Rorate Caeli

The Return of the “Fundamentalists”

Henri Tincq, specialist in religious issues who has just published "Catholicism: The return of the fundamentalists” analyzes the misunderstandings between the fundamentalists and Benedict XVI. The following is an interview with Monsieur Tincq which appears in the Sunday edition of Le Parisien :

Where do the fundamentalists come from?

The vast majority of the faithful are those nostalgic for the Church before 1965 and especially the Latin Mass. However, the leaders of the movement are priests and lay people who are much more arrogant and who often belong to the extreme right. Sociologically, they consist mainly of large families of aristocratic and bourgeois tradition who are very committed to the moral order and the Catholic tradition. But it is not exclusive - they also recruit from the mainstream.

Are we witnessing their great return?

We can not speak of a mass return, but the noise they make is inversely proportional to their numbers. There are 150,000 fundamentalists in the world including 25,000 to 35,000 in France. It is but a speck of dust in comparison to one billion Catholics! Yet this minority occupies more and more space in people's minds because we have a pope who encourages the return to a strong Catholic identity. As far as that goes, they have a growing influence at the Vatican. This is reflected in the liturgy, in particular the return to the Latin Mass.

Is this phenomenon related to Benedict XVI?

Yes, insofar as he is very traditional when it comes to dogma and liturgy. The fundamentalists consider him to be their pope. This leads to a double illusion. That of Benedict XVI, who believes that by continuing to make gestures towards them, they will return to the bosom of the Church and accept the reforms which have been under way for the past forty years. The illusion of the fundamentalists is the hope that this pope will put an end to the achievements of the Second Vatican Council. But the pope has shown in Jerusalem this past May, his commitment to dialogue with other religions, reviled by the fundamentalists.

(Note: Fundamentalist is the truest translation of the French term intégriste which is considered pejorative and which the French media regularly apply to traditional Catholics - Mornac)


78 comments:

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"There are 150,000 fundamentalists in the world including 25,000 to 35,000 in France."

I am all for accurate statistics and for not exaggerating the true numbers of those who are attached to the Gregorian Rite, but this strikes me as an extremely dishonest count even if these numbers refer exclusively to those who are with the SSPX. The most conservative numbers from Catholic Traditionalist sources that I've read is that there are 100,000-200,000 traditional Catholics in France.

David A. Werling said...

Carlos,

The guy is lying. That's what liberals do.

Anonymous said...

With friends like these, who needs enemies...

Anonymous said...

Did you hear that?

I'm aristocratic.

Prodinoscopus said...

Sadly, though, he's not lying about this:

The illusion of the fundamentalists is the hope that this pope will put an end to the achievements of the Second Vatican Council. But the pope has shown in Jerusalem this past May, his commitment to dialogue with other religions, reviled by the fundamentalists.

He's right about the double illusion. Behold, the golem speaketh prophesies. What a vile creature.

becket said...

If he wants to see what true fundamentalism is then send him to an Islamic country.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. Palad in general but M. Tincq's point is still valid.

My own studies on the numbers suggest that, worldwide, close to one million people are strongly attached to the Traditional Latin Mass. But we need to keep in mind that this excludes all those in Afrca, Asia and, in particular, Latin America, who have zero access and therefore can't be enumerated.

Bishop Fellay recently said that between 200,000 and 600,000 souls support the S.S.P.X. This proves that he is a modest and a fair man in many respects. I'd say that the true number for the S.S.P.X is over 500,000, at the higher end of his estimate.

Nevertheless, this commentator's point does remain vaild: we are so far a drop in the bucket. But a poll done some years ago in the U.S.A. suggested that over 15% of American faithful would rather go the old Latin Mass than the New Mass. Many of these people are nostalgics; some are young and want their tradition back. But most of them are people who will not go out of their way to get to a Traditional Mass.

In order really to make a fair comparison between the force of TrueMass and NewMass, we'd have to offer equal access to the two and then count the numbers. The enumerations done to date are hopelessly unfair because Traditional Masses are typically offered very early or very late in the mornings, on afternoons or evenings, at distant or poor locations, and in poorly-appointed churches or outside of churches.

Still, the intergrists are perhaps one million out of well over one milliard, which is one-tenth of one per cent.

P.K.T.P.

Pertinacious Papist said...

The term 'fundamentalist' is now so completely detached from its original historical context that it has been heard applied to Muslims and now Catholic traditionalists. Why shouldn't the favor be returned by referring to "liberal fundamentalists," "New Age fundamentalists," "neo-con fundamentalists," "gay-rights fundamentalists," etc.?

Jordanes said...

I disagree with rendering "integrist" as "fundamentalist," though I understand there is a bit of overlap in that both refer to those who are, or are deemed to be, strict conservative-types, and both terms are now pejoratives, almost exclusively used as verbal bludgeons.

As for the "return" of the "integrists," the truth is they never left, and so have not "returned" at all -- they're just growing in numbers and influence, so folks like Tincq are beginning to panic.

Mark said...

Mr. Perkins,

You wrote, "But we need to keep in mind that this excludes all those in Afrca, Asia and, in particular, Latin America, who have zero access and therefore can't be enumerated."

I have tried to correct you on this before, and perhaps you did not receive my comments. The SSPX has chapels throughout Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina. I have heard of, but not verified, that there is also the occasional 'indult' Mass here or there, and I know that there are some sede groups that operate in the region as well. The TLM communities in Mexico and Argentina are substantial.

Prodinoscopus said...

I would like to amend my last comment. Henri Tincq is foolish if he thinks that the SSPX has any illusions about Benedict XVI. The Pope's interreligious adventures in the Holy Land were subjected to a trenchant critique in DICI #196:

http://tinyurl.com/noj7ol

Anonymous said...

