www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Traditionalism and Integrism

Hello

What are the main differences between Traditionalism and Integrism? I am told by some people that Integrism is in fact Religious Traditionalism exported to the political level and to social struggle, but I am not sure.

While groups such as the SSPX in Catholicism or the ROCOR in Orthodoxy are often described as Traditionalists, the Church of Met. Tarcisius Pivarunas (in Catholicism) and the Genuine Orthodox Church are labeled as Integrist. But the fact that some are more radical than other makes them Integrist?

Althout the term "Integrism" almost always refers to Islam, there are many organizations of both Catholics and Orthodox who strongly value the religious identity of the Nation but without being themselves religious asociations.

Does Integrism exist in Byzantine-Catholicism even when Byzantine-Catholicism does not seem to have a strong identity?

Mexican,

I find your post offensive. First I find nothing radical in both SSPX or ROCOR. Both arise as the direct result of legitimate differences within their respective Mother Church. I would not label either group "radical".

Mexican- well, that should answer your question about the existence of integralism within Byzantine Catholicism. :rolleyes:
-Daniel

Mexican,

IMHO, ROCOR is a split for the moment, and I say that because as we speak they are preparing for the sobor that will lead to reunification with the Russian Church. For a period of about of the last 35 years, they chose to lead an exclusive if not radically conservative stance that was not shaken until the retirement of their previous First Hierarch. They both are now in for the most part harmony in how they speak and teach. Since then, they returned to an aligned theological and historical stance by stating that the Communist State is no longer pulling the strings, and that the Church has resumed its independence. It has dropped its political agenda of monarchy, and is focusing just as the Mother Church is by rebuilding its spiritual life for all.

The St Pius X (in this I can not speak with any authority, just by observation), I believe are pained at the present estrangement with the Holy See. In the current pontiff I think that they will find that outside of ritual, they have a friend. I believe that was their major concern, not the change in ritual as much as a norm for the integrity and teachings of the church. Again many abuse may have crept in, but it is going to take a while to clean house, and get rid of those impurities. They have to realize though, that liturgy is a living organism, and changes reflect growth if properly observed in the rubrics prescribed. I have to argue one point, prayer must be in the venacular (sic) and must include dialogue. From the two videos I have seen involving the TLM, I have been appalled. There is no dialogue of prayer, just the priest saying his part while the choir does its part, and the faithful saying their rosaries. At least the Novus Ordo Mass depite the reported abuses, and I have seen some myself, has restored the laity with a dialogue.

Whether or not it is traditionalism or not, both have brought issues forth that have made the respective churches address the issues. Some issues still need to be resolved or addressed, but at least it has forced an introspection that may have not been addressed. This holds true for some part with the more moderate factions that may be left of the Old Calendar Greek Church which you have eluded to. Certain traditional values are being taught again and instituted. Sometimes these splits help us avoid becoming what the reformers did when they seperated from the church.

Again this is my opinion and not an official stance.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I am sorry if my post sounded offensive but I actualy never said that, look:

While groups such as the SSPX in Catholicism or the ROCOR in Orthodoxy are often described as Traditionalists... the fact that some are more radical than other makes them Integrist?

I just mentioned that the SSPX and ROCOR both represent Traditionalism within their own Churches. And then I asked if a more radical form of Traditionalism could be called Integrism.

I have noticed that Traditionalist authors like Patrick Barnes (an Old Calendarist) and Gerry Matatics (a Traditional Catholic) and some other, were former Protestants. Now, are converts more likely to support a militant form of Traditionalism?

Mexican-

I don't think either integrism and traditionalism are precisely defined terms. They seem to overlap to a degree; in fact when I tried to find a definition for integrism it fit squarely what I thought traditionalism was.

Integralism seems to be taking some sort of small theological opinion or system of the Catholic faith and turning it into "true" Catholicism, label those who disagree with this opinion or system "modernists" and the like.

Traditionalism then might be something less than this. This would be a preference for a theological opinion or system from a recent previous theological opinion or system, short of running around calling those who disagree modernists.

As far as the SSPX goes, I'm told the Ratzinger Report actually labels the SSPX as Integrist. I think they definitely fit the definition above. Just look at the FAQs on their website. To me, they love own conception of the Church too much - to the point that they consider an Ecumenical Council heretical. That Council specifically debunks some of their conceptions.

Marc,

There where problems with that council beginning with the Pope who started it saying he was going to "open a pastorial council". In fact, I do not believe there where any infallible decrees or doctrinal pronouncements.

Ecumenical councils come about as the result or counter measure to some heresy. The 7 truly Ecumenical councils where just that Ecumenical. Vatican II was pastorial.

Debate is allowed under cannon law for Pastorial Councils.

Dear Ray S:

Although, generally, one may call a council as "pastoral" in nature, it does not lend itself totally to the "classical" classification of General Councils into "Ecumenical" or "non-Ecumenical."

Thus, the question as to how Vatican II is classified: "Ecumenical" or just a "General Council" of the West?

To us Latin Catholics, Vatican II is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church. And we have reasons to believe it so, despite the attribution to Pope Paul VI as saying Vatican II was a General Council of the West.

If we accept that "Councils" and "Synods" are synonymous, then we can consider the 11th Ordinary Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops (of the Catholic Church [East and West]) this October 2005 as a "General Council" of the West.

While the Eastern Churches, including many Byzantine Catholics, are of the view that there are only 7 (some even say 8) Ecumenical Councils of the Church thus far.

Obviously, we are in disagreement.

Amado