Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a talk_page archive covering a period from October 1 to October 25 2005. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives.

Protected due to content dispute

The content dispute has dragged on for days with neither party showing any kind of willingness to work for consensus. I'm reluctantly protecting this article. Please discuss with a view to producing a version of this article which is satisfactory to both parties. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment (and I'm not getting involved in the issues). Tony suggests it should be 'satisfactory to both parties', yes, in an ideally that's right - but in reality what is required is 'rough consensus' as to content, not unanimity. --Doc (?) 12:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, a lot of consesus was reached before, as Lima and I didn't always agree. Mr. Anonymous' response has been to revert the changes we worked out. I don't think anything short of his way is going to fly for him, and indeed that isn't the way the rest of the Church looks at trditionalists. It includes what he says they are, but it also includes a lot more groups that he finds repugnant. Dominick 13:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute from my perspective (part II)

Traditional Catholic Groups

Traditional Catholic groups and priestly fraternities include, among others:

This is silly

We had a discussion that revolved around the difintion and still mr anon puts the poison pill in and puts a fence up around memebrship in Traditional. Thinking that we in 2005 can figure out what made what in 1965, or that attendence at a Novus Ordo Mass makes us ineligible foto be a Traditionalist is downright silly. Mr Anon repeating his point over and over makes this unreadable. I am about to set this page in another archive and we can try again. Lima, the Definition I laid out was OK or not? Dominick 16:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous to Dominick

A quote:

[Me] I think I've explained it very clearly. A "traditional Catholic" is a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church.


[Dominick] We already have consensus on this.

So where's the "silliness"? And where's the part where I say that attendance at a Novus Ordo Mass makes one "ineligible foto be a Traditionalist" (capital T, eh? We're back to that again?)? If you'd read the article, you would have seen this about the Novus Ordo Missae, under the section "Traditional Catholic Claims":

Some see it as valid and as a viable option if necessary, though the traditional Mass should be attended when at all possible. This is believed by most priests who operate inside the ordinary diocesan structure.

Scrollup and read my consesus statement. Again you repeat the same wrong thing. Dominick 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What is Dominick up to?

The quote COPY-PASTED two posts above comes from section "10. Dominick defends himself." Are you trying to get me to look at section "12. Consensus?" -- where you apparently changed your mind?

OR are you saying that your having said "we have a consensus on this" --- in direct response to my having said "A 'traditional Catholic' is a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church" -- was not indicative of a consensus between us (as in you and me) -- but was your way of saying that you and Lima had come to a consensus on this?

152.163.100.202 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima to all

Anonymous refuses to answer when faced with concrete questions that might have elucidated his ideas. In that case, I can at present make no further contribution. And until the version to work on is decided, there is no point in discussing possible amendments. However, since Dominick has insistently asked me to comment on his proposed definition, and I have hitherto preferred not to do so, I will just say the following, before closing and refusing to discuss the matter further at this stage. There are many reasons why Anonymous would never accept Dominick's proposal, of which by no means the most important is Anonymous's insistence on the word "preserve". "Church elements" is too vague a term. So is "The groups include", which suggests there are other groups as well as the three mentioned. "Non-approved Mass" is either vague (including Satanic Black Mass?) or question-begging (SSPX insists there is no need of approval to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal). I never before heard of "Sede Masses", a term that needs explanation ... Sorry, Dominick. Lima 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a shame one person can PoV kill an article. I am sorry you can't continue Lima. No I don't think Anonymous can agree on the definition commonly used by most everyone on this informal term. I think this should stay locked for a few months the way it is, then we can visit the deficencies. I didn't mean yto badger you Lima, your contributions in other areas are appreciated. Dominick 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a note: please don't start every single response with a new second-level header. Third-level headers, on the other hand, are ideal. If one of the newly lowered headers is it's own discussion, please move it out of the previous discussion. // Pathoschild
Thanks pathos, I was using the plus button to add unrelated comments, this will be archived in the AM after a decent time, unless you beat me to it. Dominick 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Lima, sorry. I wasn't "not answering" you; I forgot, and then had to sleep. But I answer now:
Re: "Let us replace "full accord" with "free of dispute": you'd have to have a direct object after "free of dispute," and this is where things get tricky. You want to use "Holy See"; I think it's problematic because it's vague. You offer the definition as given in Canon Law. I think it's still too vague. You maintain it isn't because it doesn't include "Cardinals"; I reply that it does include some Cardinals -- including the troublesome (from a "trad" view) Cardinal Kasper, who is a member of the Curia. But then there's the statement by then-Cardinal Ratzinger who said in the 1993 document "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" that the "Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office..." (though it had been considered such before Vatican II). But how many people know this? They see "Kasper," think "Curia," then "Holy See," and think "Wow, anyone who believes Jews need Jesus are 'not in full accord with 'the Holy See'". Additionally, "full accord" and such language leads the unedcated to think "in communion with" -- and that has serious, SERIOUS meaning in the Catholic Church. This is why I am extremely concerned with language here.
But I don't see why the version of the article that I offer shouldn't please all involved here. Trads are divided into two main groups: those who think we have a Pope and those who don't. Within the first group are those who "operate within ordinary diocesan structures" and those who don't. Further down in the article is an entire section on those groups' relations with Vatican hierarchs.
You'd asked if I accept that the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter are 'traditional Catholics' who have no dispute with the Holy See, and that the Society of St Pius X are "traditional Catholics" between whom and the Holy See a dispute exists." Obviously I do (if you want to use "Holy See" in the loosest way possible) and the article I present makes that clear. But I don't see why such information would have to go into an opening paragraph since this is not an article about the S.S.P.X. or F.S.S.P.
Re: "Putting outside the Church. Is it still not clear to Anonymous that a dispute is a dispute, even if it does not involve an infallible declaration? Those who reject the teachings upheld by the Holy See (e.g. those of the Second Vatican Council), even if these teachings are not formally infallible, are in dispute with the Holy See." I respond that disputes don't put one outside the Church untless they involve formal heresy or schism. As to the S.S.P.X. in this regard, no one has ever said they are heretics (formal or informal), and whether or not they are "in schism" is best handled in an article on the S.S.P.X. because they have long, detailed arguments as to why they are not "in schism." In addition, to use "e.g., those of the Second Vatican Council" begs the question, "What did that Council teach -- fallibly, infallibly, or whatever?" People are still arguing that today.
Re: that I "expressly (agree) that mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics have different understandings of "what the Church has always taught": I thought I'd made that clear throughout. It is Dominick who wants to include anyone and everyone under the term "traditiona Catholic." I argue that if the term is to be used at all as an encyclopedia entry, it has to mean something, and how the term is used -- not only by traditional Catholics, but by Catholic Answers, EWTN, etc. -- is how it is used in the version of the article I offer. Disputes of this nature should be added at the bottom in a section called something like "Disputes over the term "traditional Catholic"; it shouldn't be a matter of the opening paragraph, esp. since few people debate the term, and Catholics everywhere know who they're talking about when they talk about "those trads." 152.163.100.202 04:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Gratitude to Anonymous

I warmly appreciate Anonymous's new effort to stick to the point and reduce irrelevancies, though some remain. Irrelevant is what he says about "full accord": if the article were not blocked, this phrase would long since have been replaced with "not in dispute". Irrelevant is his talk about putting people outside the Church: the article (in the version he dislikes) nowhere says that being a traditionalist puts one outside the Church; instead, it states that SSPX is not a schismatic organization, and does not declare even sedevacantists to be outside the Church. Irrelevant, in the face of an official definition that contradicts his view, is what Anonymous says about how "Holy See" ought to be understood. The Holy See surely knows what it is, and Anonymous does not have the power to impose on the rest of us his definition of "Holy See" – or of "traditional(ist) Catholic".

1. Anonymous now agrees that there are traditional(ist) Catholics who are in dispute with the Holy See and traditional(ist) Catholics who are not in dispute. Can we take it then that he has withdrawn his previous objection to the distinction the article makes between these two categories of traditional(ist) Catholics? If so, we can perhaps move on to some other objection of his to the article.

2. Catholics everywhere know who they're talking about when they talk about traditional Catholics, Anonymous says. But we still need to spell out at the beginning of the article what they understand by the term "traditional(ist) Catholic". We need a definition that can be understood even by non-Catholics. We need a definition that does not contain the same term, explicitly or implicitly, within it, a definition that is objective and not dependent on the differing views of readers. Would Anonymous now kindly tell us what specifically he finds inaccurate in the definition given in the article: "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council". What Catholics does it include who are not traditional(ist) Catholics? Or what traditional(ist) Catholics does the definition fail to cover?

Would Anonymous please be specific, and not respond, as before with: "It is sloppy as Hell linguistically and makes Vatican II out to be 'the issue'." Nobody but Anonymous is likely to think this definition more sloppy than his; and the definition does not even imply, still less state, that the changes that have occurred since before the Second Vatican Council occurred at the Council itself (see his remarks at 3.5 above).

Lima 11:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the definition is better, I objected to the Anon def with the word ALL in it, It is an absolute that just isn't true. Contrasting that with a straw man of "conservative" Catholics didn't make sense in the old article either. Like I said, it is a intellectual distinction not a theological one, and the distinction is not always clear to outside observers, which is the primary audience. I intended to archive this, but, I am going to wait for a few more responses. Dominick 12:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I don't think my effort to stick to the point and avoid irrelevancies is "new." What might have seemed "irrelevant" isn't irrelevant to me because the language involved in this article is very important, and in order to get to the heart of it, a lot of things had to be talked about.

You say, "irrelevant is his (my) talk about putting people outside the Church" -- but that wasn't my language. I was referring to this item in your post:

Re: "Putting outside the Church. Is it still not clear to Anonymous that a dispute is a dispute, even if it does not involve an infallible declaration?

I still argue with the use of "in dispute with" because mainstream Catholics who operate within ordinary diocesan structures "have disputes," too, with Vatican hierarchs. There are things that FSSP priests want from them that they don't get. Mainstream Bishops have "disputes" with Vatican hierarchs (like Bishops who want women to hear Confessions, for ex.), and the typical Catholic in the pew doesn't even believe in the Real Presence. So "in dispute with" isn't specific enough, and it's inflammatory --- but the specifics of the disputes traditionalists have with Vatican hierarchs are handled in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims," and relations with Vatican hierarchs is handled in the section "Attitude of Mainstream Catholics and Vatican Hierarchs towards Traditional Catholics" (all of these sections I refer to reference my version of the article above).

As to the direct object of those disputes, my objections stand because of what I wrote in my last post. We all can read what Canon Law says, but lil ole Lurlene sees a paper from the Curia (the Pontiffical Biblical Commission, for ex.), sees a Cardinal's or Bishop's opinion written in it, sees that traditional Catholics disagree (as many mainstream Catholics might, for that matter), and thinks automatically "schism!" -- even though the Pontiffical Biblical Commission is no longer considered a teaching organ of the Church yet remains a part of "the Holy See." This is why I use language such as "Vatican hierarchs" rather than "Rome" or "the Holy See" -- both of which bring up heavy things in the minds of most people (esp. Catholics). Not "in full accord" with Kasper's work with the Pontiffical Biblical Commission? Then you're not "in full accord" with "the Holy See" -- even though Ratzinger said it is not a teaching arm of the Church. An uneducated person seeing that trads are, indeed, not "in full accord" with Kasper's ideas are led to believe that they are "not in full accord" with "the Vatican," that they are "disputing" with "the Holy See" -- that they are "dissenting" from "ROME." That has serious connotations. You see the problem. At least I hope you do.

You say that we need a definition of "traditional Catholic" that doesn't use the word "traditional." I see that point. What about:

Traditional Catholic or "traditionalist Catholic" are terms used to describe Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down until the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period.

What I object to about Dominick's definition -- "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council" -- is that it does exactly what Dominick has listed as a grievance mainstream Catholics have about traditional Catholics: it is characterized by "Exaggerating the extent to which the Second Vatican Council altered not only Church discipline and practice, but even, they claim, Church teaching." The liturgical changes came AFTER the Council, and to use "to be as before the Second Vatican Council" (sloppily written) intimates that Vatican II itself is the dividing line. It makes no more sense to say that than to say that trads want to restore such things "to be as after Vatican I." That definition also mentions only "worship" and "practices" -- excluding Church teaching, which is what separates traditional Catholics from conservative mainstream Catholics. Yes, the two have different understandings of what "Church teaching" is, but that is a matter for the sub-section "Attitude of Mainstream Catholics and Vatican Hierarchs towards Traditional Catholics." The "traditional Catholic claims" are listed -- very clearly, with the names of encyclicals and everything -- in the section just before that one.

152.163.100.202 13:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That was Lima's definition, mine used the term 1960s since we know the Mass changes came after Vatican II. If the term Vatican II is your only objection this can be fixed. No teachings changed by the council, nor by the changes that followed on dogmatic issues. The Church did clarify a number of issues, but dogmatic teachings remained. I would object to the term Vatican Heirarchs because it is used to deny that the Cardinals and Bishops with the Pope are the Holy See and have the authority given to them by Christ.
Integrism is associated with Sedes and SSPX people, and that is the criticism, that item you have listed is contextual. It is a criticism, and if you subscribe to it or not is not the issue. It is what people say, and thats enough for inclusion.
You need to say to yourself this article isn't about me, this is Wikipedia's article.
This talk page will be archived today, let say about 1700-1800UTC. Please follow the indentation standards for talk pages in the future. Dominick 14:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has been partially archived for useability of the talk page. Feel free to append the rest when you archive. // Pathoschild 14:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: "If the term Vatican II is your only objection this can be fixed." -- That was just part of my objection to the definition. I think the entire article, as it is, is hopelessly mangled, confusing, and disorganized and that my version of the entry is much better.
Re: "No teachings changed by the council, nor by the changes that followed on dogmatic issues. The Church did clarify a number of issues, but dogmatic teachings remained." -- You refer to "the changes that followed on dogmatic issues" but then say "dogmatic teachings remained"? What changes on "dogmatic issues"? And if no teachings were changed by the Council, how come suddenly there are "teachings 'of Vatican II'" that traditional Catholics must "be in accord with" that no Catholic was "in accord with" prior to the Council? Whether the Council changed teaching or the presentation of teaching or not totally depends on whether you see the Council as valid, pastoral rather than dogmatic, as having produced documents with fallible or infallible statements or both, whether you are able to interpret them in light of tradition or not, etc. Different Catholics have different views of these things. You might do well to remember that "this article isn't about you; this is a Wikipedia's article."
Re: " I would object to the term Vatican Heirarchs because it is used to deny that the Cardinals and Bishops with the Pope are the Holy See and have the authority given to them by Christ." -- Bishops receive their authority not because they are members of the Curia or work in some department at the Vatican, but because they are successors to the Apostles.
Re: "Integrism is associated with Sedes and SSPX people, and that is the criticism, that item you have listed is contextual. It is a criticism, and if you subscribe to it or not is not the issue. It is what people say, and thats enough for inclusion." -- I have no idea what you are talking about (once again). These lines are contained in my version of the entry: "Traditional Catholic analysis is not widely shared by more mainstream Catholics, some of whom believe that traditional Catholics are merely "nostalgic," afraid of change, "integrist," disobedient, and similar to Protestants in their perceived dissent."
Re: "You need to say to yourself this article isn't about me, this is Wikipedia's article." -- And you need to mind your manners. 152.163.100.202 15:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see reaching consensus with you is not going to happen. Like Lima, I can't work with you as long as you go around in circles backtracking in areas where you had agreed before. Since I have ample evidence you are not working in good faith, my discussion with you is over. I have no job openings for people that bicker with me, I have a wife, she serves all my bickering needs.
I am not going to stand around and let this article serve your personal PoV of the scope of this informal term "traditional Catholicism". It isn't how Catholics use the term. I will continue to watch this article to discuss the elements and ways to improve it with others.
I hope the admins leave this article with the flaws it currently has alone for a while, until more people have further input here. Perhaps then we can reach the consensus we need to improve the article. Dominick 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The only one backtracking is you, and the examples of your doing so are laid out in my posts on these Talk Pages. You are working neither in good faith, nor with a sound mind. You may have other talents; you may be a great painter, a mathematical genius, able to balance beachballs at the end of your nose, or the world's greatest lover, but a writer who's able to express himself clearly you are not.
You say that the definition I think is perfectly reasonable -- and to which you yourself admitted "consensus" -- is now a matter of my POV, and that this is not "how Catholics use the term." Well, behold: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=traditional+Catholicism
Don't think that I will do nothing as you ignore your bickering wife (who could blame her for being cantankerous?) to muck up Wikipedia articles with your pre-school grammar, inability to outline, and very OBVIOUS mainstream Catholic POV.
I hope the admins unlock this article and let me post my revision as posted earlier in these Talk Pages (but with this definition: "'Traditional Catholic' or 'traditionalist Catholic' are terms used to describe Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down until the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period). Liberate Wikipedia from the disorganized, rambling mess that is now the entry for "traditionalist Catholic."
Seriously. Imagine you're Lurlene from Gnawbone, Arkansas and know nothing about traditional Catholicism. You read about Mel Gibson in the newspaper and see he's a "traditional Catholic." You Google around to find out what this means. Now read the entry as it exists, then read what I've proposed in the archives of the Talk pages. Which makes more sense?