I agree entirely with Jordanes on the terminological question. I would add that I favour the adoption into English of 'integrist'. To me, it is a very positive term (in English, that is): we traditionalists believe in an integral (i.e. consistent) system.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Prodinoscopus's statement. I rather expect that, while Benedict XVI does make honest efforts to reconcile the S.S.P.X, he will, at the same time, make positive gestures and sweet noises for the liberals. Really, he has to, unless, at the age of 82, he decides that he'd just love to fight a war.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree that we may be a drop in the bucket, although by current standards of average catholics and their adherence to Catholic dogma, it is my belief that we count for the rest of those and we have to prove that we can survive and in the end Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph.
I also agree with Jordanes that "integrists" have never left the Church and this Monsignor that to judge by the photo portrayed in this article seems a newborn cannot know what true Catholicism is because he has been raised in post VII Church.
Charles

Shane Schaetzel said...

It's liberal smear. That's all. Very typical of how modernists work. They see a rising movement they don't like, and they immediately try to label it, and cast it as "extreme." Let em try all they want. Based on this guy's broad definition of a "Fundamentalist" there is one sitting in the Chair or Peter right now.

Shane Schaetzel said...

PS - When he counts the number of "Fundamentalists" he is only counting those of the SSPX. What about the tens of millions of traditionalist Catholics worldwide not affiliated with the SSPX, and already in full communion with Rome, having never broke with Rome, and always in good standing? This "Fundamentalism" (as he calls it) is so much bigger than he would like his audience believe. Liberal Modernists worry about what will happen when the SSPX Fundamentalists are brought back into full communion with Rome.

SURPRISE! There are more "Fundamentalists" already in full-communion with Rome than there are those not yet in full-communion. Guess what? We've already "infiltrated" the Church, because guess what? We never left!

pclaudel said...

There are few things easier and few shots cheaper than snapping at the heels of someone else's translation of a tough-to-translate foreign term. So no disrespect is meant to Mornac's able stab at it. That said, however, I think that a better translation of intégriste, one that preserves the contempt of the user for his object, is "wholeness freak."

The basis of this contumely is the characterization of Traditionalists—in the broadest and most hostile possible application of the term (far broader than most traditionalists would ever accept inter se)—as Catholics who are so utterly out of touch with the modern (i.e., post-Enlightenment) world that they insist upon inseparably associating (hence, integrating) the Faith with certain social and political attitudes that, for lack of a better word, might be characterized as "rightist." Of course, the froggy originators of the term were thinking, not of the litter-box-trained Trotskyite Rights of the USA and its imperial clients (the UK, Canada [fill in your own self-evident candidates]), but of the old French Right of monarchists and aristocrats, of the proud, confused conjunction of Gallicanism in politics and ultramontanism in religion (confused, that is, to the extent that these rightists sometimes were hard pressed to tell the two apart but didn't let the confusion slow them down).

My guess is that for many users of the term, the ultimate bogeyman is Joseph de Maistre, who managed to reduce to rational and compelling words all the ingrained habits and intellectual and moral reflexes—indeed so ingrained as to have become virtually innate—that had made living a Catholic life essentially a default option for perhaps half a dozen centuries.

The Modernism (or its components) that has reduced the Church to a ruin and a remnant has been a concern of orthodox popes since at least Pius VII (yes, I know that the term itself wasn't in use in 1803) and perhaps earlier. Once the Napoleonic era's armed frontal assault upon the Faith failed to complete its mission, the more insidious anti-integrist attempt to deracinate the Faith from the soil of daily life was unleashed. The erection of the "wall of separation" between, not merely church and state, but church and every molecule of "secular" life began in earnest.

Viewed from this now regnant perspective, Trads really are wholeness freaks. Quixotic at best, repellent and dangerous at worst, they need to be dealt with. If sneers alone will accomplish the task, tant mieux. Monsieur Tincq, holding high his banner of contempt, is merely one member of the Establishment's children's crusade launched against Traditionalism. No surprise, then, that he is little more than a figure of fun.

The SWAT teams, the Green Berets, the commandos—they exist, too, but for the most part they still stand at the ready, though shots across the bow from Morris Dees and Abe Foxman have been heard and felt.

Fortunately for us, if we stand with the Lord, He will stand with us when we most need Him.

Bee said...

Mr Tincq, your bias is showing... you might want to put it away for a little bit.

Moretben said...

The statistics are preposterous. "Fundamentalist" is certainly not, however, a satisfactory translation of "integriste".

A very great many ARE attached to, or at the very least inclined to flirt with, the "extreme right". To that extent they are every bit as "ideological" as their liberal enemies.

Adeodatus said...

Wait, do I get to be an "integrist" here or not? I'm a loyal Catholic, but I don't hate the Pope nor do I think that Chasidic Rabbis run World Communism from Area 51. That's a strange position to be in on this blog, I guess.

I'd like to be considered a Traditionalist, if that's compatible with faithfulness to the Church and the Pope. Now where'd I put my boina roja?

Paulus said...

Henri Tincq need not be sent to an Islamic country to see what true fundamentalism is. He can simply open his eyes to see the Mohammedans in action from where he is.

Peter said...

Carlos Antonio Palad: "People attached to Gregorian Rite" is a derogatory term coined by the liberals to belittle Traditional Catholics. It suggests that personal, purely aesthetic preference is what all this fuss with Tradition is about. It simply ignores Truth, the doctrine which the rite expresses.

I consider myself attached to the Catholic Tradition, but not particularly attached to the Gregorian Rite itself. As I wrote yesterday, I personally find Byzantine rite aesthetically superior. So, should I be included in the number of "Trads" or not?

When the Russian Orthodox Church in the Catholic provinces of Russia was trying to seduce Catholics to their schism and heresies in the nineteenth century it has begun celebrating Latin Tridentine Liturgy. They called Catholics the same way - "people attached to the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great", or "to the Latin Rite", "to the Roman Rite", "to the Western Liturgical Tradition" etc. I don't think that's purely a coincidence. Probably it's a good way to conceal the truth.

