🧵 On R&R and So-called "Integral" Catholics 1/2 This is why you should never take TIA as a credible source. Compare their gullible conspiracy theory post with what the Radio Replies books said about it long ago. This kind of behavior, easy criticism, or rather SLANDER, of Popes is the patrimony of those bad Catholics in France who resisted the very clear instructions of Pope Leo XIII ordering them to cooperate with the Third Republic for the sake of the Church lest it become wholly atheist and persecute her. Certain Catholics in France at that time arrogantly thought they knew better than the Pope, disobeyed, and created infighting among Catholics who should have had a unified front. This gave the atheists the upper hand in government which led a decade later to the very persecution the Pope had predicted. Strangely, these resisters of the Pope were from among those who considered themselves staunch defenders of the Church and papacy, the ultra-conservative, the intransigents, who would later become known as "integrists" or "integralists" as they claimed to promote "integral" Catholicism. But their devotion to the papacy went out the window whenever the Pope's orders didn't fit their political agenda. Then it became fine to criticize the Pope and resist his orders and try to pit one Pope against another. How fickle their "integral" faith! This same inheritance was passed down to French Catholics (besides some still around from the Leo XIII era) who resisted Pius XI's condemnation of l'Action Française, the political movement of the agnostic, fallen away Catholic, Charles Maurras, who promoted a political goal of "integral nationalism" (sound familiar? 🧐). Maurras was trying to use the Catholic Church as a tool for his agenda. Many otherwise good Catholics fell for it and arrogantly resisted the Pope when the Pope didn't prove so gullible. They tried to make the excuse that the decisions of Leo XIII and Pius XI were opposed to those of Pius X, and in this way they excused themselves from obedience. What good Catholics!?! 🙄 Every good Catholic knows, and many Popes have made it clear, that you cannot pit Pope against Pope. Pius X, when still a diocesan bishop, always ardently and publicly supported Leo XIII. He also had drawn up and approved as Pope a decree of condemnation of Maurras' works, and ordered that if the time ever became right to publish it, it would be done with his own signature and as if promulgated by him. Pius XI did this and made it absolutely clear that Catholics (the integralists!) who claimed they were following Pius X rather than Pius XI were wrong. One of the strong supporters of l'Action Française was Fr. Henri Le Floch, Superior of the French Seminary in Rome. He was removed from office, or some say he resigned on his own, when Pius XI got reports of him stirring up rebellion among the seminarians over the condemnation of l'Action Française. It may come as no surprise, therefore, that one of Fr. Le Floch's students in the seminary was the future Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one of the big promoters of the grave error of R&R in the post-V2 era. The SSPX love to quote a saying they claim comes from Fr. Le Floch at the time of Pius XI's condemnation of l'Action Française: "The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility." Words worthy of every heretic in history! So we see how this patrimony of resistance to Popes, calling them "liberal" whenever their decrees don't fit with our own pet theories and political agendas, has been sadly handed down to bad Catholics of our own day, who still love to call themselves integralists despite Pope Benedict XV making it clear that such labels that divide Catholics are unbecoming of Catholics.