhelpful, and uncharitable.” It’s a sociological necessity and act of charity towards millions of traditionalists (among whom I virtually include myself), who get lumped in with what used to be called “radtrads.”

I have taken extreme care and have been precise in the definition. If you don’t think so, then be my guest to take on my articles where I define it, point-by-point. I just had this very conversation with Timothy Flanders. But first, I’m curious as to what you think my definition of “radical Catholic reactionary” is. Why don’t you tell me? I’ll know in one minute whether you have actually read or understood my explanations of it or not.

Reactionary Trads or Catholic Radical Reactionaries believe the following:

1. The Novus Ordo is invalid or objectively offensive to God.

— This, Timothy Gordon rejects. That is why, as he said, even some Trads are skeptical of him for viewing the Novus Ordo as valid.

1. Incorrect. Reactionaries view the OF as valid, but “objectively inferior” to the EF. But it is true that now some reactionaries are so extreme (e.g., Abp. Vigano and Taylor Marshall) that they may indeed be rapidly moving towards the position you describe. It doesn’t follow, however, that the bulk of reactionaries, at least at this point, agree with their increasing anti-Catholic fanaticism.

2. Vatican II is qualitatively different from preceding Councils because it is either invalid, and instrinsically heretical because of modernistic ambiguity.

— To be honest, this definition of yours is so generalized. I think even some of the non-Trads would accept that Vatican II is different in some ways to the preceding Councils and that it is somewhat ambiguous and even optimistic.

2. Incorrect. Reactionaries (as I have categorized them, from long observation and experience) accept Vatican II as valid and not objectively heretical, but rather hampered by ambiguities deliberately injected into the texts by subversive dissident radicals. Again, as in #1, the cutting edge of reactionaries are moving further right at present, so this wouldn’t be true of them. But as a whole, it is as I have described.

3. Vatican II is the root cause of the modernist crisis.

— Timothy Gordon rejects that. By textualism, he believes Vatican II does not teach doctrinal error. It is the Intentionalism of the modernists that is the cause of the crisis after the Council.

3. Correct. This is one of the four hallmarks of reactionaryism, but it co-exists with the understanding that Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council. Reactionaryism (note closely) is all about going up to a “line” but not crossing over it; trying to have it both ways. So, e.g., “Vatican II is valid but we should simply ignore it, or it has harmed the Church,” “The New Mass is valid but it is objectively terrible liturgy and we ought not attend it (having a choice),” etc. etc. ad nauseam.

4. The Conciliar Popes are either materially or formally heretics.

— Nope! The Credo of the People of God by Paul VI and John Paul II’s CCC attested to their orthodoxy. As Timothy Flanders said, Paul VI was a moderate (like Jacques Maritain), but not a heretic.

4. Incorrect. Reactionaries accept all the popes as valid. But they want to bitch and complain about and rebuke and second-guess popes all the time (“more Catholic than the pope”). It’s primarily an attitudinal problem and not having an understanding of traditional reverence towards the pope (thinking like Protestants: particularly Anglicans).

5. Ecumenism, religious liberty are “radical” novelties.

— If we stick to the texts, they are not radical. But some of their implementations are radical, and that’s a different issue.

5. Correct. Your following statement is correct, but the reactionary rejects ecumenism as explicated in Vatican II and recent ecumenical encyclicals. They’re wrong. It’s a rather striking and rapid development, but is in line with past tradition, correctly understood.

So you get a 40% grade for understanding my definitions and conceptions of what reactionaries believe. That ain’t very good. It’s a failing score in any class I’ve ever been in.

Getting a grade of 40 for not exhaustively listing all characteristics of RadCathRs is okay. I never thought there is a grading system here.

Timothy Gordon is simply not a reactionary, if your report is accurate. He’s a traditionalist, perhaps on the line between the two groups, or holding one or two reactionary beliefs. I think Taylor Marshall’s atrocious behavior (including casting him to the wind) has been a wake-up call for him.