No wonder then that this Russian experiment was short-lived and has failed.

I will not waste my time and keyboard by commenting Mr. Tacq's lies. They're not worth it. I will only say that their still existing hate towards aristocracy is really frightening because they have murdered all the aristocracy long time ago, yet it looks like they don't have quenched their bloodthirst. It's madness.

Fortunately good God sent Muslim hordes too punish them for their sins. They deserve it. Truly worthy and just it is.

Guy Fawkes said...

The freemason extensor of this article has forgotten to mention that in 2009 in France on 901 seminarians, 160 (or 18%) are attending a "traditionalist" seminary, and that number increases each day.
As a number we may be and we are a speck of dust, but soon or later this overhelming crowd of "one billion" (I wonder how aware) of catholics used to neo-catholicism will be increasingly confronted to priests with a traditional mentality and strong liturgical views.
Post-CVII revolutionaries have no offsprings, demographic is the strongest weapon of tradition, "they" knows it and their fears grow beyond any control.

Anonymous said...

Jordannes,

It may be shocking, but on this I agree with you...

Perhaps a more correct but street-wise translation of integriste, would be "the Same-old, Same-old crowd!"

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

New Catholic said...

I also believe that "Integrists" is better, if only because of the distinct theological meaning of "Fundamentalism" for Evangelicals.

Regardless of that, Tincq's real interest is to offend Traditional Catholics, and, in that sense, as Mornac explained in his note, Fundamentalist conveys the whole disgust Tincq feels for all of us, Catholics who care about Tradition.

Anonymous said...

Mark wrote:

"I have tried to correct you on this before, and perhaps you did not receive my comments. The SSPX has chapels throughout Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina. I have heard of, but not verified, that there is also the occasional 'indult' Mass here or there, and I know that there are some sede groups that operate in the region as well. The TLM communities in Mexico and Argentina are substantial."

Whoa, Mark! I mean this with all due humility when I remind you that I do have real expertise of the numbers. I know all about the situation in Latin America--in detail. I won't bother looking up the numbers right now (I have files of all of them) but just give the bloggers here a very general overview.

I am very impressed with the S.S.P.X effort in Latin America and I don't blame it in the least for its very poor showing there. The reasons would take some time to explain. A huge one, of course, is expense. Another is the Latin American mindset, according to which obedience to the Pope tends to be overinterpreted as the litmus test of Catholicity.

Anyway, the S.S.P.X has an impressive apostolate only in Argentina, where it offers Mass on a every-Sunday basis in about ten to twelve dioceses, which is still a very small per centage of the 65 sees there. Outside of Argentina, the Society hardly exists at all and what is there is mostly close to the Argentine base. For example, one of its only two apostolates in Brazil is in Rio Grande do Sul, in the southernmost part of that Republic.

The Society offers Mass on the every-Sunday basis in only two dioceses in Chile. True, its apostolates in Argentina and Chile are in some of the more important sees, but still, it is a pathetic showing.

Until recently, there was not even one every-Sunday T.L.M. offered by the S.S.P.X in Peru, including the capital city, Lima. With about ten million people in the environs, Lima is one of the most Catholic cities on this planet--and not one every-Sunday Mass? It now has a tiny chapel there and offers Mass every week but only on Saturday evenings. It does fulfil the obligation but only under postconciliar law. A Dominican priest under the Cardinal says one every-Sunday Mass under "Summorum Pontificum". It didn't exist two years ago.

There is not even one S.S.P.X every-Sunday T.L.M. in the following countries: Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, the Guianas, all of Central America (save Guatemala) and all of the Caribbean, save the Dominican Republic.

In Mexico, only about five apostolates in the entire country have every-Sunday Masses; in Brazil, the most populous Catholic country on earth by far, only two do. That's two dioceses, Mark, out of 264 (last time I checked). That's two dioceses to serve well over a hundred million Catholics. In Colombia, a very populous Catholic country, there are only two apostolates as well. Huge cities such as Barranquilla and Cali and Medellin have no Sunday Masses--none at all.

All told, to my recollection, only about 1% of all the dioceses in Latin America have a Society apostolate which offers the Traditional Masses on the every-Sunday basis; and about two-thirds of all Society apostolates in Latin America are situated in the single country of Argentina.

It's a disaster. It's not the Society's fault. I think that a recognition of Society Masses by Rome will greatly help the situation in Latin America, given the cultural realities there. I have been trying to convince people such as Mr. McFarland that this would be a good thing. Believe it or not, I'd like to see the mission of the S.S.P.X succeed. I must be crazy trying to convince people that I'm on their side when they are intent on suicide.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Shane Schatzel's comments:

No, I don't think that we have tens of millions of traditionalists at all. Off the top of my head (which is a learned one on this), I'd say that the adherents of approved traditionalist Masses are only about 20% more numerous worldwide than are adherents of the S.S.P.X. All told, we have a combined force of, at the very most, one million souls, or one-tenth of one per cent.

But this is the number of hardliners and only those in areas which have good access to the T.L.M. There is an unknown following in most of Latin America and nearly all of Asia and Africa.

There is also a much larger following of those who prefer the old Mass to the New but are not committed. They could be as many as 20% of the faithful, at least in Western countries.

So, yes, hardline integrists are few but there are many times that number of 'softline integretists'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think that Guy Fawkes makes very good comments here. Despite the small per centage of integrists (I suppose that I fall into M. Claudel's category, since I am a staunch royalist), it is nevertheless true that a very high per centage of seminarisits and Massgoers in France are attached to the Mass of Tradition. These are the people whom M. Tincq tries to dismiss as nostalgics at the beginning of his article.

If the integrists are so few, you see, he needs to explain why so many at Sunday Mass are attached to the old Mass!

