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
The Quasi-Schismatic Mentality

The Quasi-Schismatic Mentality

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:50 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

The Quasi-Schismatic Mentality 2026-06-06T00:50:16-04:00 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 16 (pp. 141-145) 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.

*****

Schism has shown itself to be far more long lasting historically, whereas heresies often die out (completely or substantially). In that sense, one might say that schism poses a greater threat to the Church and to souls. If the pope were to crack down on the American Catholic “church” with the full vigor radical Catholic reactionaries and many “traditionalists” and so-called “conservatives” call for, we can be sure that wholesale schism would result. That is a tragic eventuality to be avoided at all costs, as the harm to souls and the Church would be arguably far greater than that caused by the modernist crisis.

The pope is, therefore, between a rock and a hard place with regard to modernist dissent and domination of Catholic institutions such as seminaries, schools, and dioceses. Those who counsel a new Inquisition are greatly lacking in historical hindsight and prudential wisdom, in my opinion, which is odd, since they ought to know that modernists are every bit as devoted to their cause, and will fight tooth and nail to retain their worldly power and influence. This was all obvious by 1968 at the latest, when we observed the shocking organized resistance to Humanae Vitae.

One reactionary wrote fondly of the “spirit of the ‘old Traditionalists.’” One can perhaps see the potential seeds of yet another sect developing, out of this rhetoric. Such is the inevitable destiny of all who leave the Church, either formally, or in a perilously close spirit of disobedience and “material” schism. “Old Catholics”; “Old Traditionalists”; “Old Believers” (self-described “traditional” Orthodox in Russia); “Old Order Amish”; “Old-Fashioned Fundamentalism.” One detects a certain pattern . . . . reactionaries keep closing the circle of “true believers” tighter and tighter, until (theoretically) there could be ten people in the whole world who constitute the “Catholic Church.” That doesn’t sound like the One True, Universal, Catholic Church. The folly and falsity of this is obvious, but the lure of felt importance that comes with the self-understanding of being the “pure remnant” can overcome all tradition and common sense and rational Catholic thought.

Technically, the views expressed by many reactionaries might be orthodox and non-schismatic, but when all is said and done, the views are so close to schism and disobedience (with the pope and Vatican II railed against so incessantly), that in a very real practical (or what one might call a psychological) sense, there is virtually no difference. And this extremist, separatist mindset seems impervious to all reasoning and appeal to any Church teaching whatever.

Orthodox Catholics (so-called “conservatives” or “neo-Catholics”) embrace (doctrinally speaking) Protestants and non-Christians to the extent that they agree with Catholic teaching, and with truth itself. I haven’t anathematized reactionaryism. I have made analogies in this book to false beliefs and mindsets, and argued that it indicates a “quasi-schismatic mentality,” etc., but I continue to call reactionaries Catholics. If anything, reactionaries are the ones who often imply that people of my category are out of the faith, since it is constantly insinuated that we are in cahoots with, and compromised over modernism, which we both alike despise as heterodox and barely Catholic, if at all.

What reactionaries are doing is precisely what the liberals did with regard to Humanae Vitae. They reasoned that it wasn’t infallible in the extraordinary sense; therefore they could disobey it. This is the very root of the current modernist crisis as outwardly manifested in the Church. And the irony is that reactionary thought adopts exactly the same skepticism and disobedience towards certain papal pronouncements.

Reactionaries are more schismatic and culpable than Luther and Calvin in some respects, because as Catholics, they know better, and besides, the dogmas of both papal and conciliar infallibility are both much more certain now than in 1521 — the former having been defined in 1870 and the latter coming close to that in Vatican II. Luther, therefore, could dissent with strong Catholic tradition while not technically disobeying a defined dogma. Reactionaries have no such excuse (and it is a tenuous one even in Luther’s case).

Reactionaries, in effect (by their behavior and mentality) or in actuality, deny defined dogmas and canon laws in disobeying the pope and undermining and insulting an ecumenical council. Reactionaries want the (Second Vatican) Council and they don’t want it; they want papal authority, but they want the right to disbelieve this particular papal pronouncement. And so on and so forth. I wouldn’t be a member of the Catholic Church for a minute if I believed this.