Wikipedia:no_personal_attacks Dominick 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to concrete matters

A. Anonymous's proposed definition, "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down until the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period", is in two parts. The division is marked by the comma sign after "revisions".

1. The second part takes in others than traditional(ist) Catholics. Thank God, Roman Catholics in general, and the Holy See in particular, do "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down until the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period." Anonymous's opinion that there has been a break in those teachings at "the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period" (a period for which no end is assigned other than the time of the Second Coming of Christ) is not a given. It is only his opinion.

2. The first part has been much improved. I think that, if shorn of the second part, it fulfils the formal conditions for a definition. There are faults to be amended: for instance "the other" must be inserted before "Sacramental rites", since the Mass too is a Sacramental rite. But I do not want to discuss such matters now. Instead I congratulate Anonymous: a definition consisting of this first part can be said to cover all traditional(ist) Catholics and no others, which is the essential function of a definition of "traditional(ist) Catholics". That is my opinion. Is it Anonymous's opinion also? Probably not. I think he would consider that definition too wide, bringing in some whom he would say are not traditional(ist) Catholics. He wants traditional(ist) Catholics to be distinguished from others also by a difference regarding Church teaching, not just by a desire to preserve and restore certain liturgical rites. This seems to mean that he would limit traditional(ist) Catholics to those whom the article classifies as traditional(ist) Catholics of the second and third categories. And yet he considers the Sacerdotal Fraternity of Saint Peter, who have no disagreement with the authorities of the Catholic Church about teaching, and who thus belong to the first category, to be traditional(ist) Catholics.

B. Now that I have given my answer on the formal aspects of his proposed definition, would he please state, as already requested, his opinion about the formal qualities of the definition, "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the Second Vatican Council".

1. Does this definition cover all traditional(ist) Catholics? If not, what traditional(ist) Catholics does it fail to cover?

2. Does this definition cover only traditional(ist) Catholics? If not, who are the non-traditional(ist) Catholics that it covers too?

Lima 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: the idea that the second part of the definition is too inclusive because Roman Catholics in general "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down" -- the thing here is the phrase "in the same manner that THEY believe" (not yelling, just emphasizing). How THEY understand those teachings is explained in the biggest section, "Traditional Catholic Claims" or whatever it's called. It doesn't matter whether I believe there's been a break in those teachings or not; "traditional Catholics" do -- some attributing it positively to the Council's documents themselves, some to ambiguities and liberal translations of the documents, etc. But they see a break in, at the least, how Church teaching is presented and handed down (you can go to any typical parish RCIA program and see that they are right about this).
As to defining "traditional Catholic" to include more than just wanting to have a traditional Mass -- well, there's a huge section talking about "traditional Catholic claims," and if you Google "traditional Catholicism," you can see that the phrase IS predominantly used, despite what Dominick claims, to indicate those who are concerned about more than just the pretty Mass -- and the term is used this way, at mainstream, conservative Catholic websites, as I have shown by providing a link to Google's search returns for the phrase at "Catholic Answers" website.
As to the F.S.S.P. not fitting in with how the term is being defined with that "second part" of the definition, I have to take it that you don't read Latin Mass Magazine. There are all kinds of "disputes" between the F.S.S.P. and mainstream Catholicism. They work, though, within ordinary diocesan structures so have to shut up about it, tone it down, watch out for who's listening, write anonymously and the like. In addition to this, NOT having that second part would make Andrew Sullivan a "traditional Catholic" even though he's a modernist and a half (he even wants "gay 'marriage'" for crying out loud).
If you don't like the part about "the Second Vatican Council or the post-conciliar period" -- then we finally agree. That was a concession to Dominick who kept insisting on "Vatican II" language and how Catholics wanted to "restore practices to how they were before Vatican II" and the like. I'd written (I think 100 times):
And I don't like the definition, "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council." It is sloppy as Hell linguistically and makes Vatican II out to be "the issue."
Anyway, to avoid naming Vatican II itself while also defining a time period, and to exclude the Andrew Sullivans of the world while dealing with your concerns about the F.S.S.P., how about using this definition:
"Traditional Catholic" or "traditionalist Catholic" are terms used to describe Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down before the "spirit of Vatican II" swept through the Church.
-- coupled with a "Though not every traditional Catholic will agree on each point, they generally see as foremost among these perceived errors:" before the listing of "Traditional Catholic claims"?
As to part B of your post, you state this definition and ask two questions:
"Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the Second Vatican Council".
Question 1: Does this definition cover all traditional(ist) Catholics? If not, what traditional(ist) Catholics does it fail to cover?
Answer: Yes.
Question 2: Does this definition cover only traditional(ist) Catholics? If not, who are the non-traditional(ist) Catholics that it covers too?
Answer: No. It includes Andrew Sullivan, for ex., or any person who loves drama, pomp, Palestrina, incense, chant. It includes Goths or the Catholic Queer Guy with a Good Eye. It covers High Church Anglicans who might pop in after being fed up with how Low Church their "church" is becoming, but still think that contraception is no big whoop. It covers thrice-married 60-year old nostalgics who are for eradicating priestly celibacy, but like bells. It covers teenage drama queens who've seen old movies with nuns in them, but still think having sex with their boyfriends is OK. It includes Godfather movies and Madonna videos. I exaggerate there, but you get my point.
For those who identify as "traditional Catholics" in a deliberate way, it's about more than just the Mass and other Sacramental rites. It involves Church teaching. This is where mainstream conservative Catholics will say "but we're about the teaching, too" -- and this is where the trad comes back with "yeah, you are, God bless ya, but we understand those teachings differently." Hence the opening line that reads "in the same manner that THEY believe those teachings had always been understood." Conservative, mainstream Catholics would say the same thing -- but this article references traditional Catholics, and how THEY believe things to be is outlined in the section "traditional Catholic claims." The "they" refers to traditional Catholics. 152.163.100.202 21:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Anonymous's definition has made an advance. It is now: "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood and handed down before the 'spirit of Vatican II' swept through the Church". Unfortunately, the second part is still too wide. Grammatically, "they" refers to "Roman Catholics". "The 'they' refers to traditional Catholics," says Anonymous. In that case, the term to be defined is included in the so-called definition. Besides, "before the 'spirit of Vatican II' swept the Church" is question-begging. (The insertion of "allegedly" would go part way, but only part way, to remedying this fault.) A definition in a polemic tract can be and often will be tendentious. A definition in an encyclopaedia must be one that all can accept as objective.

Anonymous has, I think, three objections to the definition, "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the Second Vatican Council".

1. He wants no mention to be made of the Second Vatican Council (though he would like a mention of "the spirit of Vatican II"). "Before the Second Vatican Council" only indicates a date. If a mention of that Council is taboo, we can easily put in whatever suitable date pleases Anonymous: "before 1963" (when the Council published its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)? "before 1964" (when it published its Decree on Ecumenism)? "before 1970" (when the revised Roman Missal was published)? Perhaps best, to accommodate his feelings, we can modify the definition to read: "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s". Does this overcome his first objection?

2. He again denounces the definition as "sloppy as Hell linguistically". Would he please indicate what precisely is linguistically sloppy (even if not comparable with Hell) about "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s".

3. He finds the definition too wide. He gives culturally specific examples, with which I am unfamiliar, of people whom, he says, the definition fits, but who are not traditional(ist) Catholics: "Andrew Sullivan ... Goths or the Catholic Queer Guy with a Good Eye". Are these really Catholics, who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s? I think not, since he lumps with them people "who are for eradicating priestly celibacy", and who "think having sex with their boyfriends is OK". He exaggerates, he says. He does indeed. Would he instead please stick to the point. Anonymous also says the definition fits certain Anglicans. I would have thought that he would have interpreted "Catholics" as synonymous with "Roman Catholics"; however, to avoid confusion not only by him, I see the definition must be more specific. So what does Anonymous think of the definition, "Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s"? What classes of people other than traditional(ist) Catholics does this definition cover?

Anonymous is now giving concrete help towards clarifying the content of the article. I am indeed glad of that. I would ask him to be so good as to give yet more help, by responding to the above requests, and also by letting us know what disputes about teaching he has found to exist between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. There are bound to be disputes, indeed conflicts, about practical matters between members of that Fraternity and Church authorities, just as there have always been such conflicts between, for instance, Franciscans and Church authorities. But are there really disputes about doctrine between that Fraternity and the Church authorities? This is the point, since Anonymous wants to limit traditional(ist) Catholics to those who have problems about teaching, as well as worship and practices. The article, on the other hand, only says that many traditional(ist) Catholics claim that there have been changes also in doctrine since before the 1960s.

It is good to be able to think that we are at last making progress.

Lima 08:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I often start ideas with the phrase, "if I were King...", so in this case, I would keep the definition as simple as you can Lima, there shouldn't be caveats enumberations or other things cluttering it up. If you mention one group or another, we go back into the same thing. It unfortunatly leaves us with "a yellow bibbon is yellow" as a definition, but it works. I think we need to remember this is a intellectual condition and not at all a theological one, we can't write this to exclude any one group who thinks practices should be restored. With this in mind, we need to write it as plainly as you said, without the enumeration, without the exclusions on what we think the term means. I think perhaps since there is a dispute the unstatisfactory yellow ribbon is all we can do.
I hope progress is being made. Time will tell. The nonsense about Sullivan, who afaik, does not atted any Indult Mass, or disobedient Catholics, or anyone else, that personal peccability has no bearing on this definition. Dominick 12:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Point of View

New edits from tonight

Pathos reverted them. I did not. This isn't how wiki works. Putting these comments are just irrational and demonstrate a serious bias. What shall we take as the next step? Dominick 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

*shrug* I don't think anything more need be done. It was fairly harmless vandalism, in that it was obvious and easy to revert. This type of vandalism occurs regularly and is to be expected; revert and forget. >_> // Pathoschild 02:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
In light of this senseless edit warring he has been carrying on, it is irritating. There is no call for this. Dominick 11:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
In communion?:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3113
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin is not mincing words about the proposed Vatican statement on homosexual seminarians. In plain, simple language, he told The Tablet: "You don't write off a candidate for the priesthood simply because he is a gay man."
You might think that Archbishop Martin is desperate. After all, he ordained zero new priests this year-- the first year in the history of the Dublin diocese that no priests were ordained.
But No. The instructors who train candidates for the Dublin priesthood are rigorous enough on some issues.
The Irish seminary at Maynooth (which is, these days, the only functioning seminary all of Ireland) recently threatened to suspend 5 young men-- 6.7% of the entire student body-- for a particular form of misconduct.
What was the transgression for which this punishment was threatened? What would cause you to write off a candidate for the priesthood?
Brace yourself. Cover the eyes of the children. OK, ready?
They were kneeling for Communion!


Nevermind Tradition, what about Scripture?:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C13509-1811332%2C00.html
EWTN and the New Mass:
[link removed]
Vatican II (hey, is it springtime yet?):
http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2003/editorials_jan03.html
(unsigned comment by 64.12.116.202 06:13, October 6, 2005)


No "traditionalist Catholic" in the world thinks "that there has been a unlawful change in Church doctrine, and not just in the manner of presenting unchanging Tradition" Wanna know why? Because they consider the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic -- INDEFECTIBLE. "The Church" can no more preach false doctrine than monkeys can fly out your ass. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this topic. // (unsigned comment by 64.12.116.202 20:21, October 7, 2005)

Highly PoV edits

So what is the consensus on handling this. Listing the Hloy Sea of Chicago et al and trashing old edits is not going to fly. Dominick 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 

 To heck with them, though, 'cause mainstream Catholics

 There are "traditionalist boxers, for example, who want to restore the old 
 weight classes, and there are "traditionalist homemakers" who insist on making 
 bread from scratch. But this article is about traditionalist Catholics. The 
 heading says so.
Reverted edits by 64.12.116.202. // Pathoschild 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A whole new page for the "traditionalist conservative Catholics": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Catholics&action=edit Carry on there, Dominick

No such thing. You cant split this topic. By consensus we left the version you reverted behind. Dominick 14:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted to the page Me, Lima and Pathos had consensus for. Traditional Catholics are traditional Catholics. Dominick 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Is this what we call working for consensus? Ref: bad eidts by anon more bad edits more bad edits.Dominick 14:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR report in, page reverted. Dominick 15:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

5RR report. Page reverted. 64.12.116.202 16:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm no rad trad, but the page as it is now at 15:56, 8 October 2005 makes a lot more sense than the reverted versions. It reads better and is better layed out and isn't all mixed up. It seems inclusive enough. (hope this works) PhatmassRulez 16:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

<ahem> I'm sorry, but I am a relatively "neutral traditionalist" and it looks to me like Dominick, et al. have twisted this page around hopelessly. You do not have "consensus." Find out what traditional catholics believe, before you try to write Wikipedia articles on them. 150.243.118.73 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the suspicious fact that the above comment is PhatmassRulez's only contibution, the article is positively dripping with POV. Furthermore, it links to the article Conservative Catholics which was created in what is apparently an attempt to get Dominic and other opposing editors to give up on this article in exasperation (see: "Carry on there, Dominick" -- Anonymous). All changes to the Wikipedia must meet general consensus. Most edits that are undisputed are assumed to be consensual; however, should a dispute arise, one must obtain general agreement with the other editors. Anonymous 1 and Anonymous 2 are welcome to add to the article or modify it, but universal opposition from the other editors is often a sign that something (in this case NPOV) is lacking. // Pathoschild 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

vprotected

I protected the page due to the fact that an aol user seems to be continually vandalizing the page. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny how this version of a page could be considered "vandalism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=25073203

Read it. Read it well. Now compare with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=25073414

Why is it when Dominick and Lima revert, it's fine, but when I, other anonymous users, DominusTecume, etc., revert, it's "vandalism"?