The real question, as one blogger has hinted, is what per centage of persons who receieved Catholic Baptism are Catholic in belief? Now we might dismiss with a wave of our own hands perhaps 80% of those and just tell M. Tincq to be honest: they don't qualify as Catholic!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

This is obviously a Catholic or secularist liberal, casting the over 1.5 million (not 150,000) traditional Catholics in a very negative light. No surprise.

This man is either a rabid disiple of the garbage that came from Vatican II, and like most Catholic bishops wants to defile the image of traditionalists and attempt to present a very negative image of them.

He is dismissive of Catholic tradition/traditionalists, and almost insulting.

He reminds me of the way the neo-Con Catholics used to be.
You know, the ones who used to cheer over everything John Paul II said or did. They were the "John Paul Two, we love you!!!" "Giovanni Paolo, Giovanni Paolo!!" crowd. UGH!

Anonymous said...

WHAT ACHIEVEMENTS- LET ME COUNT THE WAYS..empty CHURCHES, NO CONVERTS, DULL MASSES, POOR MUSIC,
NO nuns, EMPTY seminarys, close churches and schools an lets not forget the scandles all the gifts of vac II.

Cosmos said...

From all I have read from the Pope, I think it is silly to see Benedict as having some secret agenda and offering olive branches. No one is perfectly consistent, but almost everything he has done is in line with his core belief system. If you want to break it down: (1) He thinks that liberals sometimes happen to be right (or are on the right side of an issue), but he wholeheartedly rejects their theology as it is ungrounded in tradition. (2) He thinks that the JPII conservatives have the right spirit, but are theologically ill-formed and have tended to over-simplification and excess and have made major mistakes. (3) He sympathizes with the traditionalists but think that they are also ill-formed and hence reject legitimate reform and renewal; plus, they often act too stubbbornly to be constructive or helpful.

Dan Hunter said...

I "Tinq" Henri does not have both oars in the water.

SPQR said...

This is a French guy projecting a specifically French phenomenon on the whole world. Yes, there are plenty of dodgy people among traditionalists in France, who have never come to terms with the Revolution. But why the rest of the world's traditionalists have to be tarred with the same brush is quite beyond me.
In other words, if you're not French, then there's nothing to see here. Move along.

Paul Haley said...

Viva il papa. No, I don't believe he is out for the destruction of the traditional rite but I do believe he does not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I have no real inside information but I believe that once he was elected to the Chair of St. Peter he began to think of his particular judgment before Almighty God which may not be far distant. That thought, I submit, is enough to bring anyone of us to our knees.

The weight of the Catholic world is on his shoulders and he feels it. He knows that Vatican II went awry and he is determined to set it right. In my opinion he needs our prayers for he is the one person that can with a stroke of his pen restore Tradition in the Church at large. At the same time we must ask Blessed Mother to be his guide in the days and weeks ahead.

Gideon Ertner said...

Cosmos, your analysis struck a chord with me. I do have that impression of the Pope's position as well (and, to some extent, agree with him on these points).

Regrading the terms: If we take intégriste to mean a Catholic who believes that there can never be any decisive breaks in the faith and discipline of the Church that would render the Church in one age incompatabile with that in another (i.e. the structure of the Church is integral in the dimension of time), then any faithful Catholic must be an integrist. On the other hand, faithful Catholics may still legitimately disagree on matters of policy and discipline where these are compatible with the Faith. They may well argue that the discipline in force in former times was superior to the present one.

It seems a significant subset of faithful Catholics on the continent, especially France, are much attached to the old monarchist order. That is a classic Conservative position (unlike the 'new' Conservatism which is republican/semi-republican and oeconomically neo-liberalist) and may well, to my mind, be termed 'nostalgic'. In my analysis, French Monarchism is a gut reaction to the Revolution which does not make a whole lot of sense insofar as the Bourbon monarchy was certainly not a model of a Catholic state.

Now there is nostalgia and there is nostalgia. It is disingenious to simply and uncritically long for the 'good old days'. But it is just as disingenious to believe the contrary, that everything now is superior to how it was before. This is also a form of nostalgia, a nostalgia for the present which one is loath to abandon.

Nostalgia means, literally, 'home pain' - rather like homesickness. Conservative nostalgics long for that which is gone, but when Liberals watch the trends in the Church they are scared of what the future holds, so they hold on to the present with all their might - a form of anticipatory nostalgia.

Long-Skirts said...

Peter said:

"Fortunately good God sent Muslim hordes too punish them for their sins"

FOOLISH
FRENCH

There once was a man from France
Who with the devil did dance

Of true Catholics, lied
"They're terrorists" implied

Heads of France
Will receive Islam's glance.

Michael said...

This guy is the 'Baghdad Bob' of FrenChurch!

Keep spinning, pal.

As Gracian said, "Time and I against any two."

Anonymous said...

Shane Schaetzel wrote:
SURPRISE! There are more "Fundamentalists" already in full-communion with Rome than there are those not yet in full-communion. Guess what? We've already "infiltrated" the Church, because guess what? We never left!

The problem is that the traditionalists inside of Rome have been shackled for the past 20 (since 1988) years under the control of Rome and the diocesan bishops. Their growth, while impressive, is stunted due to the bishop puppetmasters. There are thousands of softliners as PKTP refers to that do not have the knowledge or fortitude to challenge any authority on the matter.

The reason why the SSPX scares liberals like M. Tincq so much is the notion that traditionalists will be set free. If Rome provides a structure where any Catholic has the full freedom to worship by traditional means, those marginal figures just might take off. The last thing the liberals want is for the everyday catholic to feel any sense of entitlement for traditional catholic life.

It's kind of like Moses and the Pharo. Although I would not characterize the Pope as the Pharo, more like the enemies inside of Rome. Its been forty years and it's time for someone lead the church back towards the promise land. Some may see the SSPX in that role while others see Pope Benedict. Either way I don't see Pope Benedict being around long enough to cross the Jordan.

