El diagnostico clinico

| Integrism from:TCR - Catholicism vs. Integrism http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id34.html Definition of "Integrist" (Extreme Traditionalist) TCR Note: Since some have inquired about the terms "Integrist" / "Integralist" (the term used by Cardinal Ratzinger to describe SSPX and similar errors, see The Ratzinger Report) we thought it would be helpful to share the following historical sketch from anemail list a couple of years ago. "The term "integrism" was coined during the pontificate of Pius X and his successor after the former condemned modernism. As it is customary, after such a condemnation, some zealots begin to see 'modernists' under every stone. An organization headed by Msgr. Begnini (not Bugnini or Benelli!) called "La Sapinière" from the name of their headquarters started awitchhunt and went to denounce as modernists perfectly orthodox theologians or scripture scholars. Scholars like Lagrange, O.P. (who was the first one to see the danger and to denounce it in the writings of Loisy), Lebreton, SJ, de Grandmaison, SJ, etc.. became suspect because they endeavours to refute the arguments of modernists on their own fields. I believe, Begnini's organization was latersuppressed by Benedict XV. Jean Madiran, the publisher of Itinéraires, has a book on 'L'intégrisme, cet inconnu'. Also, Jean Toulat, a Catholic sociologist, who is usually fairly objective had published a volume on modernism and one on integrism which are quite interesting on the historical and sociological level. I remember also reading lines of Louis salleron on Itineraires in the 70's on thissubject which were quite pertinent. . For Salleron, it is more a distinction in character than a distinction in ideas. You may find people who are quite 'integrist' idea wise bu very 'progressive'in their moral life. Salleron, used to say that M.-D. Chenu, O.P., (whom he knew well) was certainly a progressist as far as theological, political and social issues but rather integrist in other areas of life."Regarding theology, the progressivist is charmed by anything new; the progressivist theologian wants theological issues to be as free as possible and tends to limit unduly what is required to be believed to remain Catholic. The 'integrist' theologian, au contraire, tends to restrict what is legitimate theological opinion. He 'theologizes' i.e. he takes a theological opinion and makes it a dogmaor at least a theological certitude which no one is free to reject. In liturgy, the progressist thinks that the non-sacramental rites and symbols can be adapted without any restraint. The 'integrist' believes that every rubrics is as important as the next one, and will even try to impose the personal view of a liturgist as mandated by the church. A recent example which come to mind is a personwho insisted that only red wine should be used for Mass and was making a big deal about it. The example of ( a canonist) is also quite good. I guess one could say that the problem of progressivists and integrists is to fail to make a distinction between what is essential and what is accidental, what is important and what is not. The progressivist tends to make everything unimportant and thereforechangeable and the integrist will tend to make everything important and therefore un-changeable. In both case, it is a misunderstanding of tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrism This term was originally coined to describe those who elevated theological differences to differences in dogma, by degrees. The integrist confused that which was the faith, with that which expressed it. Todayit used as a pejorative to "describe" those who adhere to traditional Catholicism. It is also used to describe extreme islamism. It describes those who separate the Holy See from the governance of Catholic faith, especially where it concerns the Latin rite Mass and the controversy between the Normative Mass, and the Mass of the 1962 Missal. This philosophy is often confused with traditional...