And, Dominick, you might not want to let your local Ordinary know you're a "traditional Catholic"; he might excommunicate you, you hypocrite. And, P.S., that wasn't me you were talking to above. You must think there's only one traditional Catholic in the world. We are legion. wikipedia:no_personal_attacks

Don't make threats. Dominick 18:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What threats? I'm not your Bishop. 152.163.100.202 18:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right Dominick. There are more of us than you can count. What you CAN count on is all of us coming back here and fighting the good fight... JLeigh

I imagine you are astroturfing this already. Don't make threats. Dominick 18:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, we are not "astroturfing"; we are traditional Catholics who know who we are and what we believe. You do not. We are writing an entry about traditional Catholicism. You consider yourself a "traditional Catholic," too. But Google doesn't support your assertion. The names of Wikipedia's entries go by the commonly used definition, not your POV. 152.163.100.202
No so far you have not proven your assertation with a google search. We provided a lot of articles and discussion that supported the broad definition. Dominick 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, but I have proven it, not only with Google at large, but with Google looking at the conservative Catholic site par excellence, Catholic Answers:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=traditionalist+catholic
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3Awww.catholic.com+%22traditionalist+catholic%22
And I now have an account so you can quit accusing all traditional Catholics in the world of being me.

Used2BAnonymous 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments regarding the protection of this page have been archived. The above message is left on this page for informational purposes. // Pathoschild 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sedevacantists

It's unacademic and partisan to say that sedevacantists have cut themselves off from the church. One doesn't expect fellow-authors to agree with one, but they need to write in a neutral way. It would be un-wiki to go into the article on socialism and write that all socialists had cut themselves off from reality, even if one thought they had. If we don't try to be neutral, Wikipedia will become an online debating-society, of which there are already plenty.

Obtaining Consensus

A new commentator

This article was fine for ages until several individuals came and mucked about with it. Just because there are three conservatives to one traditional does not mean that the article on traditional catholics has "consensus." Perhaps you all should consider your own POV when you write....

I'm sorry, I wrote the above, I should have signed DominusTecum 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you see it that way, if you click history in this section, or follow this, anon edits more bad edits more bad edits, you can see what this alleged anonymous traditionalist had chaged this article to. The old article was wrong, very wrong. This was an improvement. There is no rule on what a traditioanalist is, because it is not defined by the Church. You also have no idea what kind of Catholic I am. Even if we are Mass dancing fool Catholics, we can write a correct article that reflect the use of the term, without resorting to putting cute comments like the "Holy Sea" vandalism when the anonymous user could not get his way. Please read through this talk page, and lets discusss your concerns. Until then we ought to work like wiki say we ought to work. Dominick 18:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty laughable that those who aren't trads would have the audacity to overwrite an article that a trad wrote about what "Traditionalism" is. That's like me (a Catholic) telling Arial Sharon that I know more about Judaism than he does. Does Wikipedia want an accurate article on Traditionalism or not? At this point, it sure doesn't look like it. JLeigh 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't know me, sir. I am a traditional Catholic. I can't condone the way you deal with not only other Catholics, but with non-Catholics. You are causing a lot of people a lot of grief because wikipedia will not allow you to push your own PoV on what is a traditional Catholic. Dominick 18:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you sir, (I am a ma'am) were a true traditional Catholic, then you would not be fighting these revisions so hard. JLeigh

They are inaccurate. The term is not defined by the Church. In fact the CHurch takes a very diom view of divisions in the Church with hyphens. My point supported here, "true" according to whom? You are not the authority over who is and who is not a traditionalist. In fact you have no idea what I do, and how I feel about the Church. The changes were made by people who understand the Church, and the issues. Both sides were presented, reverting back and forth doesn't meet the goals of this wikipedia. Dominick 18:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"Traditionalist" according to general usage. I've provided umpteen links that show how the term is used. GOOGLE it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=traditionalist+catholic
Now, does that sound like you? It doesn't, does it? But that is HOW THE TERM IS USED, so get over it. The article had been fine. The newest version (by me) is even finer and includes the line, "Traditional Catholics, as opposed to mainstream conservative Catholics who might simply prefer the traditional Mass for aesthetic reasons and who might consider themselves "traditional," agree that Catholicism is about much more than just the traditional Mass..."
I can't figure out what your deal is. You accuse ME and the other trads here of writing with a "POV" when it is YOU who will not use the commonly accepted definition of the term. 152.163.100.202 18:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Read talk. The term has to reflect the views of the CHurch, of all traditionalists, and in common use. Saying one group or another are not true trads is not PoV and is always going to lose. It doesn't matter how many people get tossed in here. Now another approach would be an agreed on mediator. If you also read above, you would see the sections you disagreed with I proposed removal. There are covered better on other pages. I still think a simple discussion of the term, the meaning used by various groups, and then let people click a link to other areas. I still think that is a good way to explain that to people who are not Catholic, which is the audience here. Being snippy with mods here, and putting in terms like Holy Sea and snide comments about Church officials does not help your case. Mrs. Leigh is as welcome as anyone else here. The non-negotiable part of wiki is NPoV which forces us to have the widest definition possible for terms with no agreed on definition. Dominick 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't have to reflect the views of "the Church" because this isn't a Catechism. It doesn't have to reflect the views of "all traditionalists" because "all traditionalists" have been polled. But it does have to reflect common usage, and the Google link provided to you show that the common usage is how it is described in the version I present. My earlier link to Google's returns which show how the term is used at Catholic Answers also shows the same:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3Awww.catholic.com+%22traditionalist+catholic%22
It is YOU who have the POV, and it is you who have ruined what had been an informative article. It is now hopelessly muddled, confusing, and extremely POV-based. 152.163.100.202 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
That is a Catholic Answers search. Anyone who wants to see the Church return elements of the faith to as it was practiced before the 1960s is a traditionalist. Come up with an article, like this:
From the USCCB: [1]
Second, men with more traditionalist leanings may be attracted by what they hear in the PK message about the need for a 
return to traditional values, the family, etc. Third, it is always possible that Catholic men may be finding in Promise
Which referred it to a political leaning and not at all about the Mass they preferred.
In this letter Vatican profile of Ecclesia Dei the term is more correctly used to describe what I say it is, those who prefer the Mass from the 1962 Missal, not excluding any group. The term in the second case is the proper use, as it also was used by the Vatican in numerous other articles and letters. Dominick 19:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Per your first link: no DUH! The word "traditionalist" can be used to describe any movement toward tradition in ANY sort of group. But this entry is about traditional CATHOLICISM, not political movements.
And this is what your second link said - the only time "traditionalist" was used: "to regularise the canonical situation of a certain number of religious communities of a traditionalist nature which already exist but without recognition on the part of the Church by giving them a canonical form corresponding to their charism. Moreover, an ecclesial integration has been found for a number of traditionalist priests who had not been incardinated."
So, are you in an irregular canonical situation? Does your priest need to be incardinated or require "ecclesial integration"? Used2BAnonymous 19:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The word referred to "religious communities of a traditionalist nature" and furthermore, referred to the status of some of them. It did not limit the term as you would seem to think it could. Dominick 19:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it referred to religious communities of a traditionalist nature, and said that it is the goal to regularize their canonical situation. And it referred to traditionalist priests "who had not been incardinated." Google says you are wrong, Catholic Answers says you are wrong, this Vatican link you provided says you are wrong, and traditional Catholics, about whom this entry is made, say you are wrong. You have an agenda, and your POV shows clearly in what you write and how you write it. Used2BAnonymous 20:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't we discuss concrete elements of the article?

Welcome to the now named Used2BAnonymous. His previous refusal to discuss concrete matters such as his proposed definition, which has the defect of containing within it the term to be defined ("they" = "traditional/ist Catholics"), meant that reverting, and, finally, protecting, may have been the only remedy against renewed insistence on a text that excludes any least hint of criticism of the claim it sets forth at length, that Catholics should consider erroneous or at least ambiguous and dangerous the teaching given for almost half a century by the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; that purges even from the "External links" any website that does not propound that same view; that deliberately chooses terms with a pejorative ring, such as "Vatican hierarchs", to speak of the Popes and the See of Rome; that presents as evident facts unsubstantiated claims such as "it is clear that their ranks are growing ... Demand for the traditional Latin Mass is very high"; that devotes much of its space, not to the subject of the article, but to "conservative Catholics" (why not rather ordinary middle-of-the-road Catholics, or why not also "progressive" Catholics? why indeed discuss any group of Catholics other than traditional/ist Catholics?); that ...

No, it's better to leave all that aside and discuss concrete matters, one at a time. The definition, coming first in any version of the article, seemed, and seems, the obvious place to start. I promise to continue to be specific about problems with Used2BAnonymous's proposed definition. Will Used2BAnonymous be specific about what precise points require amending in the definition now in the article, so that modifications can be made to meet his wishes? My hope would be to agree finally on a "least common denominator" text, as was suggested by some other user, possibly one with the rank of Administrator.

Lima 08:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Linguistic Sloppiness Here

There has been no refusal on my part to discuss the issues; if huge posts in the Talk Archives pages don't indicate that, then nothing will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic/Archives/2003-2005
Here is the definition I use in my version. Note it is not ""they" = "traditional/ist Catholics"):
"traditional Catholic" or "traditionalist Catholic" are terms used to describe Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood throughout the Church's history.
The manner in which they believe those teachings have always been undertstood throughout the Church's History is contained, in a very detailed manner, in the section, "Tradtitional Catholic Claims." Unless you want to cram everything into the first paragraph, this makes sense.
An entire section can be added critiquing the views of traditional Catholics, but we don't need two or three of them. Links opposing the views of traditional Catholics can be added, too. Label them, and don't use them in such a manner that Phatmass is sneaked into a list of traditional Catholic sites. Have an entire section of links "Against traditional catholicism" or "Against the style of Catholicism mentioned above." I don't care.
The term "Vatican hierarchs" is not perjorative. It is specific. They are Catholic hierarchs, they work at the Vatican. It is a neutral term, one that journalists would use. If you find it "perjorative," then it is POV.
If you don't like "very" and ""it is clear that" in the section on demographics, then get rid of them. But while you're at it, don't re-insert "small" before "minority" when speaking of how traditional Catholics are a minority (this is not in the present version).
"Traditional Catholics" have to be contrasted with "conservative Catholics" for obvious reasons. No one would mistake either one for a "progressive Catholic," and as Dominick claims, EWTNer's, PhatMassers, and Catholic Answer junkies think they, too, are "traditionalist Catholics" -- even though they spend an inordinate amount of time lambasting "those trads".
As to being "specific about what precise points require amending in the definition now in the article," the entire article as it stands is ridiculous. Its very structure is confusing, its verbiage is awful, it says things that are absolutely untrue about traditional Catholics (claiming that they "must further hold that Church doctrine, not just the manner of presenting unchanging Tradition, has been altered in the same period"? What a stupid lie!). The language is sloppy throughout. For ex., "Without making any judgement on the correctness of the claim," "it seems best" -- do you know of any other encyclopedia in which the writer inserts himself into the text like that? "It seems best"? Value-based POV. That kind of language is all throughout this article, lying on the bones of its disarrayed skeleton and making the whole thing even more ridiculous.
This entire paragraph is complete nonsense:
Though most traditionalist Catholics dislike the generally used term, they have been known to apply it gladly to themselves when quoting, from Pope Pius X's letter Notre charge apostolique of 25 August 1910,[2] the phrase "indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists". In the judgement of others, the term "traditionalists" has, in the context of that letter, a social and political, rather than a directly religious sense. Yet other meanings apply to "traditionalist" in other contexts, as, for instance, when "traditionalism" is defined as: "a philosophical system holding that all knowledge is derived from original divine revelation and is transmitted by tradition".
"They have been known to apply it gladly to themselves"? Where's that come from? Because I quoted it here in a Wiki Talk Page? Puh-lease. And the going on about social and political traditionalism -- when this entry is clearly about traditional Catholicism? It is unnecessary, confusing blubbering.
My version of the article is clear. It is digestible. It looks good. It is not sloppy. It acknowledges that some mainstream Catholics consider themselves "traditional Catholics," too, and provides a link to a page yet-to-be written about such Catholics. If you think that mainstream, conservative Catholics are the same as those Catholics Google finds when the terms "traditionalist Catholic" or "traditional Catholicism," etc., are searched for, then one must ask what is the purpose of the page at all? Why not just redirect to the page on "Catholicism" and be done with it?
The fact is that there is a group of Catholics who call themselves "traditional Catholics," an adjectival phrase. This phrase means something. What it means is laid out in the definition given in my version, and in the section thereof entitled "Traditional Catholic Claims." THAT is what this entry is about and had been about until a conservative Catholic or two showed up and wanted it to be about them. That dispute is acknowledged as I just said in the previous paragraph. A section of their criticisms can be added. A section of links to their criticisms can be added. Get rid of the word and phrase "very" and "it seems clear," if it makes you happy. But don't turn this article about "traditionalist Catholics" into one about Dominick's beliefs.
Now, seriously, imagine you're a person who's just heard that "Mel Gibson, say, is a 'traditional Catholic.'" Now read these two versions and tell me which one would leave you a confused mess, and which one would inform you.
The present version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic#Criticisms_of_the_position_of_these_traditionalist_Catholics
My version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=25073337
Used2BAnonymous 10:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Who is a traditionalist, well those who think that the Church erred in any of the reforms. The solution to that is to roll back reforms. It is astonishing simple to define, for the layman. It isn't my belief it is the definition of most Catholics who care about traditionalism, who don't have an axe to grind about the Church and that is the only PoV acceptable, because it is NPoV. So far you have no definition that refutes mine, and in fact there is no definition, per se.
Splitting this group into conservative that are not traditional because of what you think they believe, with PoV perjoratives like "pretty" Mass or Holy Sea, is not a adequate definition. Whats worse is there is no definiton of a conservative Catholic and it is not used except as a neologism. The best I can see it is someone who is a traditionalist but doesn't believe in traditionalism. It is like defining a blue ribbon as one that is not yellow. Thats is absurd to use in an encyclopedia.
Furthermore, reverence at any valid Mass is a requirement of being Catholic. It isn't an option. One who is playing around with liturgical dance, dressing in shorts at Mass, eating up to 10 seconds before coming in the door, is not a mainstream Catholic, they are marginal Catholics, and we have had them for centuries. Everything that is cited as a NPoV characteristic of a Conservative is exactly a property of every Catholic, that is in union with the Church.
The best solution, IMHO, is what I proposed and tried to implement. A short and direct definition that defines the term as someone who thinks the Church should roll back the 1960 reforms and attends a Tridentine Mass. Nothing more is needed except maybe a syllabus of groups who consider themselves traditionalist and a singlesentence for each. We can link the various organizations.
The term Vatican Hierarch is indeed a pejorative as used by the press covering some groups professing to be traditional Catholics, I think it is needlessly PoV. I think the vinegar is best left to a blog or some forum somewhere.
I think we need to preent a NPoV article directed at the layman, which is the main reader of this wikipedia. We also need to act like adults, as the administrator here are not Catholic, and frankly actions here give a bad accounting of our Church. Reverts/re-reverts, childish comments, and namecalling make us all look bad, and the finger pointing here is worse. If you are serious about your Church, then you need to act like its representitive, becasue you are. Dominick 11:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to treat this as a dialogue between just two persons, who will hopefully be patient and courteous to each other. So by "you" I am here addressing Used2BAnonymous.

Let us stick to one point at a time, please. And let that point be the definition.

Your definition is: "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood throughout the Church's history." I already asked: Who are the "they"? Since even now you yourself have not given an explanation, and are not bringing the discussion forward even a little, it falls to me to try to defend your point of view and make some advance. That I will do now.

