![\"Reflections](\"https:\/\/davearmstrongbooks.store\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/cover_reflections-on-radical-catholic-reactionaries-2.jpg\")
<\/a>\nDave Armstrong\u2019s first book on radical Catholic reactionaries \u2014 339 numbered \u201csayings\u201d arranged across sixteen chapters, modeled in form after Pascal\u2019s *Pens\u00e9es*. A presupposition-level critique of the quasi-schismatic mindset that judges popes, the New Mass, and Vatican II, from a Catholic devoted to the Latin liturgy himself.<\/p>\n (145 pages; first edition completed in December 2002; published by Lulu in April 2007; revised second edition with a new title and new front and back covers completed on 17 August 2013, and published at Lulu on the same day)<\/p>\n [slightly revised again in November 2023 (mostly terminology) in order to prepare the totally FREE online version<\/strong>; follow the links below to read each portion]<\/p>\n Front cover photograph: Newcastle Upon Tyne: ruins of Tynemouth Priory (chancel: 13th century) at the mouth of the River Tyne, in Northumberland (northeast England). From the website, Losing It: Les Bessant\u2019s Ramblings<\/i>: 30 September 2010.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n Dedication [read below]<\/p>\n Introduction [read below]<\/p>\n I Radical Catholic Reactionaries: Essential Characteristics (1-30) [read online<\/a>] To G. K. Chesterton, whose writing continually exhibited the [revised on 15 August 2013 and very slightly on 15 November 2023]<\/p>\n A brief explanation of this book and my goals and outlook concerning it, is in order. I had in mind the method and structure of the French mathematician, physicist, and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal\u2019s classic, Pens\u00e9es<\/em> (\u201cthoughts\u201d \u2014 unfinished and in unorganized sketch form at his death in 1662). The \u201cReflections\u201d in my title is roughly synonymous with pens\u00e9es<\/em>.<\/p>\n The late, great journalist, social critic, and convert to Catholicism, Malcolm Muggeridge, was an avid admirer of Pascal and the Pens\u00e9es<\/i>; particularly with regard to its unsystematic format. He thought that Pascal\u2019s death before his material could be organized into a proper book was a \u201cbeneficent, if not miraculous circumstance.\u201d<\/p>\n Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft, in his delightful commentary on the Pens\u00e9es<\/i>, Christianity for Modern Pagans <\/i>(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993, 10-11), wrote insightfully about the organization and unfinished nature of Pascal\u2019s Pens\u00e9es<\/i>, which he described as \u201craw pearls\u201d and \u201cscattered notes, like a scholar\u2019s storm-struck study\u201d:<\/p>\n The pens\u00e9es<\/i> . . . are more like \u201csayings\u201d than a book . . . their very artlessness is the highest art. There is a higher and a lower mode of teaching. Books are the lower; living is the higher. \u201cSayings\u201d are halfway between. They reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That\u2019s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T.<\/i> III, 42, 4): because he taught like Christ, in the higher mode. That\u2019s why he wrote no books . . . Pascal has the passionate impatience of a lover. He writes lyrics, not maps \u2013 like St. Francis.<\/p>\n 924 of Pascal\u2019s pens\u00e9es<\/i> were compiled in the Harvard Classics<\/i> edition of 1910, translated by W. F. Trotter, and 993 appeared in the Penguin Classics<\/i> edition of 1966, translated by A. J. Krailsheimer. I doubt that I could come up with nearly that many separate observations on any<\/i> topic, but I have managed to compile 339 separate \u201csayings\u201d or what might be called \u201cobservations\u201d in this book.<\/p>\n There the meager comparison ends, and I hasten to emphasize that I am not intending to compare myself or my own \u201cthoughts\u201d or their cogency or import in any<\/i> way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or St. Francis or to our Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n I merely thought it might be worthwhile and helpful, for my purposes, to organize my writing on the topic of radical Catholic reactionaries (habitually abbreviated as \u201creactionaries\u201d) in the same manner, in order to utilize some of the benefits of the unconventional structure of the Pens\u00e9es<\/i>. These advantages harmonize well, I believe, with the \u201cphilosophy\u201d or \u201capproach\u201d that I myself have taken with regard to the present subject.<\/p>\n Rather than attempt a systematic \u201clegal\u201d critique primarily from canon law and all the various proclamations of the Church regarding schism and authority, and so forth (more akin to the method of St. Thomas Aquinas), I have sought to analyze (minus <\/i>proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological \u201cbottom lines\u201d and (in a word), the spirit <\/i>of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.<\/p>\n One might regard such an enterprise as logically and conceptually prior<\/i> to a formal critique (whether theological or philosophical) of the modes of thought involved. As Pascal sought to examine and \u201cexpose\u201d the underlying assumptions of the unbeliever and the skeptic of his time (similar to Socrates\u2019 own modus operandi<\/i>), so I am trying to arrive at the foundational assumptions or \u201cmindset\u201d of the radical Catholic reactionary (as opposed<\/i> to the mainstream Catholic \u201ctraditionalist\u201d: with whom I have a great deal in common).<\/p>\n When legitimate \u201ctradition\u201d is abused or \u201cco-opted\u201d, it is a synonym for \u201ctraditions of men falsely made out to be<\/i> the only proper traditions of the Church.\u201d It\u2019s a faulty and erroneous use of both dogma and private judgment (and often, selective<\/i> judgment) contrary to orthodox Catholic theology and ecclesiology, and also Christian unity and charity.