PJL

John McFarland said...

As I scrolled down the comments, I was thinking of asking if someone knew anything about the origin of "integrist." But then I saw that my old and dear friend M. Claudel had done the job.

To simplify his point, think of the notion of the separation of religion and the rest of life. Their integration is that of which integrists stand accused.

So like "denier" or "negationist" as regards the treatment of the Jews under Hitler's regime, it is a quite true and useful term.

Indeed, it is a point for examination of conscience: is my attachment to traditionalism something that affects my whole life, and would affect life around me if I and like-minded people were more numerous, or is it a crochet or a hobby or something to add a little culture and clahss to life ("just give us the Mass").

As for the nose-counting, we have it on the highest authority that many are called but few are chosen. The trick is to be one of those few, and (as an integral part of being one of those few)to have done what one could to make those few as many as possible.

Sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis.

Mater boni consilii, ora pro nobis.

P.S. Don't be too hard on M. Tincq. Think of him as an analogue of a ditch digger or a coal miner: he gets paid to shovel a certain commodity (what one is Supposed to Think on the topic at hand), and he shovels it. Of ocurse, he doesn't get his hands dirty; but then a ditch digger doesn't get his soul dirty.

Anonymous said...

On Cosmos's conclusions about Benedict XVI,

Yes, well, I think that he wants to put the S.S.P.X into the Church in the eyes of the Church, and that means a juridical recognition or regularisation by some means. However, once that's done, get ready for disappointment because some bad things will follow to keep the liberals in line. Don't be surprised if he has a prayer-in with Buddhists, Jews, and fire-worshippers.

His strategy, I think, is to phase the liberals out very slowly while he phases some tradition back in. I don't think that he favours the T.L.M. in its pure form but wants a 'classical rite' which will meld N.O. and T.L.M. However, he may come to realise that this cannot be achieved in this pontificate or for some time. Still, he might take some tentative baby steps in that direction, which is why it is at least arguable that it is not yet time for the S.S.P.X to be securely regularised in a permanent structure.

But anything which would at least recognise the Society Sacraments as being licit, even if only for the time being, would have a wondrously positive effect.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"I think that a better translation of intégriste, one that preserves the contempt of the user for his object, is "wholeness freak.""

WHOLENESS FREAK!

Nice idea for a t-shirt!

WHOLENESS FREAK: We like our Catholicism whole and entire.

Dan Hunter said...

Does anyone know if Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos went to the ordinations at Econe?

God bless.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"People attached to Gregorian Rite" is a derogatory term coined by the liberals to belittle Traditional Catholics."

"Roman Catholic" was once a derogatory term, originally coined by Anglicans. Nowadays we use it with pride.

I use "people attached to the Gregorian Rite" precisely because that is a phrase broad enough to cover the large variety of movements and "stream" of people who clearly prefer the Traditional Latin Mass and who attend it as their usual Sunday Mass, including many who do not necessarily see or call themselves as "Traditionalist"

The phrase in itself is not derogatory and need not be interpreted as such -- although, if there is anything I've learned, it's that we have a strange subset of commentators here who interpret everything through the lens of a hypersensitive hermeneutic of suspicion.

Ted K said...

"Intégristes" is usually a pejorative term in French as it is currently applied to certain Catholics. In this respect one wonders who the arrogant ones are.
As for translating the term into English, "conservative" or even "orthodox" may be better according to current usage, as the term comes from "catholiques intégraux", those Catholics who want to maintain the faith in its integrity, as opposed to the progressives who want to change the faith to conform to modernity.

Peter said...

"we have a strange subset of commentators here who interpret everything through the lens of a hypersensitive hermeneutic of suspicion."

If the language was really neutral, there would be no liberal newspeak aiming to soften your perception of evil, like "homosexuality" instead of sodomy, "pro-choice", "abortion" instead of murder and so on.

Anonymous said...

"we have a strange subset of commentators here who interpret everything through the lens of a hypersensitive hermeneutic of suspicion."

Especially since some of our bloggers are convinced of Mason and Illuminati conspiracy. There are plenty of photos of Pope BXV1 giving the mason handshake. Is that true?

Carlos Antonio Palad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carlos Antonio Palad said...

If the language was really neutral, there would be no liberal newspeak aiming to soften your perception of evil, like "homosexuality" instead of sodomy, "pro-choice", "abortion" instead of murder and so on."

So those who use "homosexuality", "abortion" and "pro-choice" are really liberal newspeakers. Get a grip on yourself.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Timothy Mulligan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

What a piece of garbage!

Anonymous said...

I note that intégriste is a French word meaning 'whole'. Well, 'Catholic' is a Greek word meanng 'whole' (and not 'universal', as is generally thought). Works for me!

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

Jimmy Akin and other "Conservative" Catholics use the term "rad-trad" as a pejorative put-down of Catholics who love Traditional liturgy and theology. Jimmy Akin, for example, uses this term for a group that he dismisses as "disaffected post-Vatican-II radically-traditionalist Catholics."

I wonder if "rad-trad" captures the spirit of term "integrist."

Hebdomadary said...

He misses a large degree of the point. It's not that the Pope is still on his "side" because he's not entirely on the "fundamentalists" side: the point is that the Pope, as usual, is on his own side: the Church's side, which now includes fundamentalists instead of trying to ignore them like a great white kneeling, praying, elephant in the living room of the Church.

His argument weakens further in the face of the increasing frequency of traditional masses being said in the living-room like churches of the Novus Ordo regimes. In fact a whole herd of fundamentalist elephants have moved into the church, more than 150,000 to be sure, and growing as they witness before the previously unexposed, gaining adherants along the way.

This is just another whelp coming from the disillusioned monopolists of what is now the ancien regime, desperately trying to hold back the tide. "Patient endurance attaineth to all things." They, too, shall pass.

