Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism

Older comments are archived by chronology: 2003-2005

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:

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/ewtnedit.html

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)

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)

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)

They are not sock-puppets. They are traditional Catholics who moderate and post at this board: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/mb/apologia Do a user name search that matches their names used here at Wiki. And while here, these two individuals did post about the matter on the appropriate page. Used2BAnonymous 09:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

They are products of astroturfing, they may not be sockpuppets, but meat-puppets. Like I said, this is how you want to represent traditional Catholicism to the world? I stayed out as per Lima's request. I am happy to let him deal with you.

No Catholic can maintain the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church changed through the 1960s. Your point is very mistaken. Some Progressive and many schismatic Catholics do maintain that we should change dogma. We all agree that is impossible. Your false dichotomy about Catholics thinking that eternal teachings of the Church changing is wrong. This is what probably drives most of the other problems. Dominick 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What the Heck is astroturfing? And who is saying the Church should change Her dogma?Inquisitorgeneralis 09:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In real life, astroturfing is what Bobby, Cindy, Peter, Jan, Greg, and Marcia did groovy things on, but in Dominick's world, it's whenever more than one traditional Catholic shows up to edit a Wiki page. And, Dominick, we all know what progressive "Catholics" think, but neither conservative Catholics nor traditional Catholics think like them and, so, your point is meaningless. Used2BAnonymous 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Astroturfing is simulating grassroots support. Using an outside forum to drive people here to only edit this article is not looked on well here. At this time, I am not so sure that this isn't a simple case of sockpuppetry. Pathos may be right. Dominick 10:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What outside forum was used to drive ppl here? I had a Wikipedia account looong before you started putting your grubby hands all over the Traditional Catholicism article, son.--Inquisitorgeneralis 11:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, just as with what constitutes traditional Catholicism, you keep thinking what you want, regardless of reality. Used2BAnonymous 10:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats what the whole problem has been. Your refusal to accept the definition as used by Cahtolics, and traditionalists the world over, rather, wikipedia would have to accept your personal definition. You constantly personalize this discussion, and you overinflate your support with sock and meat puppets. You will not be specific, and to define a term you would like to use a neologism. There lies the problem.

This isn't about me, this is about wikipedia. This is about someone misrepresenting themselves as the "true" traditionalists when that is the farthest thing from the truth. I hope to God that people here are smart enough to see that you are hardly representitive of traditionalist Catholics. Dominick 11:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)