<\/p>\n I should make it abundantly clear (for obvious reasons) that I have no problem whatsoever with a devotion to the Tridentine Mass, or traditional liturgical practice and devotion (not to mention traditional morality and catechesis). Quite the contrary: I myself have been a member, for twenty-two years, of a quite traditional parish, which celebrates the Mass in Latin (Novus Ordo<\/i>) every Sunday. Our larger parish (incorporating three church buildings) celebrates the Tridentine Mass every Sunday.<\/p>\n I utterly despise liturgical and aesthetic, architectural mediocrity, and modernism. I was received into the Church (after informal instruction) by the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. \u2014 a theologian renowned for his impeccable orthodoxy, who was a catechist for Mother Teresa\u2019s Missionaries of Charity. He has formally recommended my writing. I strongly believe in Fatima, Lourdes, and the Rosary, and even fully accept the controversial proposed Marian definitions, and have written much about them.<\/p>\n I am particularly fond of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman; having edited The Quotable Newman<\/i> (Sophia Institute Press, 2012), and I love Chesterton, Belloc, and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. A rejection of contraception and an aversion to the events and worldview of the Protestant Revolution were two of the major reasons why I was received into the Catholic Church in 1991.<\/p>\n Therefore, despite my strong, heartfelt disagreements with radical Catholic reactionaries and occasionally with mainstream \u201ctraditionalists,\u201d indeed we have much in common, and I never claim that radical Catholic reactionaries are not Catholics (in the canonical sense of being baptized and adhering to the Creed, etc.). I prefer the descriptions of \u201cschismatic spirit\u201d or \u201cquasi-schismatic\u201d: as opposed to outright \u201cschismatic\u201d (excepting sedevacantism). I refer to \u201cun-Catholic\u201d beliefs or principles, but not to \u201cnon-Catholic\u201d persons \u2014 a crucial distinction to bear in mind.<\/p>\n I possess no knee-jerk or merely temperamental or so-called \u201cneo-Catholic\u201d objection to legitimate traditionalism per se. I am contending against a distinctly separate group that I call \u201cradical Catholic reactionaries\u201d or \u201creactionaries\u201d in short (my own self-coined term, originating in August 2013). I have no agenda other than the pursuit of truth and the \u201cmind of the Church\u201d on the matters of authority and true apostolic tradition.<\/p>\n The debate on the issues covered in this book has changed considerably in the eleven years since the first edition: so much that a change of terminology and system of classification was, in my opinion, called for. The revision will reflect these \u201cre-thought\u201d categories and use my new term, while at the same time, maintaining, as much as possible, the original content and tenor of the original 2002 edition. The errors critiqued remain the same, even though the terms have changed (most importantly, to make it much more clear that there is such a thing as legitimate \u201ctraditionalism\u201d that is not<\/i> being opposed in this book).<\/p>\n One problem remains the same as always: the co-opting of the term \u201ctraditionalism\u201d by groups and schools of thought that vary quite widely. It\u2019s similar to the love and adoption of the word \u201cChristian\u201d by many sects that are not Christian at all (since they deny the Holy Trinity or the divinity of Jesus Christ). Apologists like myself and other observers need to differentiate groups that are using the same name, for purposes of identification and critique, and to prevent misunderstandings as to exactly what<\/i> we are contending against as error.<\/p>\n Many people (quite fashionably these days) profess a strong objection to labels, but as long as human beings talk and identify themselves (or sets of ideas) at all<\/i>, and as long as distinguishable errors and falsehoods remain afoot, I\u2019m afraid that titles, labels, and names cannot be avoided. Moreover, \u201cnegative\u201d labels will continue to offend <\/i>those who are classified under them. This can\u2019t be avoided, either, since human beings will always object to any notion that they may be in bondage to an error or spiritually dangerous belief system.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\nMore from Dave about this book<\/summary>\n
Continue reading (2 more)<\/summary>\n
II Faith and Optimism vs. Pessimism (31-67) [read online<\/a>]
III The Indefectibility of the Church (68-81) [read online<\/a>]
IV So-Called \u201cNeo-Catholics\u201d (82-97) [read online<\/a>]
V Development of Doctrine vs. Evolution of Dogma (98-111) [read online<\/a>]
VI Private Judgment & \u201cCafeteria Catholics\u201d (112-129) [read online<\/a>]
VII Fundamentalists & Insufficiently Converted Catholics (130-135) [read online<\/a>]
VIII \u201cPre-Conciliar\u201d Church: the \u201cGood Old Days\u201d (136-141) [read online<\/a>]
IX Ecumenism & Religious Liberty (142-193) [read online<\/a>]
X The Theory of Evolution & Catholicism (194-197) [read online<\/a>]
XI Is Vatican II a \u201cModernist\u201d Council? (198-226) [read online<\/a>]
XII Are the Vatican II Documents \u201cAmbiguous\u201d? (227-251) [read online<\/a>]
XIII Post-Vatican II \u201cLiberal\u201d Popes (252-276) [read online<\/a>]
XIV The Pauline (\u201cNew\u201d) Mass (277-292) [read online<\/a>]
XV Was Pope St. John Paul II a \u201cModernist\u201d? (293-327) [read online<\/a>]
XVI The Quasi-Schismatic Mentality (328-339) [read online<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cromance,\u201d intellectual solidity, and spiritual excitement of
Catholic orthodoxy, and demonstrated how it was neither dead,
antiquated, and reactionary, as is often claimed by its critics on
the heterodox left of the theological spectrum, nor \u201cmodernism,\u201d
\u201ccompromise,\u201d and \u201cneo-Catholicism\u201d: as the caricatures from
the radical right would have it<\/p>\n<\/div>\nContinue reading (18 more)<\/summary>\n
![\"Dave](\"https:\/\/davearmstrongbooks.store\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/wordmark_3_cropped.png\")
<\/span><\/a>\n