Anonymous said...

This article is all an interesting distraction.

Where is the so-called 'imminent' motu proprio which will transfer the P.C.E.D. into the C.D.F.?

The liturgical functions now handled by the P.C.E.D. will be transferred to a new Pontifical Council "Summorum Pontificum", with Fr. Bux as Secretary. When will this happen?

Bishop Fellay said that this m.p. on the subsumption of the P.C.E.D. would, according to officials at the C.D.F., be made prior to 20th June. Over at Inside the Vatican, the document was set to be released, finally, last Friday, 26th June. Today is 29th June. What is going on? The Pope himself announced this change on 12th March. Does it take the Pope four months to do something? And where, I wonder, is the clarification of S.P. that, according to Cardinal C.H., has been on the Pope's bureau for over a year now?

The Pope might sign something authoritative today, for publication this week. After all, today celebrates his authority par excellence. Thursday, 2nd July, the Feast of the Visitation, is the traditional end of the 'feasting season' and marks the beginning of the long Roman summer, when activity grinds to a halt. Saturday, 4th July, is Cardinal C.H.'s 80th birthday. Other presidents of the P.C.E.D. have stayed on for many months past their 80th birthdays. Will this m.p. be delayed now until autumn, even Advent? What is causing the delay? Is it the Pope's wish to examine the meaning of Vatican II?

Something's afoot. The liberal cardinals are lined up on one side (Re, Hummes, Levada, Grocholewski, Sandri), the conservatives on the other (Bertone, Amato, Cañizares Llovera, Dias, Castrillón Hoyos). In all of this, the Pope, I think, wants at least to grant or, more probably, recognise, a temporary status for the P.C.E.D. After all, should this pontificate end sooner than expected, everything gained so far could be held in limbo forever.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Why the delay?

I think that many of us have almost forgotten (as I have myself) that the liberals have their hearts set on massive reform from what they have so far delivered--and they are not wavering. Now the Pope is getting ready for reform in the opposite direction, using the S.S.P.X as a pretext for opening up Vatican II. This is a formula for a showdown. Hence the delay in issuing the m.p.

The liberal agenda differs a bit. Here is what they want:

1. An end to celibacy in the priesthood. It's not fair that married people, (many of whom are actually quite heterastic!), cannot serve as priests. We need their talent! We need their experience!

2. Let's just do it: let's allow the ordination of women, all at once, as deacons, priests, bishops. We need their wisdom in the College of Cardinals; we need a woman pope. How can we exclude the experience and wisdom of half of humanity? Patriarchalism is dead. Time to wake up and realise it.

3. Psychologists have now proved conclusively that, except for a small per centage of abnormal people who are entirely heterastic or homerastic, we're all latently queer. Those who don't realise this have their homoerotic dreams when they are in deep sleep. It is healthy to let all of this out into the open now and teach children the benefits of a queer perspective. Therefore, let us be accepting of the gift of nancyness. It is a gift from God. He made us that way for a reason. It needs to be affirmed and celebrated!

4. Condoms are desperately needed to fight AIDS. Get with the programme, Church! It's time to reconsider Humanæ Vitæ. There's no place for ridiculous claims of ensoulemnt at the moment of conception. We need to wake up and realise the importance of the new technologies. We can solve many of man's problems by eliminating criminals and misfits from the very beginning.

5. Look, when a marriage doesn't work, Jesus wants us to divorce. It is silly to claim that all those thousands of bad marriages were never marriages in the first place; and we have massive disparity in how our annulment tribunals deal with the issue from one country to the other. We need to respect truth and have one standard. The Orthodox dissolve marriages. We can too.

We need a new Vatican III to address these issues, peeeeooople!

As you can see, this programme differs "somewhat" from the one envisoned by Fr. Schmidberger. There will be war. I come not to bring peace but a sword!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One danger of the doc talks? The liberals could demand that the Pope reconsider the entire problem and set up a commission to investigate how to proceed. This would be a hyjacking. It may be that a Vatican III is 'needed'. Let the bishops have their say on important matters! Collegiality demands it!

We could end up with a very different sort of doctrinal examination. I realise that this sounds far-fetched but the liberals don't want a Vatican III under Benedict XVI, and the liberals never quit. They 'know' that history is on their side. How else did they get Obama elected?

All the liberals want is to prepare for a new coucnil under Benedict XVI. They'll hatch their nonsense once he's gone.

P.K.T.P.

Sean said...

Y'all have made it far more complicated than what an analysis of Benedict requires. He's NOT a Thomist. Ergo, he is not a systematic thinker. As a self-described "Augustinian," he believes that Thomists are far too rigid and leave too little room for intuition and the emotions in their analysis of reality.

Until we get a pure Thomist returned to the See of Peter, I'm afraid contradictions will abound.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy Akin is blind to all thought except the neo con path. Perhaps he is the radical. He was was wrong when he argued for the inclusion of "for all" and thank fully the Pope said,"for many".


corri

Anonymous said...

In the following remark made by me, I meant the write S.S.P.X where I wrote P.C.E.D.

Apologies. P.K.T.P

pclaudel said...

Mr. Perkins: Yes, intégriste is in origin a French term, but surely you know that intégriste and related forms of the word are part of the lingua franca of the flock of Modernist theologians. Indeed, the author of a work called Theologische Prinzipienlehre in German, Principles of Catholic Theology in English, writes, "Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of the mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly" (p. 389).

Perhaps you would be so kind as to remind me of the author's name.

On a related matter, I can't help noting that after some fifty bits of pointless abuse were hurled at the utterly innocuous messenger M. Tincq—many of them being hurled after Mr. McFarland explained that gentleman's role in terms plain enough for a blogger to understand—the very subject now seems to have been changed.

Why, I wonder. The ramifications of the original post strike me as pretty interesting. Are the commenters on this thread—apart from Messrs. Palad and McFarland, of course—ill at ease with being called integrists or wholeness freaks? Or is it simply time to get back to bashing straw men?