Instead of saying, as you did earlier, that "they" means "traditional Catholics" (in other words, that the proposed definition is a circular one, containing the term to be defined), I will say, on your behalf, that "they" means instead "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve ...", the first part of the proposed definition. We have thus got rid of the "circular definition" problem.

There remains the question: in what way does the second part of the definition narrow down the first? If all those covered by the first part are covered also by the second, then there is no point in adding the second part. So what group of people whom the first part would classify as traditional Catholics are excluded by the second?

Some "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions" are convinced that the teachings of the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have been changed since before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions. But some of them believe instead that there is no contradiction whatever between the present teachings of that Church and "preserving the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood throughout the Church's history." So, to judge by your definition, the distinction between those of the first part whom you accept to be traditional/ist Catholics and those whom you reject cannot lie in their differing opinions about present Church teachings, in spite of the lengthy attack on those teachings in the article.

So what exactly does the second part of your definition add to the first?

I have discussed your definition, even taking your part, so as to bring it forward in concrete terms. If you think my way out of the problem of the "circular definition" is wrong, we may have to take a step backward. But, as things now stand, you are at least two steps behind in reciprocating with an advance regarding the definition I prefer. Even if, either by explanation or by modification, you were to overcome all objections to your definition, it would not automatically follow that yours is better than the definition in the article. You must still say what specifically is wrong with that definition, which, as you know, is: "Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s".

More than once, in exactly the same words, you have said: "It is sloppy as Hell linguistically." But you have quite failed to substantiate that judgement, though I invited you to do so even without really comparing it with Hell. I think the general judgement would be that, if the two definitions were of equal value in other respects, linguistic qualities, especially of simplicity, would surely not tilt the balance in your favour.

You agree that the definition in the article covers all traditional/ist Catholics, but you say it also covers others. I repeat my request to you to indicate what classes of Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s are, in your opinion, not traditional/ist Catholics.

If you could clarify the second part of your own definition, your objection to the article's definition might also become clear.

Please advance the discussion.

Lima 15:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh

You say:

Some "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions" are convinced that the teachings of the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have been changed since before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions.

But the problem is that NO traditional Catholic believes this because NO traditional Catholic thinks the Church can change Her eternal teachings. There is a big difference between the true, eternal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the crap Cardinal Kasper passes off as "Catholic teaching."


You say:

But some of them believe instead that there is no contradiction whatever between the present teachings of that Church and "preserving the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood throughout the Church's history."

There is an "AND" in my definition: those who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, AND to preserve the teachings..." There is no "first part"/"second part" conflict. If the person in question doesn't fit the description of the second part, he is not a traditionalist Catholic; he is a conservative Catholic who likes the traditional Mass and other traditional practices.

As to the great circular yellow ribbon you keep going on about, there is none. The "they" refers to the subset of Roman Catholics about whom this entry is being written. What those Catholics believe with regard to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is outlined in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims." But if you are still not getting this, how about this definition? No "they" appears, problem solved:

Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in section "Traditional Catholic Claims" below.

Now, not only have I not failed to substantiate that the article is sloppy as Hell linguistically, what with all the examples I've provided, but one would think I shouldn't have to. The linguistic sloppiness speaks for itself. Loudly. It is neon linguistic sloppiness with a megaphone.

As to your question about who it is that wants "the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s" but who are not in my "opinion," "traditional/ist Catholics" -- try any "Catholic Answer type" who likes praying the Rosary, wearing a Scapular, attending the "TLM," etc., etc., but who does not agree with the claims outlined in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims."

Used2BAnonymous 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


Thank you, Used2BAnonymous, for collaborating. You have done something towards clarifying the second part of your proposed definition. Your definition now is quite complicated: "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use - in the Roman Catholic Church, obviously; but perhaps this should be stated - before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in section 'Traditional Catholic Claims' below" - a very long and vehement section.

The claims in question do maintain that the teachings of the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have changed. This concrete visible Church has officially adopted what your article calls a new Order of the Mass rooted in a Paschal theology that de-emphasizes the Sacrifice of the Mass, that contradicts Scripture and Encyclicals such as Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, and that de-emphasizes the meaning of suffering, ignoring Christ's admonition to Christians to "take up their crosses" (Matthew 10:38), and forgetting St. Paul's admonitions to mortify the flesh (Galatians 5:18-25, Colossians 1:23-24). Is this not a claim that the Catholic Church that is governed by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him has in fact changed its teaching? I presume you know the meaning of the Latin phrase, "Lex orandi lex credendi." You may not be saying that the Church has changed its infallible teachings (although contradicting Scripture does seem to me to be contrary to infallibility), but you are saying that the Church has changed (some of) its teachings.

Your definition therefore comes to: "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the liturgy and teachings in use in the Roman Catholic Church before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions." In this form, it would certainly gain in clarity.

I am curious about how you will avoid this seemingly logical conclusion. I must wait for your reply before asking about other conclusions to be drawn from what you have written.

Please give me even one of "all the examples" you say you have provided of linguistic sloppiness in the article's definition "Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s." Perhaps my memory is failing because of my age: I do not remember even one.

"The linguistic sloppiness speaks for itself. Loudly. It is neon linguistic sloppiness with a megaphone." This declaration reminds me of the character in The Taming of the Snark who would say: "What I tell you three times is true." That was comedy. But you mean it seriously.

Thank you for your response to the question about what non-traditional/ist Catholics you think are included in the article's definition of "traditional/ist Catholic". As I expected, your answer is linked with the clarification of what was the second part of your own definition, and need not at this stage be discussed further.

Lima 20:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous

The article was fine the way it was originally. It was concise in describing what a traditional Catholic is. Then two conservative Catholics come a long and vandalize the whole thing. I was once a conservative Catholic and am now a trad Catholic, there is no comparisom between the two held beliefs. Isn't there some other area you two, Lima and Dominick, can go to muck up with neo Catholic beliefs, like Phatmass, or EWTN? I have an idea, write your own article about conservative Catholics and leave our traditional Catholic one alone. It would be one thing if you knew what you were talking about, but it's painfully obvious that you don't. You do not have concesus, you just like to think you do. 67.68.206.150 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC) TiredOne

Amen. DominusTecum 04:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Snark Responds to Lima

(Note that Dominick isn't jumping in with his "no personal attacks" line)

No, the claims in question do NOT maintain that the teachings of THE CHURCH governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have changed. "The Church" is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Mediator Dei) because She is the Bride of Christ, made one with Him in the Flesh through the Sacrament of Communion. The teachings of "The Church" headed by Pope Benedict XVI are eternal, and Truth cannot contradict Truth.

What you are doing is equating exercises of the Solemn or Universal Magistierium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with the fallible teachings that exercise the merely authentic Magisterium. If you can find for me a document which uses language indicative of the exercise of the Solemn Magisterium AND which contradicts eternal Catholic dogma, then point it out (and become a Protestant while you're at it because it would show that the Church said for two millennia to be the Church of Christ doth lie). This is the very essence -- along with the notion of Christian obedience -- that distinguishes traditional Catholics from conservative Catholics (even those who like the "TLM" and praying the Rosary, etc., etc.).

John XXII used to preach in sermons that the blessed departed don't receive the Beatific Vision until Last Judgment. That's a heresy, a contradiction of the eternal teachings of the Church. There was a big to-do about his heretical statements. Theologians (they used to be Catholic back then) jumped on it. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

Now, when he preached his heresy, did he "change the teachings of the Church"? Would a faithful Catholic, one who rightfully refused to assent to what the Pope was saying and who insisted that the Blessed are in Heaven now, not have been "in full accord with" the Holy See? Would he have been "in open dispute" with Rome or "the Church"?

"The Church" is not EQUATED with Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. "The Church" is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

As to "lex orandi, lex credendi," yes, I am familiar with the phrase. But I don't think you're familiar enough with it. Read paragraphs 46-48 of Mediator Dei: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html You will see that Pope Pius XII said:

On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law for prayer is the law for faith. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins... But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.

For examples of linguistic sloppiness, scroll up to til you see paragraphs 8-10 in the subsection I've just now labelled "Examples of Linguistic Sloppiness Here." And in this post, the post I type at this very moment, I've shown how the term "the Church" is used in a sloppy manner.

Used2BAnonymous 06:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


"The article was fine the way it was originally. It was concise in describing what a traditional Catholic is" (DominusTecum) comes to: "The article should be a pro-Traditionalist-Catholic tract, with no mention of any other point of view." DominusTecum calls the article "our traditional Catholic one." A Wikipedia article is the property of no one group. Non-Traditionalists too are free to contribute to the article, to discuss it on the Talk page, and to help ensure it has balance. "You do not have concesus" (i.e. consensus). Well then, to help reach a consensus, discuss concrete issues, one at a time, not just likes and dislikes.

Unless DominusTecum is a sedevacantist, I find curious his use of the term "neo Catholic", rather than "Catholic", for me and, implicitly, for the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him, whom I follow faithfully, not selectively. If the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are "neo Catholics", where is the visible Catholic (not neo-Catholic) Church?

Used2BAnonymous, whether the same person as DominusTecum or not, writes: "The Church is not equated with Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. The Church is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him." Yes, and the Church includes the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him, and does not exist without them. And it is to them that the Church's magisterium or teaching authority is entrusted. The teachings of the magisterium, whether solemn definitions ("Solemn or Universal Magisterium") or ordinary teaching ("ordinary Magisterium"), are solemn or ordinary teachings of the Church. The ordinary Church teachings are promulgated in the form of papal Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, Apostolic Exhortations, etc., and in the form of Instructions of departments of the Holy See. Remarks by individual cardinals or even by the Pope when speaking to an individual or a particular group are not Church teachings.

When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope John XXII, Used2BAnonymous chose to omit a significant part of the article: "Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter." Pope John XXII clearly was not giving a teaching for the Church, when in his sermons he expressed a view on an theological question on which the Church had given no solemn definition.

On the other hand, Used2BAnonymous's proposed definition indicates that for him Pope Paul's promulgation of the revised Roman Missal did change ordinary Church teaching.

(By the way, why does Used2BAnonymous imagine I would believe there could be some "document which uses language indicative of the exercise of the Solemn Magisterium AND which contradicts eternal Catholic dogma"?)

Used2BAnonymous is selective also in his quotations from Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Mediator Dei. The Pope was denying the validity of the argument by which some tried to use the maxim "Lex orandi, lex credendi" in support of the notion that they could treat the liturgy as a testing ground to see whether some opinion should or should not be considered sound. He was not denying the truth of the maxim. In the part of the Encyclical that Used2BAnonymous represents by "...", the Pope calls the same maxim - in the yet more explicit form, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - "well-known and venerable". After rejecting the argument those people used, Pope Pius XII goes on to say they had no right to alter the liturgy: "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (58), and he also remarked that the ecclesiastical hierarchy "has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honour paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage" (49). This is what Pope Pius XII himself did when he revised the Triduum Sacrum liturgy.

I have on this occasion yielded to the temptation to follow up Used2BAnonymous's remarks. This is probably a mistake. We should stick closely to the point. To clarify the position of Used2BAnonymous, I must ask if he accepts that his proposed definition comes to "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the liturgy and non-solemn teachings in use in the Roman Catholic Church before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions." Note the addition of "non-solemn", which I would have thought unnecessary.

The section "Examples of Linguistic Sloppiness Here" is very long. I am sorry, I have failed to discover in it any example of sloppiness alleged to be found in the definition "Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s." Would Used2BAnonymous please be so kind as to help me by copying here one such comment on the definition. Or would he just silently drop his allegation of sloppiness in the definition.

I apologize to Used2BAnonymous for using a comparison (with the Bellman, I think, certainly not the Snark) that he resents. I only meant that merely saying something repeatedly without substantiating it does not mean it is must be true. He surely agrees with that.

Lima 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)



Possible sockpuppets

Please note that I've flagged DominusTecum and JLeigh as possible sockpuppets of Used2BAnonymous. The reasons for my suspicions are outlined on Used2BAnonymous' talk page. Please make any response related to this accusation on that page and not here. All suspected sockpuppets are welcome to continue the discussion; this is simply an attempt to get all related parties to discuss the matter on the appropriate page. // Pathoschild 06:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed comments pertaining to the above and moved to Used2BAnonymous' talk page. // Pathoschild 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved OT comments to New approach

The article had sat there from 29 April 2003 to 17 August 2005 with no huge qualms. Then Lima showed up, with Dominick coming soon thereafter (21 September). Here's Dominick's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&diff=23677006&oldid=23462645
Now, who is it that is coming in with a "POV"? And how come his MAJOR revisions of the article aren't considered "vandalism" while mine are?
Once again, here is how the term "traditionalist Catholicism" is, IN FACT, used in the real world. This link is to Google's search returns for the term "traditionalist Catholicism":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=traditionalist+catholicism
Used2BAnonymous 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Moved comments unrelated to new approach. Dominick

Mediation?

I am ready to take this to mediation. Does anyone have any input on this? Lima, if you say no to mediation, thats enough for me. I am not getting involved in your discussion since people are taking this personally. Dominick 13:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A comment by DominusTecum at 13:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC) has been moved to the Possible Sockpuppet discussion (See above) because it is more related to that discussion. //Pathoschild 17:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stay on topic.I can't tell if this is a yes or a no. In an article about Catholicism Rome's view is paramount. Dominick 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Support: Sounds good in theory. But the reality is that Dominick simply has no clue what he's talking about. This is not a "personal attack"; it's a statement of fact (with regard to this issue, that is. I'm sure he has other talents). There is no "addressing the criticisms" of one who can't express himself clearly, changes his mind, mid-stream, on the meaning of terms (even after saying "we have a consensus on this"), and won't look at -- or admit -- the clear evidence provided with regard to how the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used in the real world. Used2BAnonymous 13:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I will take that as an OK from you. The rest of your comment is off topic, your statement of fact sounds a lot like a personal attack, and is not going to serve you well. Indeed I am talking about how the Church deals with traditionalism, those of us attached to the 1962 Missal. Dominick 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Support: Mediation may be necessary for this article. Neither side of the argument seems to be making any progress whatsoever, and the discussion is devolving into personal attacks. The consensus editing model isn't working for this article. // Pathoschild 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The new consensus editing process is working very well so far, negating the necessity of mediation. This will be archived for now and returned to the talk page later if discussion fails again. // Pathoschild 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem Solved

My version with Dominick's sense of the phrase "traditional Catholic" intact (this can be deleted later to clear space):