Again we can go on and on with all the radicalism of these reactionary traditionalists. But that isn’t Timothy Gordon. And I don’t know why I’m defending him. We are not even friends. But maybe because, I believe he is balanced in his assessment of Vatican II. As to his assessment of Pope Francis, that’s a different issue.

The gist of his traditionalism is that textually Vatican II does not contain errors. But we know that intentionally, some of the drafters of the texts are modernists, and their intentions were weaponized and implemented after the Council.

The crux of the matter with regards to Vatican II as Timothy Gordon sees it is: the need for a hermeneutics of continuity and the implicit presupposition why it is needed.

For Richard DeClue Jr. and Christopher Plance, the texts are clear. The hermeneutic was needed because there is already an on-going hermeneutics of rupture that is imposed on the texts by the modernists.

For Timothy Gordon, there are some ambiguities in the texts and that is why a hermeneutic of continuity is needed. I think, George Weigel implicitly sides with Gordon for he said in his The Irony of Modern Catholic History and The Next Pope, two of his latest books, that “it took 20 years before the hermeneutical key of Vatican II was discovered” in the 1985 Synod of Bishops. And that implies that Vatican II has ambiguities that even the “Word On Fire FAQ on Vatican II” admits.

Of course we need a hermeneutic of continuity; that’s simply how orthodoxy operates. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into doctrinal error. The tradition is consistent with itself. That includes Vatican II and papal encyclicals. Duh! It’s simply self-evident for a faithful, orthodox Catholic.

Everything needs to be (ultimately) authoritatively interpreted, including ecumenical councils, that are protected from error, because human beings are ignorant and sinful.

It’s the same with the Bible. It’s perfect, inspired, infallible revelation, but without guidance from Holy Mother Church and Sacred Tradition, people believe all kinds of lies about the text and come up with Arianism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Christian Science, Mormon polytheism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy (insofar as they are in error), and who knows what else . . .

I am not saying that I have and need to exhaustively list down all the characteristics of the RadCathRs. That’s a whole chapter in one of your books. I simply quote some of the obvious.

And not only that, your whole book is all about them, just like the “bible” (as you said) of the RadCathRs written by Christopher Ferrara is all about neo-Catholics.

Both terms are not helpful. Not all those who you consider as RadCathRs “are radical” with ears closed. And not those Ferrara calls Neo-Catholics have no problem whatsoever with the texts of Vatican II.

Cardinal Ratzinger, for example, finds Gaudium et Spes as “too French” (referring to the implicit Teilhardism of some in the texts, i.e. too optimistic), and that it needs Luther (a German like him, whose theology of the cross balances the optimism). This Fr. Robert Barron (now a Bishop) explained in one of his talks. Ratzinger also have some problems with the Novus Ordo Liturgy. Though, when he became Pope he did not touched it. He simply encouraged the celebration of the TLM.

So here’s the point, as I said. Calling people names when one is not aware entirely of their views (i.e. Gordon) is unhelpful. Point to what you think is their error and not lump them into a group you wished to dismiss.

And if I am incorrect, maybe. Here’s where I quote some of your characteristics (again, this isn’t exhaustive):

[he was actually citing my 2002 book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries, and I didn’t realize it!]

Cute. So you were largely citing me. The problem is that this book was written almost 18 years ago now. Things have changed a lot since then, especially since Pope Francis, and my own views have evolved. My present views have developed mostly from my definitions formulated in 2012-2013. See also my recent dialogue with Timothy Flanders.

This is why I appealed to my views since that time, not back to my first book about it in 2002. Categories in actual life are often fluid and not always so clear cut in any given individual case. This is true of traditionalism and reactionaries as well.

So I spend money for an obsolete book. Kidding! If I am not aware of your development, then a grade of 40 is unfair too. Kidding. Okay, I’ll read those articles.
*

It still has some value. If anyone bought these books I would revise them. Mass Movements is more up to date.