P.S. Mr. Perkins: Catholic really does mean "universal." The word's root, holos, means "whole"; the prefix kata widens the root's application.

Jordanes said...

Corri, whether or not Akin is a neo-conservative (I can't really say what his politics are, except that he's on the conservative side of things), he can't really be faulted for "arguing for the inclusion of 'for all.'" Akin always objected to translating "pro multis" as "for all" when "for many" or "for the many" is obviously the better and far more accurate translation.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2008/04/a-compliment-to.html

Anonymous said...

On Jimmy "for many"
I have to concede then , as I don't have the Jimmy Akin source (it was a rail defending the NO mass line by line and in opposition of the TLM).

corri

LeonG said...

"Sociologically, they consist mainly of large families of aristocratic and bourgeois tradition who are very committed to the moral order and the Catholic tradition. But it is not exclusive - they also recruit from the mainstream."

Correct - a good Roman Catholic is aristocratic in his thinking since he is called by The King of Kings and Lord of Lords to be a son in His household. And certainly, we should uphold the moral order that is mandated by Almighty God and His Church from long since. Indeed, The Christ has also summoned His own children to recruit from the mainstream of society where paganism and other forms of unbelief exist in willful and unwitting ignorance of the Gospel of salvation. A mission the sector he represents has forgotten.

And unwittingly, our somewhat maliciously intoned french observer reveals how in his contempt for the sons & daughters of Our Blessed Lord he has become unable to understand these truths. In his own form of arrogance he has misconstrued the reasons why those who adhere to Sacred Catholic Tradition will continue to uphold the moral order and refuse to yield to compromise and self-deceit. Such flawed thinking conveniently ignores the chaos with consequent auto-demolition into which the post-conciliar church has sunk.

If this is genuine reform perhaps he can explain to us then why Scotland has firmly closed its doors to a 300 year old seminary which like scores of others has been emptied out of its residents due to an ever-shrinking lack of demand. And, furthermore, he may be able to demonstrate how dramatic loss of parishes, priests, religious and Sunday attendance in his own backyard justifies his disdain for the obvious renaissance of Tradition which he would obviously prefer to overlook in his own derisive perspective.

Anonymous said...

Well, M. Claudel, I plead guilty to changing the subject. I didn't like the subject, so I changed it and tried to steer it back to something more interesting. However, you may notice that I am not among those who have attacked M. Tincq. My responses to his comments have been very gracious and moderate.

On integrist and integralist, as a devout and extreme royalist, I am quite happy to apply the term to myself. I wear it as a badge, so, no, I'm not uncomfortable with the accusation. But I agree with you that some here are.

On Catholic, you are, in fact, correct: I've just checked. I apologise on this. I was repeating what a Ukrainian Byzantine priest told a congregation from the pulpit. Much of his sermon was devoted to 'clarifying' that Catholic meant whole, not universal; in fact, it means 'whole throughout' and therefore universal. I suppose I should not believe everything I hear!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

France?? Where's that???

pclaudel said...

Mr. Perkins: Your comments are noted, with thanks where appropriate. I certainly did not mean to include you among those who were inappropriately rough on M. Tincq.

As for changing the subject, the sentence for a guilty plea is time served. You will have noted, too, that my attempt to change it back hasn't met with much success.

Anonymous said...

"This is a French guy projecting a specifically French phenomenon on the whole world. Yes, there are plenty of dodgy people among traditionalists in France, who have never come to terms with the Revolution."

I assume the above proceeds from ignorance rather than Satanic malice.

Let me guess - you also support the revolution of 1776, don't you?? It's a pity Christ sees things differently.

Oliver said...

The conciliar establishment knows that the future is their's in spite of some traditional tinkering by some in the Vatican. It is in tune with secular laws and the move towards some kind of world government. It is really a political agenda with faux religious justification. Ratzinger is no trad; he fought to defeat it and now is happy to marginalise it. If this happens to a large extent, his successors will be free to push forward with new ideas without much old Catholic opposition. With Fellay now understating the trad population and opting for an Opus Dei solution, he is making such containment seem an easy process but he will soon realise trads are a noisy independent lot, thank God!

Peter said...

Anonymous 30 June, 2009 00:54 said...

France?? Where's that???


Somewhere between Morocco and Algeria.

Anonymous said...

There is a saying that when the 'eldest daughter of the Church' (or as some Frenchmen say 'the spinster of the Church') sneezes, the whole Church gets a cold. A good portion of this problem of 'integrism' etc. comes from very local French historical concerns -- which have little to do with the real problems of the two different ecclesiologies which now are in conflict in the Western (Latin & Roman) part of the Universal Church.

Jordanes said...

I don’t support the so-called revolution of 1776, but I think it’s true that “there are plenty of dodgy people among traditionalists in France, who have never come to terms with the Revolution.” There are also plenty of people who aren’t at all “dodgy” among French traditionalists, who have never come to terms with the French Revolution. A faithful, orthodox Catholic who knows and accepts Catholic social doctrine can never “come to terms” with the Revolution, unless those terms are that its supporters renounce their support for it.

Anonymous said...

Oliver,

Bishop Fellay is not opting for an Opus Dei solution at all. That is not what has been offered to him and it is far less than he is prepared to accept. He'll get an apostolic administration. But this can't come for some time. Doc talks are first.

It's true that liberals have 'faith' in the inevitability of their cause. However, God might have other plans. The problem is that secularism is a deliverance which does not deliver.

The Consecration of Russia can change everything.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Peter's sarcastic comment about France, I'd say that France is the centre of Western culture and the true confluence of both traditionalist and revolutionary forces. France is the centre intellectually.