(deleted to save space as per your suggestion) Used2BAnonymous 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point, I imagine you are displaying sarcasm. One phrase wasn't the problem. I said it was an issue before and you came out with this type of treatment before, and it was rejected. The first and third sections work hard to all but pry traditionalism from within the Church. Pope Benedict has made it clear that there are changes coming, and changes that we would find acceptable. You included every bad thing you could do to narrow the definition of traditionalist, without mentioning the term conservative. When it comes down to it, if someone says they are dedecated to undoing the reforms of the 1960s, by profession, they become a traditionalist.
Your version contained all the errors without mentioning the word. I can't see going back to that 2003 version again, since we took so much time from where we are now. I think that three divisions issue is important. Any division between people who attend the Mass for "asthetic" resons is not useful period. If you attend a Tridentine Mass out of preference, anyhting we say about it is second guessing it. If we don't metion the SSPX split then this is a real short definition, and I think worthy of an AfD.
I think excising the next section in the current verion, since it has no bearing on traditionalist. Removing the demographics section is good since it is unconfirmable and from a untrustworthy source. I am wondering why we even have thge Sedes in here, since by thier admission many are not at all in the Catholic Church, they may be traditional but not Catholic, by profession. We have uirged you to critique the current version, and give Lima something concrete. Dominick 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Dominick, first, the post was meant to be deleted AFTER it had been read and commented upon.
Second, you are writing with a STRONG POV. This is NOT a Catechism Class at your local RCIA. This is an article about traditional Catholics, and your concerns that conservative Catholics "are traditional Catholics," too, were addressed in the OPENING LINES. This is NOT an article about the SSPX. It is NOT an article about "what the Church teaches." It is NOT an article about the FSSP. These things have their own entries. This is an article about traditionalist Catholicism, and the typical use of this phrase has been proven to you by links to Google.
As to your comments on sedevacantists, that, too, is STRONGLY POV. Who are YOU to say they are not Catholic? According to Catholic doctrine, if you are validly baptized and do not formally embrace heresy, you are Catholic, and that baptismal mark is on your soul forever. And since when do they not even PROFESS to be Catholic? You simply don't know what you are talking about, Dominick.
If you don't like the line about "people who attend the Mass for "asthetic" resons," I see no problem in changing it to "aesthetic or other reasons" or what have you.
To Pathos: this is what I was writing while Dominick was writing the post above:
Posted the above before I saw your post or I would have responded to you first.
First of all, with regard to the "sock-puppet thing," s'all good. Over and done.
With regard to going over things section by section, I think it would be extremely difficult because the problem is (was?) one that calls for "disambiguation" -- though I now don't think a disambiguation page is needed, and I think the new opening paragraph I propose in the post above (deleted by Dominick) clears everything up in one sentence. Mixing the original topic of the entry with what Dominick was wanting would be like trying to blend an article about tea the beverage with tea the drug. We are talking about two different things, and that's the crux of the problem.
Also in the version proposed above, and per Dominick's objections, the phrase "conservative Catholic" is not used, except once where it is used as an adjective, with "mainstream" before it -- i.e., "conservative, mainstream Catholics."
As for me, I would like to see how this proposed version flies before calling in mediators and such... (something I am not clear about: you say that the "summary" of my revision was over a page long. What does this mean? What is the "summary"?) Used2BAnonymous 21:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The summary is the text that appears before the table of contents, which is automagically inserted above the first header in the text. As per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, this space is reserved for a short text that briefly introduces or summarises the subject. // Pathoschild 21:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Ohhh, OK. Thanks. I've been calling it the "introduction." But I see how to fix that problem easily and would insert a header after the second paragraph and above the line, "Traditional Catholics fall into two main groups:" Used2BAnonymous 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a summary in the appropriate section under "Section-by-section editing". // Pathoschild 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


Separate discussion with DominusTecum

I'm sorry you felt that what I wrote above was "off topic." Fact of the matter is, I am new to this wikipedia thing, and don't know what "mediation" is, so I thought I'd offer my suggestion there. However, that was originally intended to be in the above discussion, where you called me and JLeigh "sock puppets," but you posted your mediation thing first. As far as Rome's opinion being paramount, I could easily say that that is "POV," because theologically, some of us could say that "Rome" has lost the faith. If you automatically claim that "Rome's view is paramount" then that is a serious POV issue. I could say "The conclavists who elect their own Popes" have the truth and therefore their views ought to be paramount. That would also be equally POV. I'm sorry, but this does not cut it. We have to have an article that is as unbiased as possible, I think everybody understands that. Please tell me in no uncertain terms how this new article meets these qualifications better than the old, or what was wrong with the old article. DominusTecum 16:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant that it was off topic to the question, "Do we want mediation?" My apologies for not being clear.
Let me answer your question in under 10,000 words. My approach is this, We keep the article simple. Use a broad definition, "These traditional Catholics would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms." I would have included include a bit more about what that entails; preference for the Tridentine Mass among them. It was included, as it is on your forum, the thre categories of traditionalist, who attend Mass at Indults, who attend at other Churches or Chapels, and those who attend in Sedevacanist Churches.
The problems were that the original article used a neologism, "conservative Catholic" which doesn't mean anything in this discussion as it can be interpreted any number of ways. The "true traditionalist" term is also woefully inadequate. There was a lot of insertion of PoV terms, for example, Vatican Hierarchs, and a lot of namecalling when this was changed to the Holy See.
If you look at a diff from now to 2003, you can see the changes. This is the point of wikipedia, other people editing articles to make the concept clear to a layman. None of these people know the difference between the 1962 missal and the 1983. They may have never seen a Catholic Church or a Mass. Defining a term, like traditioanlist and claiming ther are those who attend a Tridentine Mass are actually "conservatives" is unclear. You never ever define one term, by creating another. That is the underlying issue.
Sockpuppets and the like aside, you have to understand the problem have been we looked at his edits, and some were good and some were not. When we made suggestions and changes, he answered with a revert (flip back all edits) to the 2003 article. We went back to the joint article we all worked on, then he reverted. He started reverting against admins, and got the article locked, got himself blocked. All this built up a lot of frustration. When a bunch of people popped up, after he made an account, it looked like what a lot of us here have seen before, sockpuppets. We were sick of the going around and the flipping versions.
Your thoughtful comments don't sound like the same person from before. Perhaps my little accounting of my side of this will assist you in understanding the problems we saw. I can't say it is accurate as I don't know everyone's heart in the matter, I can only go by my own perceptions from the words of the screen presented to me.
Not every traditionalist sees things the same way, I think in a year or so after this Synod, I have a lot of hope. Perhaps we will see a 2006 missal that will make a lot of us on this side of the reforms happy. I think we may see an end to the SSPX mess, but unfortunatly, a lot of them will simply leave the SSPX, for someplace else. I was impressed by Bp. Fellay's last letter on the meeting. I get the idea there is a terrible strain in that organization. I think the most atrocious problems with pink palaces will be way behind us. The cleaning out has already started. So from my end, I see a lot to look forward to. I know a lot of other Catholics are going to be upset because they can't have Masses with Dan Schuttes' wonderful (cough) music (cough cough).
Perhaps there is some hope here as well to get this mess under control. If Lima or Pathos has $0.02 to chip in, please do... Dominick 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The major edit by Used2BAnonymous was disputed because of ill-formatting (for example, the summary was over a page long) and perceived POV by the other editors. Some editors suggested that the article be rewritten section by section, which may have simplified and focused the debate. This suggestion was not adopted, and the article devolved into an Us versus Them-style debate which may never make any progress whatsoever. Due to this situation, Dominick has suggested in a discussion above that we resort to mediation (See Meta:mediation) to settle this dispute. Doing so would allow all contributors to have their say, with a neutral third-party to objectively judge and direct the proceedings. However, if all contributing editors are willing, I suggest that the section-by-section discussion be attempted.
I have no position or opinion concerning this debate. I'm actively watching the article to objectively archive and clean up the talk page. I accused several users of sockpuppetry because of various reasons (presented on Used2BAnonymous' talk page) which struck me as highly suspicious. The goal was to prevent abuse of the consensus model, not to push an agenda. I apologize if this caused any offense if my suspicions were ultimately untrue. // Pathoschild 19:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

SbS editing [Off-topic]

POV in example text

All Traditionalist Catholics are, by definition, opposed to the post-Conciliar reforms. Most traditionalists, however, 
would argue that, while the recent occupants of the Vatican may personally have held many scandalous or heretical beliefs, 
they have nevertheless been true Popes, and have never tried to use their infallible authority (which is only used very 
rarely) to teach heresy - something which all orthodox Catholics believe would be impossible.

Change to 

Most Traditionalist Catholics are, believe the post-Conciliar reforms were problematic. Some traditionalists, however, 
would argue that, the recent Popes they have nevertheless been true Popes.

IF and only if this paragraph is there at all, it needs pruning. A Pope may not definitivly teach heresy, as this imples. Even at that the tortured phrase to avoid calling Pope John Paul a Pope, and mearly an occupant is seriously a PoV problem, and smacks of serious anticatholicism. Dominick 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph was only an example text to illustrate the use of emphasis to demarcate different factions within the same section. The text was directly quoted from the Sedevacantism article; if you feel that it poses a POV problem, feel free to edit it on that page. // Pathoschild 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the check I will look there. Sorry! Dominick 00:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild 00:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Broad or specific definition?

That is why I support a short article. In other words, the broad definition is what most people in the Church use. UTBA's narrowing of this is spurious, to sift a "true" from a "false" traditionalist. I think a very hefty use of Occam's razor is the only way the bickering is going to stop, before we have counter-counter-counter arguements. Even with those issues expanded, they are only going to cover UTBA's objections and not the objections of other groups. Maybe the Sedes can get in and spawn three more sections. The SSPX and ther SSPV groups can spawn a few more, just debating the bad blood between those two groups. I know the OCC, PNCC, and the ACC locally all have Tridentine Mass, and could spawn a few more sections. After we sort through the 50 sections of everyone claims and coutner claims, we have an article made from competing "purity" tests. Dominick 12:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to go into great detail about the differences between groups. A brief mention is all that should be needed, and perhaps a link to the Wikipedian article on that group or organisation. Used2BAnonymous's recent proposal briefly covers the different types, but without excessive detail on specific organisations. The specifics can be left off until we get to that section, but I think criticisms and responses could be integrated with the relations heading. // Pathoschild 12:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
My point was that his outlook, is tied to his group, whatever it is. The term is used by others, not primarity traditionalists as evidenced by several people on this page to describe those who prefer the Mass as it was in 1962, and think many practices should be rolled back. His views are peppered with asthetic judgments that differ from group to group, and descriptions of his beliefs that he extends to all "true" traditionlaists. If we look at his arguement of late about those who think ecumenicism is Ok can't be a traditionalist, that takes a side on an issue of the Church, that really has not been decided. Ecumenicism is the term we use for relations with other groups that are not Catholic, his opinion is so twisted into a tight ball, LeFebvre the founder of the SSPX did not support that opinion. More commonly the belief among the Sedes is called Feeneyite-ism, which was rejected by the Church BEFORE Vatican II. How many sections do we have here to illustrate this belief.
My point isn't to waste everyone's time, I think we need to use a universal definition, that meets the basic criterion to explain this without a PoV, as this term is used those talking about Traditionalist, and the forms it takes in and outside the Church today. Generally we are not talking about someone who hates a Koran kissing Pope, we are talking about someone who simply wants reforms rolled back, the specific issues need to be left out, and that obliterates a belief section, and replaced it with a characteristic section. We don't want a section dedecated to a purity test.
When we cover beliefs of the traditionalists, we need to cull from those those what are not help by ALL of them. The beliefs held by a few of them, like UTBA, can be covered in an article dedecated to those specific people. Dominick 13:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This argument has little relevance to the overall structure; does it affect the structure, other than the possible addition of the two new headers? I suggest that we keep the structure relatively as-is and move on. We can focus that argument in each section, which should make consensus much easier to attain. If we feel the need to split headings later on, we can do so then. What say you? // Pathoschild 13:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
MY reply was in opposition to adding the new sections. I was trying to justify it by talking aboout the multiple sections we would have to inclide. Many traditionalist Catholics have no zeal to attack the Holy See. The sections that were suggested would exist only to set up a characterization of a traditionalist as being at odds with the See of Rome. That is not the universal case. Dominick 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to question from Pathoschild (who might have had to wait longer, but for my need to connect with the Internet much more frequently than usual, because an important awaited e-mail is not coming through):

If the beliefs of traditionalist Catholics were expressed in positive terms, the views of the Holy See on the movement could very well be left until later. But the Used2BAnonymous Beliefs text is largely an extended attack on the Holy See. A reply should be given immediately.

[I use the term "Holy See" in its normal sense. Since Used2BAnonymous is very obviously from the United States of America, I presume he has no difficulty in distinguishing the US Senate and its decisions from the individual senators and their differing views. Yet he refuses to distinguish the Holy See and its official declarations from the officials who work for it ("Vatican hierarchs") and the personal views they may express.]

Lima 13:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 

I think your parathentical section is spot on with my thinking. Dominick 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
When I suggested we move on, I didn't mean that we accept Used2BAnonymous' proposed article. The article as it is now is obviously unacceptable, thus the section-by-section editing process. Rather, I was suggesting that if we all agree on the structure --the headings used, not their content-- we move on to the first section of the content itself. Thus, we can debate the wording in each section seperately, limiting the scope of the argument and thus speeding possible consensus. // Pathoschild 14:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Dominick wrote:
My point was that his outlook, is tied to his group, whatever it is. The term is used by others, not primarity traditionalists as evidenced by several people on this page to describe those who prefer the Mass as it was in 1962, and think many practices should be rolled back. His views are peppered with asthetic judgments that differ from group to group, and descriptions of his beliefs that he extends to all "true" traditionlaists
I don't have a "group"; I am a traditional Catholic. I know what traditional Catholics believe. The term "traditional Catholic" (or "traditionalist Catholic") is used to describe those Catholics who believe what I, in this article, say traditional Catholics believe. The common use of this term has been proven to you through Google search returns, and it was used by you in that same sense when you wrote, in a Revision of 13:32, 24 September 2005:
The term is used in this sense by the mass media (e.g. ABC New On Line: "Pope meets head of rebel Catholic traditionalists"[1]), by the general Catholic media (e.g. Catholic World News: "Pope to meet traditionalist leader"[2]), and by the Holy See itself (e.g. Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: "to regularise the canonical situation of a certain number of religious communities of a traditionalist nature which already exist but without recognition on the part of the Church by giving them a canonical form corresponding to their charism.
And in your revision of 12:58, 26 September 2005, you added:
The term is used in this sense by the mass media (e.g. CNN: "Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic, 'The Passion of the Christ', opened to packed cinemas ... He adheres to a traditionalist strain of Roman Catholicism that still celebrates Mass in Latin and rejects recent reforms in the church."
THAT sense of the term is what this article is ABOUT. For an entire year before "The Passion of the Christ" came out, we heard in the media that "Mel Gibson subscribes to a traditionalist form of Catholicism." What did that mean? That all he wanted was a traditional Mass? I think not, or they wouldn't have mentioned it. There are traditional Masses all over the place, praise God. What was meant was that Mel Gibson -- like traditionalist Catholics everywhere who quite consciously call themselves "traditional Catholics" and who are referred to as such all over the freakin' world --- also has certain BELIEFS. Those beliefs are outlined in the section now entitled "Traditionalist beliefs." Do you think the media would have gone on (and on and on) about Mel Gibson's weeeeeeeeeird religion if all it entailed was going to the "TLM"?
The article was created to describe these Catholics, and had described these Catholics for two and a half years until you came along and wanted to change its entire focus to be only about people who want the traditional Mass. Those people are not excluded, but are included in the first definition given in the summary. The rest of the article is about those most commonly referred to as "traditionalist Catholics."
Whether your point isn't "to waste everyone's time" or not, that is what you are doing. A "universal definition" can't exist because you insist that people who just want the traditional Mass are "traditionalist Catholics, too!" This is why two definitions are given, with the article focusing on the second definition -- a definition without which there could be no article at all except "traditional Catholics are Catholics who want the traditional Mass. See FSSP."
Lima, you say that the "Beliefs text" I use "is largely an extended attack on the Holy See." No, what it says is:
Traditional Catholics believe, though, that errors have crept into the presentation of Catholic teaching, either directly because of Vatican II documents, and/or from liberal interpretations of Vatican II documents, and/or from post-conciliar pastoral decisions that they believe have harmed the Church... Foremost among the perceived errors they see as having crept into the presentation of Catholic teaching are:"
No mention of "the Holy See." Used2BAnonymous 14:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

'Traditionalist Catholic' versus 'Traditionalist Catholicism'

What's up w/the title of this article? Why is it Traditionalist Catholic? Shouldn't it be Catholic Traditionalism or Traditional (or Traditionalist) Catholicism? The current title does not appear to be grammatically correct for a Wikipedia article.--Inquisitorgeneralis 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the use of the term, but grammatically both work with subtly different meanings. Traditionalist Catholic refers to a Catholic who is traditionalist (that is, Catholic is a noun modified by the adjective traditionalist), and Catholic traditionalist would refer to a traditionalist who is Catholic (the inverse, with traditionalist being a noun modified by the adjective Catholic). Strictly speaking grammatically, traditionalist Catholic may be more correct because the article refers to a traditionalist movement within Catholicism, not the inverse. If there is no official or popular use of the arrangement 'Catholic traditionalism', I think it should remain as-is. // Pathoschild 23:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the subject matter of this article is really more an idea or a set of theoligical beliefs, so it should be an "-ism" of some sort. So I do think Traditionalist Catholicism would at least be a slight improvement. As it stands now, it looks like you're talking about an individual "traditionalist Catholic," as opposed to the movement in general.--Inquisitorgeneralis 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
If you feel that "Traditionalist Catholicism" is a more valid name, a possible solution is to simply place a redirect on the other pages so that any visitors landing on those pages automagically see this page. A debate on this would be best left off until the current debate is resolved; if there's a consensus that the article should be renamed before then, of course, there should be no problem renaming it. Personally, I support the move because "Catholicism" refers to the doctrine, whereas "Catholic" seems to refer to the individual believer. // Pathoschild 07:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that last part was what I was trying to say.--Inquisitorgeneralis 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm archiving this discussion because the article is locked and cannot be renamed. Feel free to reintroduce it when the article is unlocked. // Pathoschild 18:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Wow!

