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
So-Called “Neo-Catholics”

So-Called “Neo-Catholics”

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:49 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

So-Called “Neo-Catholics” 2026-06-06T00:49:59-04:00 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.

Chapter 4 (pp. 37-43) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:

Introduction (on the book page)

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are Not [9-28-21]

If you’re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal’s classic, Pensées (“thoughts”). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece as “raw pearls” and “more like ‘sayings’ than a book . . . ‘Sayings’ reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That’s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T. III, 42, 4).”

I am not intending to compare myself or my own “thoughts” or their cogency or import in any way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pensées, which harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological “bottom lines” and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.

*****

Radical Catholic reactionaries contend that “conservative” Catholics deny the modernist crisis by pretending it doesn’t exist, or by rationalizing and justifying it. Of course, orthodox Catholics who know much at all about the state of the Church in practice don’t deny that there is a crisis. The orthodox difference with the reactionary position lies in the cause and precise nature of the crisis. We don’t locate its primary cause in Vatican II and post-1958 popes (supposedly “modernist” or “ambiguous,” etc., etc.), or the New Mass. We place it where it belongs: on the shoulders of heterodox modernists who have worked to undermine traditional orthodoxy and piety — whether in sincerity, or according to a diabolical plan to destroy the Church (which is, of course, impossible to do — Matthew 16:18).

Conservative implies that there is a legitimate liberal option within Catholicism, which is absolutely untrue. One either accepts the teaching of the Church in toto, or else one has adopted the Protestant principle of authority (private judgment and supremacy of the individual over the Church).

“Conservative Catholics” do not – as their critics assert — fail to look for the root causes of the present crisis, and delude themselves in thinking that a revival is in the germinating stage. The heretical tendency has always been with us. It has never subverted or perverted any Catholic doctrine, because God wouldn’t allow that to happen. Reactionaries disagree? Then they should take up their argument with God Himself, and Holy Scripture.

There are a host of causes for the present crisis in the Church, going back to Protestantism (even elements of the Renaissance and the earlier nominalism), the “Enlightenment,” materialistic evolutionism, the utopian ideal of Progress, massive secularization, Marxism, philosophical relativism, political and theological liberalism, the sexual and feminist and unisex revolutions, idolatrous wealth and all the myriad temptations of modern American life, the disintegration of the family, the incessant propaganda and brainwashing of TV and movies and advertising, lack of education and catechesis, etc. All these cultural and intellectual fads and fashions infiltrate Catholics as individuals, but they cannot penetrate the fortress of Catholic dogma or ecclesiological structure. If such were possible, certainly we would have had by now (at the very least) permitted contraception and abortion and divorce, female priests, married priests in the Latin Rites, openly homosexual priests (as with the Anglicans), a denial of the dogma of transubstantiation, process theology, liberation theology, a demotion of the papacy, etc.

“Conservative Catholics” supposedly are (wrongheadedly) more concerned with reactionaries (those on the far “right”) than with modernists, Protestants, cultists, and agnostics (those on the “left”). As a Catholic apologist, I have far, far more material on my website (especially including links) and books about these other groups than about reactionaries. I dare say that this is the case for virtually all Catholic apologists I am aware of. Virtually all of my papers are written with Protestants in the back of my mind (how to persuade them to convert to Catholicism). I have treated reactionaryism at length because the amount of error and self-contradiction to be found in it is enormous and harmful to souls — and because it masquerades itself as the only “pure” form of Catholicism (analogous to the Protestant fundamentalists). I have a web page on radical Catholic reactionaries, but I also have one for the various heresies, and for theological liberalism (and atheism as well).

A reactionary told me that “conservative Catholics” must “mature” or grow into (what he called) the “traditionalist” position; and that dialogue and disputation would not bring this about: only contemplation could do so. Why, then, did Paul “argue” and “dispute” and “reason” with Jews and Greeks, if this is true? Why did Jesus debate the Pharisees? Why did St. Thomas Aquinas write his masterwork in a question-and-answer, back-and-forth, premise and objection form? Why did he debate the Muslims? Why did St. Augustine debate the Manichees and Donatists, and St. Justin Martyr, the Jews? Why did Cardinal Newman debate Mr. Kingsley (thus giving us his masterpiece Apologia pro vita Sua)? And why pit debate against contemplation? This is simply one more ploy to avoid constructive dialogue — in so doing the reactionaries who think like this have bought into yet another modernist (and “religious fundamentalist”) error: the sneering at reason as a means to truth. We are simply supposed to shut up and “listen” to the never-ending doom-and-gloom monologues and jeremiads against the Church. How did this become a one-way street? Who said that the reactionaries were the teachers and we were the students? Who anointed them?

I and other orthodox Catholics need to “mature” into the reactionary position? I “matured” into Catholicism from Protestantism, but that didn’t happen by reading books up in a tree house somewhere. I did read many books, but it was the dozens of hours of vigorous discussion with my friends, and then reading Newman’s Essay on Development (itself an extended argument against the Anglican version of Church history), and vigorous arguments against contraception and the Protestant Revolution that convinced me — quite the opposite of this contention that dialogue and debate doesn’t change anyone. I had to be “unconvinced” of my former positions, not just “convinced” by reading something different, as if I were Muhammed receiving the Koran out of heaven, with no argument, no questions asked; no mental or rational process. I’ll take the reason, logic, philosophy, and apologetics of Aquinas, Augustine, Jesus, Paul, Newman, Pascal, Jerome, Bossuet, Bellarmine, Chesterton, Francis de Sales, Knox et al, any day, if the choice is between this group and reactionary contemplation, to the exclusion of rational scrutiny.

