Replies

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 a correspondence several years ago.

Quick definition: Integrism is that form of both historical and theological error, and sometime outright rebellion / schism, which confuses the substance and accidents of faith and considers them both to be "Integral" to the Faith.

"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 a witchhunt 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 later suppressed 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 this subject 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 dogma or 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 person who 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 therefore changeable and the integrist will tend to make everything important and therefore un-changeable. In both case, it is a misunderstanding of tradition.

A correct concept of tradition is the basis for a true progress. The progressivist is suspicious of tradition. We live in a different world. Tradition cannot apply as such, they think. We have to find new ways. The integrist receives tradition but without distinguishing what was bound to a certain period of time and what is perennial because based on natural law and revelation. As Salleron was pointing out, one can find a progressist in theology and an integrist in liturgy. Etc...

"For example, if we look at the Traditional Mass, one of the rubrics states the priest can only have his hands shoulder-length apart during some parts of the Mass. I know a very holy Indult priest who was a little sloppy in this regard, given his tendency for pious exageration in order to combat liturgical abuse. His hands would be closer to a shoulder-length-and-a-half apart. Some local Lefebvrites condemned this action as a liturgical abuse no different than our Call-to-Action priest who uses honey-cake and dancing girls at his Novus Ordo. On the one hand we had actions that were invalidating and a grave lack of respect. Where on the other hand we had a slight pious exageration. See the difference?

"To maintain, in the name of the law, that the going astray from the rubrics of both priests is somehow equal in abuse, would be an example of integrism. The error is usually not in the denial of doctrine, but rather in the invention of doctrine.

"The conception of theological orthodoxy which triumphed over modernism by force majeure rather than by free and open debate was described appositely by some of its defenders [!] as 'integralism' [ Integrism]. In their minds it stood or fell as a whole, and a divinely guaranteed whole at that. It comprised certain clearly defined philosophical foundations together with a systematic superstructure the various elements of which were each seen as indispensable to the whole. Its defenders became convinced during the first decade of the twentieth century that both foundations and superstructure were under insidious and radical attack from the inside."

Gabriel Daly--Transcendance and Immanence, a Study in Catholic Integralism and Modernism. Oxford U Press. 1980

By this definition we can see in retrospect that, with Vatican II, which, of course, came much later than the period discussed in the quotation, the Church determined that neither Integrism nor modernism could stand as a theological or ecclesiological "superstructure".

The Church, dialectically, as it were, takes the meat and leaves the bones from both "isms" while maintaining her dogmas, the Deposit of Faith, completely in tact. Neither "ism" likes this approach. Thus liberals and Integrists both attack JPII.

1) The truth in aspects of Integrism (which could not be accepted as a total system) was its insistence on immutable truths grounded in revelation.

2) The truth in aspects of modernism (which could not be accepted as a total system) was that scholasticism had grown old and was less well understood by many educated moderns. It needed to be translated, albeit without losing its substance.

The same with the "higher critical" (as opposed to textual) approach to the Scriptures. Pius XII in his encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, accepted only the aspects of it which were **compatible with** the Faith and rejected any aspect of its methodology which were founded upon agnostic or relativist presuppositions. This has always been the way of the Church, as seen in St. Thomas' approach to Aristotle, to take but one example.

Vatican II represented the Church's steady course, 'twixt both relativism and legalism. --- TCR