What has happened to this article? It is now a disorganized mish-mash of conservative Catholic interjections and criticisms into an article that was supposed to be about traditionalist Catholics. I've read a bit of these talk pages, and see a scheme on the part of Dominick to hijack this article and turn it into one about something else entirely. UsedToBeAnonymous knows what he is talking about here and has made his case, if you ask me. Like Pathoschild said, all those criticisms should go in thte relations section, and let the traditioanl Catholics offer their rebuttals. Let the rest of the article be about traditional Catholicism -- er, in the second sense. Malachias111 15:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

More invective? How many accounts will be created to edit ONE article? Dominick 16:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Gosh, Malachias111 must be psychic then; he's been an editor for this article since March 2005 (and they say we "trads" are paranoid). Your accusations of sock-puppetry have grown tiresome. Used2BAnonymous 16:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

We should all stop with the irrelevant personal attacks. Don't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet or part of a vast anti-truth conspiracy unless you have evidence and intend to bring it before an administrator for intervention. If there is any doubt as to the integrity of a editorial debate, very new members should be barred from votes. However, everyone has a say and no-one has the right to brandish derogatory terms like 'sockpuppet' or 'highjacker' at anyone else just for the sake of discrediting them. If you accuse someone of anything, be prepared to present a convincing case of your suspicions. Otherwise, it's a personal attack.

If you really must vent your frustration or intolerance, go ahead. When it's over, we can archive the whole mess and start over from the beginning, having blindly rid ourselves of any progress towards consensus that we've made. // Pathoschild 17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete all attacks I made. I am frustrated as being the whipping boy for a single PoV editor. Thank you. Dominick 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Dominick, look, I imagine you are frustrated because I'm frustrated. I know I am being curt and abrupt, but I've been accused of being a sock-meat-puppeteer, an "astroturfer" and such, since I got here. But the ultimate source of our mutual frustration is simply that the purpose for which the article was created and your purposes are at odds. It is as if an entry were made about "classical music" and someone came in to add sections about the "jazz," insisting that the jazz is, indeed "music" -- which is "'classic', man!" and, so, belong in the entry, too. Of course the person trying to add information about "classic jazz" all throughout an entry on "classical music" will be frustrated. And so would those trying to keep the page focused on "classical music" in the most common sense of the term. There are Catholics who take great issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, with pastoral decisions made since the Council, and with the changes to all the sacramental rites. They call themselves "traditional Catholics" or "traditionalist Catholics." This article is about them. Note has been made in the first definition given that other people also call themselves "traditional Catholics." There is a section -- "Relations with other Catholic groups" -- in which those people can list their issues with the traditional Catholics about whom the article is written. What more can be done? Used2BAnonymous 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I am frustrated because a simple definition was mutated into a much larger issue. A traditionalist is a person who thinks the reforms from the 1960s should be rolled back. It is not an excuse to pull out a long list of greviences some groups in that class have with the Holy See, as it sits, some of theose groups have no grevences at all, like the FSSP.
By your admission, you told friends on another board to come here and fight. That hurt this process. That is indeed astroturfing and this accusation is easily backed up, by your definition here:
 Mention was made of this entry at that board and concerned traditional Catholics showed up to edit it, just like 
 other human beings get to do. Used2BAnonymous 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I would hope you would go there and tell them cut out the personal attacks. I am not the source of the problems with this article. If they want to help make wikipedia better great, if they are coming here to fight they are not helping. I certainly did not go and grab others who are not editors. When I saw Lima editing this I thought it was an improvement. I do not want to lend any PoV but a NPoV, that excludes making attacks on the See. If you look at my edit after the first locking, I removed almost everything you had objected to ans suggested we start there.
The article should not be used for a thinly vieled syllabus of one groups grevences, over all other groups. By the vehement opinion of other traditionalists, they bristle at the term being used for them, as they only consider themselves Catholics. I think they are correct. All in all, unless the Holy See issues excommunications, either latae sententiae or by profession, Catholics not to be divided. Dominick 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The simple definition was there in the earlier version; you mutated it into a much larger issue. The "long list of grievances" you want to just get rid of because you don't like them (BTW, have you read those encylicals listed?) is what traditional Catholics of the second definition believe.
Mentioning a Wiki entry on a bulletin board isn't "astro-turfing"; saying, "Come on, guys! Pretend you care about this issue and let's go gangbang Dominick just to win a fight!" is astroturfing.
Your statement, "I do not want to lend any PoV but a NPoV, that excludes making attacks on the See" is inherently POV.
The article isn't a "thinly vieled syllabus of one groups grevences, over all other groups"; it is an article about traditional Catholics, who just happen to disagree with mainstream conservative Catholics. No one cares if you want to call yourself a "traditional Catholic" or "Space Cowboy," but this article is about traditional Catholics of the second definition, the definition -- as indicated by Google search returns -- used by the media, "the Holy See" (as you said), conservative Catholic organizations, and traditional Catholics themselves. It always has been. Used2BAnonymous 19:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So, where do we go from here? Used2BAnonymous 02:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
We've worked out a structure that seems acceptable to everyone; now we just need the contributors to stop by and either approve or criticise it. // Pathoschild 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Lets start with the first section. We had consensus on the topic sentence. Dominick 13:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment under Section-by-section editing >> Overall structure to make sure that you see no problem with the latest proposal. // Pathoschild 14:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What is a traditional/ist Catholic?

Some of those contributing to this page seem to be able to stay almost permanently connected. I can log in only a couple of times a day. I feel quite lost among all the points that are discussed, often very angrily. I cannot comment on all of them.I can only say the following.

1. I think we should all be deeply grateful to Pathoschild for undertaking the difficult task of trying to keep order.

2. I have no objection whatever to mediation.

3. I am convinced that the first point to be decided must be: what is a traditional/ist Catholic. I was hoping to reach a clear definition with the help of Used2BAnonymous, but he has again withdrawn his collaboration. I found his first proposals - I regret I can think of no more polite word - woolly. But in the discussion, he was gradually making his definition more precise. The goal of precision has unfortunately not yet been reached. We should know immediately from the definition itself, not from personal declarations of Used2BAnonymous, whether, for instance, groups like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest are or are not traditional/ist Catholics. Only then will we have a definition that we can properly compare with the definition "Roman Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s", which does include those groups. I have no objection to a definition that either includes these groups or excludes them. I would accept either. But I do object to a definition that does not define.

4. "Vatican hierarchs" surely often disagree with each other's personal views. To speak of "in dispute with Vatican hierarchs" (Used2BAnonymous's proposal) has therefore no meaning whatever. If "in dispute with the Holy See" is thought to have unacceptable "serious connotations", we can use absolutely objective material terms: "in dispute with some recent official documents of the Popes and departments of the Roman Curia". Used2BAnonymous seems to consider this an essential quality of all traditional/ist Catholics. If this is his mind and if only he would say so, we would finally have a clear unambiguous definition, which we could, if we wished, choose as the basis of our discussion.

The first thing to do is to decide what we are talking about.

Lima 08:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this defition:
In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms.
In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.
is "wooly" compared to:
"traditional Catholics are Roman Catholics who want the liturgy and practices to be as they were before the 1960s."
You say "We should know immediately from the definition itself, not from personal declarations of Used2BAnonymous, whether, for instance, groups like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest are or are not traditional/ist Catholics." -- but this isn't an article about the SSPX, the FSSP, ICK, etc.; it is an article entitled "traditionalist Catholics." Each of the priestly fraternities you mention have their own entries, and their status vis a vis official diocesan structures is mentioned in the entry itself.
Look, I can point you to a few bulletin boards filled with traditional Catholics who believe the things outlined in "Traditional Catholic Claims." Some worship at "indult" Masses, some at SSPX Masses, some at sede chapels. Some go from one setting to another, even in the same week. Some will only go to one rather than another. Some feel "stuck" with one situation but wish they had access to another (e.g., someone has access to an "indult" Mass but wishes he could attend an SSPX-offered Mass, or vice versa). This entry is about these people -- "traditionalist Catholics" -- and their beliefs. It isn't about the priestly fraternities themselves.
That "'Vatican hierarchs' surely often disagree with each other's personal views" is precisely the point, which is why "some Vatican hierarchs" should be used rather than the vague "Holy See" or, God forbid, "Rome." Go to the Vatican and ask 20 Cardinals in the Curia whether the SSPX is "in schism" and you will get 20 different opinions. Now, which is right? Which one is speaking for "the Holy See"? You can pull out Ecclesia Dei, but it can be countered with facts surrounding the regularization of the Bishops of Campos, the fact that dealings with the SSPX are considered an "internal matter," etc. There is double-talk coming from "the Holy See" which is why the opinions of "the Holy See" can't be clearly ascertained and, therefore, makes the use of "Vatican hierarchs" much less inflammatory and more accurate.
You say, "The first thing to do is to decide what we are talking about," but I am not at all understanding what is unclear about the definition provided in the proposed summary. Used2BAnonymous 11:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
This is correct though, this is about traditional Catholics, of any stripe. Like I said before there are some agreed on characteristics. Lets leave out the irregular status of the SSPX, and the probles the Sedes make for themselves.
We agree:
  • Traditional Catholics would like to roll back the reforms of the 1960s
  • Traditional Catholics prefer the Mass from the 1962 or earlier Missal
  • Traditional Catholics may or may not belong to several different organizations
If that is it, then that is what the article should have in it, and stip away everything else. Don't compare and contrast, just put it in there.
I think she should leave the arcane term Vatican Hierarchs out. "Hierarch" is a eastern church term. Only one definitive speaker speaks for the See, that is the Pope, as supreme legistlator, the different congregations speak authoritativly, when talking about their area. It doesn't matter what 20 cardinals think, there is one opinion that really matters. Cardinals have disagreed since God knows when, and that isn't a Vatican II problem. Holy See or Rome or even the Vatican is the proper term for the authorities of the Church, when you say heirarch it is way too confusing for the layman.
One thing I also thought about, lets think a little thought experiment. Aunt Tillie likes to attend the Mass that the FSSP offers. Are we going to quiz her on if she likes the asthetics, thinks it is more reverent, or if she prefers a quiet worship experience? If she answers with certain answers, are we going to shout "AHA!" and tell her she isn't a traditionalist? That is how I read a lot of the 2003 article. Aunt Tillie would whack me in the head if I told her such a thing (assumung my aunt is of the Sicilian side) and probably send my cousin over to straighten me out. The division is a looser one, anyone professing that the reforms of the 1960s should be rolled back is a trad, IMHO, regardless of how they act on that belief. Dominick 12:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Your Aunt Tillie would fit into the first definition used in my summary -- a definition you claim people use, but which Google says they don't, but which is being used here anyway to keep things quiet:

In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms.
In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

The first definition, the loose definition, would fit your Aunt Tillie. The article isn't about her. It's about traditional Catholics who fit the second definition, because "traditional Catholics" by your definition don't need an encyclopedia entry. "They like, want, prefer, whatever, the traditional Mass and traditional practices. They worship in ordinary parishes." Period, the end. Not much more to say about that. And yes, I would tell your Aunt Tillie she is not a traditional Catholic if she attends the "TLM" and prays the Rosary all day every day, but thinks that kissing Qur'ans is OK, that Jews are in a saving covenant, that the new view of collegiality is good and we need more of it, that it's OK to go to Protestant services (outside the call of charity, such as funerals and weddings), that Vatican II was the best thing to happen to the Church since Jesus rose again, etc. And so would all the trads I know.

As to leaving "sedes" out, that is POV. They are Catholic, they are traditional, but they don't believe the Pope is a true Pope. If you don't like that idea, then tell me which of the Saints were wrong when there were some on ALL sides of the issue when there were three claimants to the papal throne.

And if you expect to have an entry about traditional Catholics and not mention the SSPX, you are simply mad.

As to the "Vatican hierarchs" thing again: I don't know where you get your idea that "hierarch" is an Eastern Catholic term, but I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm Used2BAnonymous 12:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Google didnt say squat. You searched the Catholic answer forum, which isn't authoritative. Those articles when I clicked on them, even when I used the forum's own tools to search, didnt have a defninition like you had offered. The second part of your definition is the problem and it is not supported by any evidence.
A traditional Catholic would be one who prefers things as they were before the 1960s. Your comments beyond that are matters of your perception on things. Some of it is shocking, I thought kissing a Koran was a bad thing, but I understand what John Paul attempted. I know firsthand about the treatment of Christians in Muslim nations. SOme of those things are just not like you are thinking they are. This article isn't the place for unfounded issues.
Furthermore, I have been researching a lot of these thing when they are trotted out as a reson to not cooperate with my Diocese or attend an Indult Mass. So I chase those things down because I hate, no I detest, pious forgeries.
Recall the whole Fatima "desecration" where hindu people worshipped in a Fatima Church? It was a fraud, they went there and said a Hail Mary, and crowned a statue of Mary to experience a Catholic practice. My daughters do the same thing, it is called a May Crowning. We all did that at one time or another.
Recall the "Mark of shiva" fraud? The Syro-Malabar Church, a Sui Juris Church, has a tradition like many of my Cuban friends where a woman blesses the man of the house and the children, in the spirit of Christ. That has gone on since the Council of Carthage, as far as can be told. The photographer snapped a picture of a Christian woman doing this as the Pope likes to see things as they go on in all the Rites pof the Church.
The definition needs to be clear, and obviously, a person who supports say, Abortion, could not consider themselves a traditionalist, because it is clearly against what the Church teaches, no matter what mass they attend. We do not have to say that in this definition because it would be easily determined. If I think Michael Davies was spreading gossip like an old woman, does that disqualify me?
It would not be possible to list every disqualification. The definition needs to be what they are, not what removes people from this class.
Maybe I am mad, but your snide comments have no place here. Dominick 13:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I searched Catholic Answers ALSO, in addition to providing you with this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=traditionalist+catholicism I never claimed that the Google's search returns or how the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used at Catholic Answers would give us a "definition." What I said is that it would show how the term is most commonly used.
I don't know what your point is about Fatima, May Crownings, and the Mark of Shiva, and can't see their relevance to this entry. And I don't see how much more clear a definition could be than the one I provided. It includes your Aunt Tillie. And it includes the people who are most commonly called "traditionalist Catholics." Used2BAnonymous 14:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was "created" to describe Catholics who fit the description I've been using.