Modernism is not officially sanctioned on the magisterial level. It is tolerated by many bishops in practice, but this is no new thing, either (St. John Fisher was the lone faithful bishop in England at the time of Henry VIII), and is not nearly as easily dealt with as reactionaries seem to think. Heresy must be dealt with slowly and with great tactical and strategic wisdom, but it can be decisively defeated in the long run. Schism, on the other hand, is much more historically long-lived, as we see in the Orthodox-Catholic split, which is now 959 years old, and Nestorian and Monophysite sects which persist to this day (1560-1580 years old). So the Church must be very prudent in how it deals with heretics and dissidents in its own fold, lest they create a widespread schism that is to be avoided at all costs, for the sake of souls. It has not compromised its doctrine or moral theology, so the real debate here is in the particular strategy that should be adopted to “crack down” on heresy and dissent. Pope St. John Paul II has ingeniously, brilliantly upstaged the liberals and set the wheels in motion for what is now inevitably a tremendous defeat for the modernists and their entire agenda.

The reactionary way of thinking is little different from Martin Luther’s at the Diet of Worms in 1521. All the primary ingredients are present: incessant doubt, belief that the Church can actually be enclosed in a “Babylonian Captivity,” the spurning of authority; disobedience to superiors, an almost cynical skepticism, a pessimistic disbelief in God’s promise to protect His Church from error, hyper-rationalism, a sectarian, nitpicking, quasi-schismatic mentality, selective espousal of authority and magisterial decrees, with the ultimate criterion being one’s own private opinion. This is not the Catholic spirit. Why even have binding authority at all, if people refuse to acknowledge it, and live consistently under it? That was never God’s plan.

As for the disciplinary question of how the Church ought to deal with modernism, dissenters, theological liberals who no longer hold to its teachings, but who continue to claim the title Catholic, the Church has generally tried to resort to diplomacy and dialogue and patience more so than the instant threats of excommunication and interdict which characterized the Middle Ages. Sure, the Church took a hardline stand with Henry VIII. That was principled. What did it achieve, though?: the loss of England to the Catholic faith (and by extension, all its colonies and its Empire, and the United States as a majority Catholic country), and untold hardships and suffering of Catholics in England, Scotland, and especially Ireland for almost 500 years – in some cases (e.g., Belfast) right up to our own time. We know that the situation in America (in particular) could easily blow up into schism, and almost did in the controversy surrounding Humanae Vitae in 1968, where theologians and bishops flat-out rebelled en masse against Pope Paul VI’s heroic teaching reaffirming the age-old Christian ban on contraception. It is quite reasonable to assume, therefore, that strong, sweeping papal disciplinary actions in America would almost certainly result in a tragic schism. And since schism is to be avoided at all costs, the pope and orthodox bishops must proceed in a slower, more deliberate, long-term fashion. Catholicism is neither Puritanism nor Donatism.

Reactionaries don’t seem to realize that if the crisis is as grave as they claim (and orthodox Catholics largely agree with them), that it is no easy matter at all for the pope or even the pope and a significant minority of orthodox bishops with some spine, to put an end to it. Reactionaries fail to see what that very level of entrenched crisis and dissent implies for any possible massive disciplinary move to wipe it out. It took the Spaniards 700 years to reconquer their country. Internal dissent and infiltration are even more difficult to weed out, in many respects, than foreign invaders. It won’t take the Church 700 years, but it won’t be accomplished in a day or a week, either.

*****
*

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, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***
*
Photo credit: geralt (3-6-19) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]
*

Summary: Ch. 16 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

ecclesiological far right

Lefebvrites

quasi-schismatic

Radical Catholic Reactionaries

radtrads

ultratraditionalists

Previous Post

November 27, 2023

Was Pope St. John Paul II a “Modernist”?

Next Post

November 28, 2023 "Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved"

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