I’m not merely “calling people names.” I’m doing religious sociology (my major was sociology in college) and apologetics both, and being charitable to legitimate traditionalists by noting that those with extreme views ought not to be called by their chosen title.

If reactionaries insist on bashing the Church, popes, councils, the Mass, and ecumenism, then by the same token they ought to expect to be criticized back. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Yup, Gordon is a traditionalist. You called him reactionary. Maybe simply because he teamed-up with Marshall before? Is that an implicit criterion? It’s not helpful.

I have already conceded that Timothy Gordon seems not to be a reactionary. He’s a traditionalist, who shows some similarity and commonality with reactionaries in some respects. In any event, reactionaries do form a distinct sociological group within the Catholic Church. Few theologians and apologists have analyzed it. Many more need to. I have, and I think my observations are valid and easily backed up by facts.

Well, when one (Gordon) is making 100 videos with one of the most wacko, conspiratorial reactionaries around, one assumes that there is general agreement between them. Like I said, when Taylor Marshall cast him to the wind, he probably reconsidered some things and perhaps became less reactionary, or never was and concealed some of his opinions.

I recognize that people sometimes change, and I do in his case. I haven’t followed him closely. I adjust my opinion if evidence and further information warrant it.

Exactly, we need a hermeneutics of continuity. No one is denying that.

I laid down some details about Gordon because your post accuses him of being a reactionary, which is unfair. So I clarified where he stood. He advocates for that hermeneutic like all of us. There is no questioning about a need for a hermeneutics of continuity. We all need it. The Pope said so. In fact, the Pope’s exact words are “a hermeneutic of reform, of continuity in the one-subject Church”. And as your friend Prof. Eduardo Echeverria said that because it is a hermeneutic of reform, there are reversals too but not the substance of doctrine but in the way it is explained.

And as Fr. John O’Malley said in his book What Happened at Vatican II, the real novelty in Vatican II is the change from a juridical-legislative to a more epideictic-panegyric genre in the composition of the texts.

I would definitely agree with you on Gordon being critical with the Pope. Scott Hahn too, is implicitly a papal critic, for vindicating Archbishop Viganó as an exemplary Bishop.

Vatican II was first discussed by Timothy and Taylor on their video of the same title. In the surface they agree that there are ambiguities in the texts that needs clarification. But as the two of them elaborated their views on their channels, Gordon is vocal that one cannot read from Nostra Aetate the ecumenical distortions we have today, contradicting Taylor, Schneider, and Viganó’s views.

Gordon will release a book on Vatican II soon. Maybe there he will clarify a lot.

When asked what should Trads do? Gordon said, since many of the Trads are not reading the Vatican II texts, they should read them or read his book when it comes out because it will clarify and correct many misconception of some Trads regarding Vatican II.

Maybe both you and Gordon are more and more in agreement on Vatican II. That’s how I see it. Although both of you are hundred miles apart regarding Pope Francis . . .

But unlike Phil Lawler who is quite questioning Vatican II now in some of his articles at Catholic Culture, Gordon is less concern with the text as containing errors, and more concern with the intentions of some of the drafters of the texts which havoc confusion after the Council.

Well, I am delighted to hear this about Timothy Gordon. I noted a few years back that Lawler was starting to waver on Vatican II (and his wife just signed the big “statement” criticizing it). I have repeatedly defended Vatican II against reactionary criticism: especially in my 12-part reply to Paolo Pasqualucci.

So I’ve done that work in that series and other papers: replying to what is being charged. I think it can help people who are trying to reconcile Vatican II with sacred tradition. I’ve never had the slightest problem doing so, whenever some [pseudo-]issue came up.

***

*
Photo credit: Timothy Gordon (right), with former sidekick Taylor Marshall [from The Libertarian Catholic web page]

***

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

legalism

Pharisaism

quasi-schismatic

Radical Catholic Reactionaries

radical Catholic reactionary

Previous Post

September 2, 2020

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works

Next Post

September 7, 2020 "Love Your Enemies": Old Testament Teaching Too?

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