The very first page on this topic, made on April 29, 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=871984

Here it is about a year later, April 16, 2004:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=3404226

And about a year after that, in April 2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=11969864

The basic idea of what constitutes a "traditional Catholic" had been consistent for two and a half years, from its inception and all along, with accretions being added that clarified traditional Catholic beliefs and outlined more clearly the different traditionalist groups. Everything was fine until Dominick decided to change the definition to be "Roman Catholics who wants the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s" -- a vague, uncommon definition which is included in my summary in order to form some sort of "consensus," but which would wipe out the entire rest of the article and render it meaningless if that's all there is to it, AND would not explain who those traditionalist Catholics are at all for the one seeking information on the traditional Catholic movement.

FACT: There are huge groups of Roman Catholics who believe the things outlined in the "Traditional Catholic Claims" section.

FACT: These Catholics refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics"

FACT: Others refer to them as "traditionalist Catholics."

FACT: If you Google the term "traditionalist Catholic," you will find articles about Catholics who believe in the manner described in the aforementioned section.

FACT: Those Google search returns indicate that my use of the term "traditionalist Catholic" is the most common

This article is about THESE traditional Catholics and was set up to be about THESE traditional Catholics. Disambiguation occurs in the summary, so your Aunt Tillie need not feel left out. If you want a separate entry about Catholics who have the "spirit of Vatican II" about them but who like the traditional Mass and traditional practices, then you can make one. I don't know what you'd say about them, though, other than --

"Traditionalist Catholics as defined in this entry and as opposed to other Catholics who are more commonly called traditionalist Catholics want the worship and practices to be as they were before the 1960s, but they don't have any disputes with the Holy See or its interpretations of Vatican II documents. See FSSP, ICK, and Vatican II".

-- but, well, whatever.

You have come to this article with an animus against traditional Catholics (as defined in the "Traditional Catholic Claims" area), and you seek to punish them by re-defining the term and excluding them from their own entry. That is what's going on. Used2BAnonymous 14:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No they are not facts. Those are the product of your opinion. Your shallow swipe at me, and what you may or may not think, is not important to this article. A bad article is a bad article, no matter if it was here for much longer.
Google is not a source for this article. The Church doesn't hold to a definition of this class of people. As a class, from EWTN to Catholic answers, from the SSPX to most every other source, hold this term only informally. If you prefer that things roll back you are a traditionalist. There isn't anything more complicated than that, but indeed you have to put in a bunch of personal caveats to match your own view. It isn't born out by the proof, and you have yet to offer any proof. You can't use this article to tell people things that are not true about traditionalists.
Your article from 2003 needed editing, and previos articles have been getting reverts from what I think was you since 2003. If you can't live with people fixing this article, then this is the wrong place for you. Dominick 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most confusing pages I have ever read. As an attendee of the Tridentine Rite exclusively for over 12 years, I must say I have never heard Traditional Catholics refer to themselves as "traditionalists." We are Catholics. We adhere to all the teachings of the Church and exercise our right to the Tridentine Rite, in spite of persecution and opposition from local bishops, priests, and laity. I would like to know, how is it that someone with such animosity toward tradition as displayed by Dominick allowed to contribute to the entry? The use of the term "trad" is usually used derogatorily by those who object to the TLM and seek to impose their wills on those of us who wish to adhere to ALL the teachings of the Church. And why impugn old ladies and Michael Davies (RIP+) in the same sentence? I am not seeing good will here, Dominick. You do not speak for me. AdoramusTeChristeAdoramusTeChriste 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't us who changed the article's name from "traditional Catholics" to "traditionalist Catholics," Dominick, but even WITH that change, I have proved to you that that term is used to describe Catholics who prefer to be called "traditional Catholics" (without the capital "T" and without the "ist" ending) who fit the description given in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims."
You say, "If you prefer that things roll back you are a traditionalist" -- well, what things are relevant to this article? If you want to "roll back" various Supreme Court decisions does that make you a traditionalist Catholic? If you "want that things roll back" so that Jim Crow laws were reinstituted, does that make you a traditionalist Catholic?
With regard to this article, it doesn't matter whether or not "The Church" holds to "a definition of this class of people." We are talking about a self-identified group of people who believe the things outlined in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims" and who are called "traditional Cathotlics" (or traditionalist Catholics, though we tend to prefer the former). What is so hard about this for you to understand?
That article from 2003 was not "my article." Used2BAnonymous 16:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
More of the same. I can edit this article if I was a satanistic cat worshipper who thinks that Elvis is arriving on a UFO, to bring franks and beans to everyone who made Santa's list in 1973. Give it a rest. I revealed that I am an Indult attending Catholic, as it if matters.
Bringing people here to say what an outrage I am causing to bolster some case you think you have is counter productive. I am a trad, I never saw it a pejorative. I am sorry someone makes you think it is. I heard you said you wrote the article. It doesn't matter either.
Don't be cute, I said roll back as in the Church reforms from the 1960s. As far as good will, it is you that refused to work with long time editors here, causing trouble to get people to roll back the article, making people think I hate them, astroturfing up one time editors, for a problem with the article you have yet to articulate clearly enough to fix. Dominick 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


No, what you said (and this is a copy-paste) is "If you prefer that things roll back you are a traditionalist." But anyway, I'm also an "indult attending Catholic," but am not sure how relevant our Mass attendance is to this article.
Why don't you tell me what parts of my version of the article you want ripped out? You've said that we should "leave out the irregular status of the SSPX, and the probles the Sedes make for themselves" (that, too, is a copy-paste). There would go the section "Traditional Catholic Claims." There would go most of the external links. There would go the "Criticisms" section. That leaves "traditional Catholics" of YOUR definition (i.e., what the rest of the world refers to as "conservative Catholics"), a definition that goes against the very reasons the article was made in the first place, that contradicts the definition in use for two and a half years, and that, nonetheless, is already incorporated into the summary. Left with your definition of "traditionalist Catholic," what would your entry look like? And where should the real (yes, I said real) traditionalists go since you presume to pretend to excommunicate us from an entry written about us?
Yes, you can edit this article if you're a Satanic cat worshiper; but what you can't do is try to change the article topic from traditionalist Catholicism to Satanic cat worshiping.
And, please, if people come in and express outrage, don't blame me. Traditional Catholics are aware of this entry and are quite able to see that you are operating with a mainstream, conservative Catholic POV (even though you attend an indult Mass!) and want to infuse that vision of things into this entry. Used2BAnonymous 17:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Scroll around I have said it a few times. As far as the rest of it, you can think what you like. I would like this article to be a real description of this group, and not of your little part of it. Dominick 18:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Used2BAnonymous, for not going back to your initial definition, which I found woolly. You have made an advance, and I appreciate it. I take it that your present definition is as follows:

In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms. (Should "1960" perhaps be "1960s"?)

In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

Is "the following section" to be the same as your previous "Traditional Catholic Claims" section? If not, we still don't know what your definition means. If it is, your definition excludes groups like the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, whom I understand you want mentioned in the article. I am unaware of any reason to think they take the view that is advanced in the former "Traditional Catholic Claims" section that, by promulgating and maintaining the revised Roman Missal, Pope Paul VI and his successors have adopted a Paschal theology that de-emphasizes the Sacrifice of the Mass, that contradicts Scripture and Encyclicals such as Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, and that de-emphasizes the meaning of suffering, ignoring Christ's admonition to Christians to "take up their crosses" (Matthew 10:38), and forgetting St. Paul's admonitions to mortify the flesh (Galatians 5:18-25, Colossians 1:23-24).

(If some "Vatican hierarchs" are in favour of something about which no official document has been issued, and others are against it, are you in favour of it or against it if you are "in dispute with some 'Vatican hierarchs'". The phrase is then meaningless. Furthermore, the only documents about the SSPX sent out by the Popes or departments of the Roman Curia that I am aware of say the society is not a schismatic organization, but that some of its leaders are schismatic. Internal documents and individual members of the Roman Curia may give a different view. But it is the documents that are issued that count. The Holy See's teaching can in fact be known with clarity.)

Lima 19:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've only been using that definition for two days now (perhaps if Dominick hadn't deleted my proposed entry before anyone got to read it you would've more easily seen it, but I've used it at least twice elsewhere). Anyway...

Yes, the definition given is the one I propose and, yes, the section that would follow the line " in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section" would, indeed, be a section that outlines those beliefs. Otherwise, it would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Whether the definition excludes various priestly fraternities isn't the point, because the article isn't about priestly fraternities; it is about traditional Catholics, only some of whom are priests. The priestly fraternities have their own pages. Here's the one for the SSPX, here's the one for the FSSP. Nonetheless, those priestly fraternities and their statuses vis a vis official diocesan structures are mentioned in the section "Places of worship." Carry the big, long, canon-law-orgy debates about who's "in schism" and who's "excommunicated" to the pages of those priestly fraternities. (But as an aside, you may be surprised to know what many of the FSSP priests really think and how many of them agree with everything outlined, but work "from the inside.")

As to your question, "If some 'Vatican hierarchs' are in favour of something about which no official document has been issued, and others are against it, are you in favour of it or against it if you are "in dispute with some 'Vatican hierarchs'?" I have no understanding at all of what you are trying to ask and no idea why the question would be made better if it were worded, "If some 'Vatican hierarchs' are in favour of something about which no official document has been issued, and others are against it, are you in favour of it or against it if you are "in dispute with 'the Holy See'?"

But regarding your idea that "the Holy See's teaching can in fact be known with clarity," maybe you'd like to tell us what Lumen Gentium "really" teaches then, because they're still hashing it out 40 years later. And what do all these recent Popes mean by calling Jews our "elder brothers in the Faith"? Like Esau/Edom was the elder brother of Jacob? Or like "let's all stop preaching to Jews and start praying in synagogues and studying the Talmud to harvest its wondrous wisdom!"? What do they mean when they say that we and Muslims worship the same God? That Muslims worship the Most Holy Trinity? (that's Who I worship; I don't know about you). Since the teachings of "the Holy See" are so clear, how come so many EWTNers think it's OK to receive the Eucharist in a schismatic, heretical Orthodox Church, but not OK to receive it from "rad trad integrist, man, we can't hate them enough so-called Catholics"? How come all the couples of Campos didn't have to get married again "in" the Catholic Church if the Sacraments they'd received were invalid because of a lack of jurisdiction? And how come they all didn't have to run off to confession, too? How could JPII The Great have approved as "valid" the Assyrian anaphora of Addai and Mari when it, without question, contradicts the dogmas of the Council of Trent? Why do Vatican hierarchs pick on little traddie priests the second those poor guys utter a word in Latin, but flaming Bishops go on running Pink Palace seminaries for years on end? What is being taught by that? What is "the teaching of the Holy See" we are supposed to be picking up on here? I could go on all day, but won't. There's no need anyway because what "the Holy See" or any members of its Curia think about the SSPX, the FSSP, or my dog's furry butt is neither here nor there with regard to this article. Those things can be debated on the pages of the priestly fraternities in question. Used2BAnonymous 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


As Used2BAnonymous knows, or should know, my only objection to his definition has been lack of clarity. We cannot properly examine that aspect of his definition, until we find out what "the following section" is to contain, but, instead of answering my question whether it will continue to describe traditional/ist Catholic beliefs in exactly the same way as his "Traditional Catholic Claims" section did, Used2BAnonymous pretends I asked whether "the following section" means "the following section"! If the priestly fraternities in question are to be included in the "Places of worship" section as falling within the ambit of the article, such attributing to them of the "Traditional Catholic Claims" ideas would be a point of view for which objective evidence is lacking.

But all this - especially in view of the "if" clause - should, I think, be left aside, until we know what will be in the revised article. To avoid going off in all sorts of tangents, as we have largely done, I think we should wait until we know what exactly we are talking about. I intend from now on to follow this counsel, except for one little point I will make now, in the hope that I do not have to make it later:

In Used2BAnonymous's proposed definition, "less common" and "more common" are point-of-view expressions, and should be dropped. In the circles in which Used2BAnonymous moves, they may be true expressions. There is no evidence that they are true generally. If I were to say the opposite is true of general use, anyone would be free to say that this is no more than my unsubstantiated opinion, my point of view. Besides, these two expressions are quite non-essential.

I will now just wait, unless a proposed revised text is already available somewhere, and an announcement about it was made that, amid all the verbiage, escaped my notice. I ask because of the heading "POV in example text". If there is such a text, would someone please let me know how I can consult it. Just do it on my Talk page, so as not to clutter this page further.

Perhaps I should also remark, before closing, that Used2BAnonymous has kindly given many examples of how we can know for sure what is said by the Holy See, even if there are then different interpretations of what the Holy See says, and different judgements on the correctness of what the Holy See says. (There were also different interpretations of and judgements on Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae Encyclical, and other official Holy See documents even from centuries ago.) And Used2BAnonymous will perhaps understand the "Vatican hierarchs" question more easily if I put it in more concrete form: When Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci objected to the revision of the liturgy of the Mass, then anyone who had any view on the matter was "in dispute with Vatican hierarchs", a phrase that, since it might only mean that the person was in dispute with these two, said nothing whatever of that person's views and to that extent was quite meaningless; instead, something meaningful was said if a person was described as "in dispute with the Holy See" or "in dispute with an official document issued by the Pope or a department of the Roman Curia".

These last remarks are only on tangents and need not be followed up.

Lima 09:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop. Don't post anything on my Talk page if it is only to tell me that Used2BAnonymous has put up his own proposed text elsewhere, as I now see is indicated at the end of this page. Is it right that he should be elevated to the post of chief editor? I thought someone neutral (Pathoschild?) would propose a text.

Lima 10:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are being disingenuous, Lima. We had been working on mere revisions, not overhauls and, throughout, the description of traditionalist Catholic belief as outlined in that section has remained the same and had been referred to as "the section Traditional Catholic Claims (or Views or what not)." Since then, the idea of re-structuring came up. Pathos and I have been posting proposed outlines, and I posted an entire entry based on that outline (deleted, before anyone could read it, by Dominick). You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic/Consensus

As to the second half of that first paragraph of yours, there are two sections, now called, consistent with Pathos's suggestions: "Traditionalist beliefs" and "Places of worship."

As to the use of "less common" and "more common": I provided Google's search returns for the term "traditionalist Catholics." My claims are not only true in the circles in which I move, they are true in the circles of the "JPII WE LUV U" people and of journalism. Go to a discussion forum for one of the large conservative Catholic outfits (and don't pretend you don't know what "conservative Catholic" means) and see how "traditionalist Catholics" are written about. Shall I quote Dominick's self-contradictory "definition" from his Revision as of 13:32, 24 September 2005?

Traditionalist Catholic is the term generally used to refer to those Catholics who want to bring the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church back to how they were before the Second Vatican Council. The term is used in this sense by the mass media (e.g. ABC New On Line: "Pope meets head of rebel Catholic traditionalists"[2]), by the general Catholic media (e.g. Catholic World News: "Pope to meet traditionalist leader"[3]), and by the Holy See itself (e.g. Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: "to regularise the canonical situation of a certain number of religious communities of a traditionalist nature which already exist but without recognition on the part of the Church by giving them a canonical form corresponding to their charism. Moreover, an ecclesial integration has been found for a number of traditionalist priests who had not been incardinated"[4]). Many Traditionalist Catholics claim that the Second Vatican Council brought changes not only in worship and practices but even in doctrine.