However, neither France, nor Italy, nor Germany, nor the U.S.A. can be the locus of a true restoration. It is only return to tradition in Latin America which can do it, on a wave of emotion. There are no signs of this right now, in that place where 46% of the world's faithful live. But things can change fast.

P.K.T.P.

anne said...

Words ,words and more words.Only Our Lady can save us now but while men fight their battles good Catholic wives are doing what they do best. Having babies. That is why the traditional movemant is growing all over the world. We know that God grants us a precious gift in the fruit of our womb and he also grants the gift of vocations.Catholic women have wised up to the destruction of Faith in modern seminaries and will not send their sons there.

M.A. said...

P.K.T.P.: "It is only return to tradition in Latin America which can do it, on a wave of emotion. There are no signs of this right now,in that place where 46% of the world's faithful live. But things can change fast."

For some time now, I have been convinced that the restoration will come from Latin America, specifically, Mexico. I say this
because, as we all know, Our Lady, the Woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the Sun, has chosen Mexico as the seat of her
empire.

And who cannot be familiar with that "wave of emotion" typical of the Latin heart? When JPII visited Mexico for the canonization
of St. Juan Diego, 10,000 people crowded into a space built to accommodate 6,000. There were 17,000 in the front court and
5,000,000 more behind the barricades - five million, twenty-seven thousand souls on the basilica grounds!

A journalists recounted the farewell of the Holy Father in these words:

"...the long route [to the plane of departure] was a narrow passage through human beings, all waiting, all gesturing...the Pope turned and made the the biggest sign of the cross I ever saw him make, over Mexico....[as the plane taxied down the runway].. I saw something like a lightning flash begin along the airstrip. Then it did not cease until it had spread over the whole horizon. I pressed my nose to the window. It was not an electrical storm. Along the whole long strip clusters of human beings behind the barricades were sending messages of light with mirrors large and small, pieces of glass, from trees and rooftops, behind every shrub. Banners streamed from their midst, waving without end.

"When the plane finally took off, millions must have been gathered on the hills and in the streets of the city. Brilliant flashed and sparkles of light crossed the space toward us from everywhere, from every corner, street and alley. Cutting through scattered patches of fog and clouds, the flashes flamed out towards us, flashed great and small, by which the Mexicans wanted to shift the sun's light like an explosion from the sea of houses.....It was as if heaven and earth had joined in a
sea of sparks, an image as impossible to reproduce as that of the Madonna who was among them.

"...these moments were incredible: a gigantic city glimmering with affection in the bright afternoon; the sparkling veneration of a whole nation...The flickering jumped from house to house, from roof to roof, as if lighting up automatically, like sparks in a field of stubble. It was not a spectacle of nature, but rather of a UNIQUE CULTURE [my emphasis]...... people...waiting down there for hours, mirror in hand.

"How many people have ever seen anything like this?...Heaven had touched the earth; a field of stars had covered the city in
broad daylight...the...plane turned one last time...in a farewell swing..

"..the starry field of love covered the enormous Mexico City, not for a brief moment and not only for the time it took to sing
a song. It lasted seventeen whole minutes..."

Latin American is one big open field for the Traditionalist Orders. They should be flocking there to open apostolates. Once the Society gets regularized they are going to have a field day keeping up in their ministry! Our Lady of Guadalupe will see to that!

Edgar Fernandez said...

Mr. Perkins, remember that the FSSP has begun their first apostolate for Mexico here in Guadalajara with the kind invitation and support of Cardinal Sandoval and they also have an apostolate in Colombia and an open invitation for Mexico City.

Last monday on the feast of Saint Peter we had our first solem high mass with the help of the local diocesan seminary (which by the way is one of the biggest in the world ordaining an average of 40 priests per year and with a total of around 1,000 seminarians between minor and mayor seminaries) that provided the vestments (originally part of a set donated by King Phillip II of glorious memory (they were made of gold and silver thread and probably are of more than 400 years old) as well as a frontal for the altar. The deacon in the mass was a diocesan transitional deacon and several local seminarians also participated in choro at the mass.

So I think that with the MP and the leadership of our Holy Father more and more people in Latinamerica will learn about the TLM and this will create a big impact in the whole church.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with M.A. Can anyone in his wildest dreams imagine that sort of reception for a Pope in France, Bavaria, Austria, Ireland, or the U.S.A.? It might be possible in the Philippines but that country is an exception in Asia. Only the numbers in Latin America can effect the needed change.

The Latin America bishops know this too. That's what scares them to death. Between 1984 and 1988--between Quattuur Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta--not even one Latin American bishop allowed even one Traditional Latin Mass, and I can tell you that there were no more than five such Masses on an every-Sunday basis prior to 2000, except for those of the S.S.P.X.

The S.S.P.X has done very poorly in Latin America through no fault of its own. It's because the people there are passionately loyal to the Pope (those who have not passionately left and become Pentecostalists). If a Pope truly freed tradition there, it might spread like wildfire. Perhaps it would, perhaps not, but it is the only place where this could happen and, if it did, the rest of the world would have to follow.

It reminds me of the conference the Emperor had between Luther and the German Catholic theologians. The theologians responded to Luther with arguments, whereas the Spanish guards at the door reached for their halberds when they heard what Luther had to say about our Lady! They had to be restrained by the Emperor himself.

The Traditional Latin Mass is the very centre of the Faith itself, and it transcends national divisions. The New Mass, in contrast, is an imposter concocted in committee by a cabal of modernists, assisted by six Protestant heretics. NewMass is a bad product and nobody wants to repair what has little value in the first place. It is better simply to restore the Mass of the Ages. However, this is not humanly possible and we must leave that to God and our Lady. We need to concentrate on simply making the ancient Mass availaible to everyone. At present, the local bishops can and some do obstruct it. This cannot be tolerated. That is why we must urge the Pope to recognise the Society Masses or else, even better, he should here and now create an international diocese for tradition (under Canon 372.2).

P.K.T.P.