Reactionary logic is curiously and fatally self-contradictory, ironically exhibiting many of the same characteristics that it claims to decry in theological modernism and Protestantism, and in what it denigrates and despises as a compromised, so-called “conservative” Catholicism, allegedly in cahoots with (or at the least, blind to) the attempted modernist / liberal / “progressive” crisis that has rocked the Church in recent years. This self-contradiction and strong tendency towards the “slippery slope” is one reason why reactionaryism — by its own admission — suffers from the never-ending internal splits and conflicts typical of all schismatic and sectarian and heretical movements that operate on the false principle of private judgment. Thus any given reactionary will severely criticize movements to their “right” – such as sedevacantism – while not seeing that their own underlying principles, premises, and presuppositions lead inexorably to such “further out” conclusions which are more consistent and coherent (albeit more distant from orthodoxy) than their own.

I find it extremely humorous and ironic that I am now — in effect — accused of being a quasi-modernist for simply defending the pope’s supreme and preeminent authority. Yet those who undermine it by cafeteria-like selectivity and an imprudent appeal to conscience (a la Luther) are supposedly the true Guardians of Catholic tradition! Papal supremacy dies the death of a thousand qualifications at the hands of reactionaries. What better way to undermine papal authority than this? Incrementalism . . . Satan’s ploy.

The schismatic mindset condemns anyone to the “left” of them as “conservative” Catholics, inherently compromised by association with the modernists, by their very nature. I know spiritual elitism when I see it, and it stinks. I used to observe that all the time as a Protestant. The Reformed / Calvinists thought they were the true legatees of the “Reformation heritage” and that other Protestants were intrinsically compromised and inferior. Certain charismatics thought they were of a higher category because of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The name-it-claim-it crowd thought they were the elite amongst the charismatics. The fundamentalists thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread and that all others were flaming liberals. Now reactionaries think they are the only totally orthodox and “true blue” Catholics, while they go around knocking the pope, the New Mass, and Vatican II. Truth is stranger than fiction, isn’t it?

G. K. Chesterton:

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad . . . The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable . . . It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob . . . It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to avoid them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. (Orthodoxy, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1908, 100-101)

G. K. Chesterton:

The Church is from the first a thing holding its own position and point of view, quite apart from the accidents and anarchies of its age. That is why it deals blows impartially right and left, at the pessimism of the Manichean or the optimism of the Pelagian. It was not a Manichean movement because it was not a movement at all. It was not an official fashion because it was not a fashion at all. It was something that could coincide with movements and fashions, could control them and could survive them. (The Everlasting Man, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1925, 228)

No one is denying the crisis. It’s the interpretation of it and its causes and cures, and the prognosis for the future that are in dispute.

A reactionary told me that if I want to win over reactionaries, that it was advisable to emphasize my “sympathy with them over the crisis.” We already do (they just don’t know it). But beyond that, one doesn’t pull someone out of a pit of despair or lack of faith or adoption of various false principles of epistemology and Christian authority by getting down in the pit with them. Grown-ups ought to be able to withstand a critique of their view, and be able to compare two visions side-by-side and decide for themselves which is more sensible, plausible, true, consistent, and Catholic. The mutual derision of liberalism is quite enough commonality. I’m quite as unhappy and disdainful about liberalism as any reactionary is. I utterly detest and despise and loathe it: and I felt the same, even as a Protestant.

Orthodox Catholics say that the liberals are on their way out, like dinosaurs. Reactionaries, on the other hand, seem to think they are almost triumphant, having allegedly infiltrated and co-opted a council and the mind of a very influential pope (Pope St. John Paul II). That is a major difference; orthodox Catholics are far more optimistic than reactionaries are.

We so-called “conservatives” don’t have to make a false dichotomy between tradition and the current leadership of the Church. We believe the Holy Spirit can preserve the Church, no matter who is in charge of it. As Malcolm Muggeridge and others have observed: seeing the sort of people who have often been in charge of the Church, this is a strong indication of the Divine Hand. That’s not to say that we think Pope St. John Paul II is a bad pope – not at all – rather, it is an observation about the lack of faith of the reactionaries, who do think that Pope St. John Paul II is doing great harm, and that God lets it happen and does nothing to protect His Church. That view is ludicrous, from a Catholic standpoint.

Objections to the Reactionary Epithet Neo-Catholic [3-9-07]

Debate: Am I a Neo-Catholic? (Defined as Theological Liberal / Progressive / Enabler of Modernism) [vs. Mr. X] [6-11-14]

Dialogue: Meaning of “Neo-Catholic” (w Phillip Campbell) [11-27-20]

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***
*

Photo credit: OpenClipart-Vectors (3-30-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]
*

Summary: Chapter 4 (pp. 37-43) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the free online version).

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

Neo-Catholics

Novus Ordo Catholics

Orthodox Catholics

Radical Catholic Reactionaries

traditionalists

Vatican II Catholics

Previous Post

November 16, 2023

The Indefectibility of the Church

Next Post

November 17, 2023 Development of Doctrine vs. Evolution of Dogma

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

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