As to the examples I gave of what you hilariously call "examples of how we can know for sure what is said by the Holy See, even if there are then different interpretations of what the Holy See says": then tell me, in which sense do all these recent Popes mean the phrase "elder brothers in the faith"? The only interpretation that is consistent with infallible Catholic teaching is that they mean to compare post-Temple Jews with Esau/Edom -- but there they go praying in synagogues, issuing documents about dual covenants (or doing nothing while Bishops and Cardinals they appoint issue them), telling Jews not to convert, recognizng the state of Israel's alleged "right to exist," etc. So how can we all get in on this pipeline to clarity you seem to believe exists? And don't try to out-lawyer me by saying, e.g.,: "I only said that the Holy See's teaching can in fact be known with clarity". Obviously, a Pope could come out on his balcony and, once and for all, define and declare, without playing around, what is meant by that phrase, but they don't. Ambiguity follows them about like a stink cloud around Pigpen. Word contradicts word contradicts action.

As to your example of Cardinal Ottaviani, he was, at that relevant time, Prefect Emeritus of Doctrine of the Faith, which is a part of the Curia, a Congregation of the Holy See.

Finally, per your request, I will put a link to the proposed entry on your Talk Page. Edited to now say I won't per your second request. Used2BAnonymous 11:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Tangential matters: Recent Popes, you say, have referred to the Jews as "elder brothers in the faith"; you complain of uncertainties about the interpretation or meaning of this phrase and of its correctness; nevertheless, you seem to have had no difficulty in knowing for sure what the Popes said. Cardinal Ottaviani was Prefect Emeritus of what is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; the opinion he expressed was not a document of that Congregation.

Lima 12:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Um, yeah, we know, we are crystal clear, that recent Popes have begun referring to Jews as our "elder brothers in the faith." The problem isn't in hearing or reading the words; it is in ascertaining their MEANING.

The Ottaviani Intevention was a study commissioned by Archbishop Lefebvre, written up by 12 theologians headed by a Dominican priest, and sponsored by Cardinals Ottaviani (Prefect Emeritus for the Congregation of Doctrine) and Bacci. How much more "official" does a document have to be? Used2BAnonymous 14:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

All I said was that the teaching of the Holy See can be known. I did not say it will be understood. Used2BAnonymous does not understand even that.

A study prepared by outsiders and supported by a former president of the US Senate and a another ex-senator is not an official US Senate resolution. Yet Used2BAnonymous thinks (does he sincerely?) that a document prepared by outsiders and supported by two former members of the Roman Curia (does Used2BAnonymous know the meaning of the word "emeritus"?) is an official document of the Holy See. Excuse my repetition: "Since Used2BAnonymous is very obviously from the United States of America, I presume he has no difficulty in distinguishing the US Senate and its decisions from the individual senators and their differing views. Yet he refuses to distinguish the Holy See and its official declarations from the officials who work for it ("Vatican hierarchs") and the personal views they may express."

Lima 18:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In any case Ottovani rescinded his "intervention". Many consider there to be some sort of forgery in the etter from LaFond. Another problem is that only two Cardinals signed the intervention, not the twelve. His objections were sound to the Novus Ordo Mass, but this still would not justify these attacks on the Church, in the name of traditionalism. Dominick 19:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Lima says, "All I said was that the teaching of the Holy See can be known. I did not say it will be understood. Used2BAnonymous does not understand even that." -- and this after I wrote:
And don't try to out-lawyer me by saying, e.g.,: "I only said that the Holy See's teaching can in fact be known with clarity". Obviously, a Pope could come out on his balcony and, once and for all, define and declare, without playing around, what is meant by that phrase, but they don't. Ambiguity follows them about like a stink cloud around Pigpen. Word contradicts word contradicts action.
-- and since you were unable to tell me what the recent Popes actually mean by the phrase "elder brothers in the faith," I'll take that as a confirmation that "the teachings of the Holy See" aren't as clear as you'd like to think.
Yes, I do know the meaning of the word "emeritus." Are you under the impression it means "inactive"?
And, Dominick, Ottaviani did not rescind his endorsement of the study. Monsignor Agustoni, a member of the consilium that invented the Novus Ordo Missae, put a letter in front of the blind old man and told him to sign it. I'm not sure who "the twelve" Cardinals are you think were supposed to have signed the Intervention, but Ottaviani, the Prefect Emeritus for the Congregation of Doctrine, did and, as you say, his criticisms were sound.
In any case, I do not wish to do the equivalent of re-hashing the Reformation here in this forum. I want to fix the article. Used2BAnonymous 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course "emeritus" does not mean "inactive"; it means "retired but retaining an honorary title". Cardinal Ottaviani was then an ex-Prefect of the Congregation. I should have ended this useless exchange long ago. I do now.

Lima 04:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I have been told that there is at least some consensus that the discusions for this page should be taken into an informal mediation. I, as a member of the AMA (Asociation of Member Advocates) am willing to act as a mediator if that is what people want.

Here is what I propose. Go to my user page and click on the link for Mediations and then click on the Tradionalist Catholic Link. This will take you to the place that I propose ALL further discussions take place, the ground rules for mediation and (on the talk page) the first proposed topic of discussion to start things off.

I believe that all discussions should be moved to that neutral site and that a temporary block be put on this page with a redirect to the mediation page for all those who want to join in.

I understnad if this is not acceptable to some, but please let me know how you all feel and if this is something that you want to do. It is faily drastic and some discussions are proceeding, soy uo may not feel that this is necessary. Either way, I am willing to help in any way I can.Gator1 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this is necessary. The new consensus editing technique was progressing relatively well, with reasonably few branching discussions. There is no need for such a drastic move, but as a commentator I'll leave it up to the active contributors. // Pathoschild 15:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Please see my updated vote below. // Pathoschild 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

SUPPORT - One Caveat. I think that with all the meatpuppetry, and the outside forum being used to direct attacks on this article, I am wondering if anything short of binding mediation would be acceptable. Every day an account, with edits mostly here, comes alive, and says, "This article has been butchered, Dominick is a rat, UsedtobeAnonymous is so correct he should be elected Pope." Look at the responses it is like there is a script. After today, the script will change.
The revert war was has gone on here for a long time before I got here, if you look at the history. Changes were reversed all along, by several accounts,or several sockpuppets. It isn't because the article was so good, it is because someone wanted to use it as propaganda. Dominick 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
My only fear is that there will be two forums going in opposite directions and progress that would be mad en mediation will have little to no effect on the page. Further, witha ll of these new people coming on board, it is best to maintain a unified process. I'm afraid that, under these circumstances, moving the entire discussion to a neutral more controlled site is a term that I will have to insist upon.Gator1 16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I will wait to hear from other people for another 24 hours and if there isn't significant interest, then I will withdraw my offer. Just let me know.Gator1 16:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
AGAINST There's no need, as I see it, unless Dominick remains unable to differentiate between X and Y and continues to insist that an article about X should be about Y instead. That is the crux of the issue: Dominick has a different definition of "traditionalist Catholicism" than the one that has been used in this entry for two and a half years and which is used "in the real world" to refer to the topic this entry was created to teach about. The proposed summary takes his concerns into account with its first definition, but so far, that is still not good enough for him. He want this article to be about Y. Used2BAnonymous 16:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
AGAINST, to formalise my previous vote. I still think that the dispute can be resolved through normal discussion with the section-by-section editing technique. Mediation can only make the matter worse by overstating the conflict and imposing an authority that may be rejected by a large portion of the commentators, particularly on the normally anti-authoritative Wikipedia. Mediation is a last resort, and should only be used when all other methods have failed. // Pathoschild 18:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

After receiving some support but much greater opposoiton, I will withdraw my offer to mediate. Thank you for your time and let me know if you change your mind.Gator1 19:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll keep you in mind should the discussions break down. // Pathoschild 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise text?

Please read and comment on the new opening. Lets change the sections to match what we agreed to, while we edit text section by section. Dominick 16:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your summary doesn't clarify what the article is about, and the article is about traditional Catholics "who seek to preserve not only the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section." Malachias111 16:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Malachias111 sums it up for me. If you open with:
The term "traditional Catholic" refers to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s and to other Catholics who attempt to follow what they consider the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" may further refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve not only the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and further to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.
-- you will spend the rest of the article having to clarify every use of the term "traditional Catholic." The article was created to be about and has been about traditional Catholics in the more restricted sense. It is not about priestly fraternities, it is not about a debate between your definition of the term versus (what Google has shown to be) the most common definition. It is about those Catholics who want to preserve not only the liturgy and practices against the post-Vatican II revisions, but who also believe X, Y, and Z, etc., as outlined. Used2BAnonymous 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
With the permission of all editors concerned, I may reorganise the article as it is now into the different headers, including the removal of the Demographics header as previously agreed. No information will be added or removed from the article without consensus. This will hopefully allow us to move forward without any need to compromise, since the information is not being changed. // Pathoschild 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine by me. Anything to see some movement. It'd be nice to get back to my real life at some point in the near future LOL Used2BAnonymous 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should be interesting. Malachias111 19:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see we are back to reverting text. The text is deficient. I was trying to help the discussion. Without a sigle thing said here, we revert. I suggest we have Pathos do the reverting. Dominick 01:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Without a single thing being said? Scroll up. Used2BAnonymous 02:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It was changed before all that was said, and the revert lost the changed I made to the tense. We can work together or we can go back to the nonesense. Dominick 02:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the revert was made at 00:13, 16 October 2005. Malachias111 posted here in this section at 16:14, 15 October 2005 and 19:26, 15 October 2005 . I posted here at 16:29, 15 October 2005 and 17:20, 15 October 2005. Used2BAnonymous 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
History says different. I suggest Pathos does the reverting, if he is willing. Dominick 02:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the Histories say this:

'Article History':

  • 00:13, 16 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (the summary was already a compromise)
  • 15:59, 15 October 2005 Dominick (fixed text to attempt a comprmise)

Discussion History:

  • 04:55, 16 October 2005 Lima
  • 02:54, 16 October 2005 Dominick (?Compromise text?)
  • 02:12, 16 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (?Compromise text?)
  • 02:05, 16 October 2005 Dominick (?Compromise text?)
  • 02:01, 16 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (?Compromise text?)
  • 01:53, 16 October 2005 Dominick (?Compromise text?)
  • 20:39, 15 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (?Compromise text?)
  • 19:26, 15 October 2005 Malachias111 (?Compromise text?)
  • 18:48, 15 October 2005 Lima (?Compromise text?)
  • 17:20, 15 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (?Compromise text?)
  • 17:03, 15 October 2005 Pathoschild (?Compromise text? - reorganisation without rewrite)
  • 16:55, 15 October 2005 Pathoschild (?Section-by-section editing >> Summary - partial archival)
  • 16:30, 15 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous (?Compromise text?)
  • 16:14, 15 October 2005 Malachias111
  • 16:01, 15 October 2005 Dominick (Compromise text?)

Used2BAnonymous 09:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


The substantive point has not been addressed. Are we going to hold all reverts, except by the thrid party? Furthermore, there are a lot of PoV terms that are not acceptable. Shall I attempt an edit? Dominick 22:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

We are are starting a revert war again?

This is a farce. Revert by sections is unacceptable. This is a joke now. Dominick 00:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

revolution VH and this senseless revert war.

Revolution is out. Way over PoV according to editors, and not acceptable to all Traditionalists. Vatican Hierarchs is out, few traditionalists use it, except for the SSPX and the sympathizers to the SSPX. I think we have a strong consensus on this, among contributors. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Revolution" is what traditionalist Catholics believe happened. Get over it. We could call it a "palace coup," if you prefer. They use that, too. I don't know what your hang-up is with the phrase "Vatican hierarchs." Do you deny there are hierarchs at the Vatican? 64.12.116.202 02:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, look, trads aren't the only ones to know that a revolution took place:
"Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church." --Cardinal Suenens, in the New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987
"The Church...with the Council, has assumed and surpassed the liberal democratic conquests of the French Revolution." -- Osservatore Romano (the official newspaper of the Vatican), January 18, 1984
Vatican II "represents an attempt at an official reconciliation of the Church with the world as it has been since 1789." -- then Cardinal Ratzinger, comparing Vatican II with the French Revolution (de Lassus)
Do a search for "revolution" and "Vatican II" and see what you come up with. It's fun! 64.12.116.202 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"Revolution", in your citations above, is used as a metaphor. The French Revolution heralded democracy over the old monarchies. "...is the French Revolution in the Church" is meant to refer to liberalisation, not an actual overthrow of one government by another; there was no transition of power, just a wide change of policy. // Pathoschild 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a metaphor; no guns were used. But just as there was a "sexual revolution," for example, an "industrial revolution," and a "scientific revolution," there was also a revolution in the human element of the Church. The man who became Pope (Ratzinger) agrees. 64.12.116.202 03:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Several terms are repeatedly used in the Section-by-section editing discussions. I think that, as such, they should be unambiguously defined under the overview subheader. Blockquoted below are my proposed definitions.

Several terms may be used in this section that have specific, non-ambiguous meanings. The list is organised by relevancy and not alphabetical order.

  • Active contributor: Any user of Wikipedia with 100+ non-vandal edits over a registered period of at least one month. Where there is sufficient proof of identity, unregistered IP addresses with 100+ edits, no record of vandalism, and contributions over at least one month may be considered active contributors if they register an account.
  • Contributor: Any user of Wikipedia with less than 100 edits and/or registered for less than one month. Contributors have equal say in discussion but cannot participate in consensus votes.
  • Anonymous: Any user identifiable only by an IP address. Like contributors, unregistered members have equal say in discussion but cannot participate in consensus votes.
  • Personal attack: Any comment or statement intended to discredit, insult, incite, or label any other user without providing sufficient objective evidence. Comments deemed to be personal attacks will be immediately moved to the archives by a third party (see: Third Party). No active debator should archive comments themselves due to the potential for abuse.
  • Third Party: Any user deemed neutral by consensus who is expected to format and archive comments, help direct discussion, ensure the following of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, hold consensus votes, and see that all voices are given a fair voice and influence in the discussion.
  • Mediator: This may refer either to a Third Party or, more commonly, a user who is part of the Mediation Committee. A mediator in the second sense (see Wikipedia:Mediation) performs the same duties as a Third Party but has much greater authority granted by consensus to control and direct the discussion.

My above proposition is obviously subject to modification by other active contributors. Should there be a consensus-defined list of terms used in the lengthy SbS editing section? // Pathoschild 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

References

Why are there no references so far to sources opposing traditionalism? Is there anyone here who is familiar with any such sources? Would this perhaps make the summary discussion above more productive? So far, the article seems to display a single point of view. Halcatalyst 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is primarily focused on defining "Traditionalist Catholicism." There are no opposing links because those sections were reorganised abstractedly—that is, in the discussion on the Overall structure—and we simply haven't gotten around to adding anything there yet. Feel free to propose links, but keep in mind that these links should contain sufficient relevent information for encylopedic mention. If you wish, you can edit the article directly and risk being reverted. // Pathoschild 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's one which distinguishes "conservative" and "traditionalist" Catholicism: "Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared," by Edward Faber < http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030321.html >. Perhaps it will help. Halcatalyst 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I made very minor changes to para. 2 in the article. Halcatalyst 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholicism/Archive_2&oldid=1088835270"