Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 7

Mess

With the mess that happened, I decided that archiving the page is a good idea. Perhaps we can start "tabla raza". Dominick ^(TALK) 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The term is "tabula rasa." Bugzes 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it Tabla and Tabula raza. You understand the concept. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I killed the personal attacks. Sorry if this offends Opuscalgary 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Traditional vs. Traditionalist

We want those with a "traditionalist nature", that being those with the attachment to the pre-Pauline Missal. As far as the capitilization of "T", thats a secondary issue. I think the usage of traditional usurps a title held by a much larger group of Catholics that those with that attachment. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In the first sentence, you seem to have "that" referring to "those," but, in terms of sentence construction, "that" and "those" refer to two different things, with "that" referring to "traditionalist nature."

"Traditional" should be in quotes in your third sentence, and, since you are not referring to the entry itself in that third sentence, "title" is a pretty heavy word to use there, n'est-ce pas?

But to answer what you're apparently struggling to ask: I vote for renaming the entry "traditional Catholic," though I don't really care too much one way or another; it's only Wikipedia, where might makes "right." Bugzes 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There was not enough consensus to change. Perhaps you and I can wait for Lima and Guy to say something, because our positions are clear enough. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current title, it is unambiguous in a way that traditional is not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. Lima 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course, a separate issue from that of the text of the article. Within the article I have no problem with big-T Traditional or traditionalist, since within the context of the article neither is likely to be misunderstood. I am firmly against small-t traditional, since that has the potential to be ambiguous (which potential is to my mind absent from traditionalist and minimal in big-T Traditional). Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be ambiguous if it is made clear in the summary that the term is used within the article to mean what it has meant for years now in that article. And you are still left with the fact that trads don't usually refer to themselves as, and are usually not referred to by others as, "traditionalist." "Traditional" is simply the more common adjective.

In either case, there is no reason at all to capitalize the "T" in either word; trads don't practice a new religion or belong to some strange new sect. One would no more capitalize the "T" here than one would capitalize the "L" in the phrase "liberal Catholic." Bugzes 05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I usually wear an Extra Large Tee myself, American body you know... Dominick ^(TALK) 17:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well hell I have to wear extra extra large bike shorts myself, but that's because they are made for Italian midgets - at 6'1" and 185lb I am scarcely likely to take up Sumo any time soon. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been some assertions here that "traditionalist Catholics", as presently defined in this article, don't accept the definition as presently stated in this article, but there have been no sources provided to substantiate that. As a "traditionalist Catholic" for my entire adult life, having gone from church to church in the early days, and the "mass in the garage route" in the later stages, and the "no mass at all" in the final stage, and watching the priests who would, and did, give their lives and livelihoods to press on in offering the Tridentine mass (traditionalist mass), I, like just about everyone else who is AT ALL familiar with the term "traditionalist Catholic", knows the term is used to describe those, and is accepted by those, who adhere to the pre-Vatican II mass on grounds of "validity" (with a small minority claiming the term on grounds of "preference" only). The term has been used consistently in that sense for more than 35 years. Unless you have sources (you don't), isn't it time to stop wasting everyone's time with arguments about a rename to a more generic term, which misses the whole point of what this article is about?

On the other point, small 't" is what is commonly, if not exclusively, used both by those in and without the movement to describe traditionalist Catholics. If you don't like it, where are your sources? pat8722 19:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a movement in the 19th century called traditionalism, some aspects of which were condemned by the Catholic Church. I think the term "traditionalist Catholic" suggests a connection to that 19th century movement, which "traditional Catholic" does not. Gimmetrow 16:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the above info from User:Gimmetrow argue for a separate article on the 19th century movement called traditionalism with disambiguating text and a disambiguation link at the top of this article?

--Richard 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be 3 traditionalisms. 1) the 19th century school that the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia associates with Lammenais, see [1], 2) the 20th century school of perennialism associated with Guenon, see Traditionalism, 3) this article. They are related but different. Gimmetrow 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the others went by the name "traditionalist Catholic" there is no suggestion of a connotation between one term and the other, even less so with "traditionalist", than "traditional", which latter is a direct root word of "traditionalism". But I do sense a need to create an article entitled "traditionalism" or "catholic traditionalism", to cover entirely different topics than what this article is about.pat8722 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We've already beenround the small-t loop once; it's likely to be misleading to the reader. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents worth, but in Catholic circles there is a tendency to differentiate between words that end in '-ism' and those that don't. An '-ism' is often suspect, if not heretical. Modern Catholics vs. Moderist Catholics, Traditional Catholics vs. Traditionalist Catholics, American vs. Americanist, etc. --Marcusscotus1 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't care, Marcusscotus. Them being offended means more than you being offended. 2nd Piston Honda 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Catholicism

Catholic fundamentalism is on Wikipedia considered synonymous to traditionalist Catholicism: all Catholic fundamentalists are traditionalists (Society of St. Pius X) but not all traditionalist Catholics are fundamentalists (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter), as far as I know.

Should the distinction not be expressed?

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

To me, the term 'fundamentalism', as applied to traditional Catholicism, is a misnomer and offensive. The religious term of 'fundamentalism' is properly applied to a school of Protestant thought that only accepts the authority of Luther's Bible read in a literalistic, straightforward manner. Traditional Catholicism has deep roots and encompases a huge array of practices, theologies, authorities, and complex, rich art styles. 'Fundamental' typically means 'lowest common denominator' or 'basic', and Trad Cath isn't that. This use of the term 'fundamentalism' is quite recent and its use is derogatory and POV. --Marcusscotus1 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you do agree that the distinction should be made between traditionalist Catholicism (conservative doctrine and liturgy) and Catholic fundamentalism (traditionalism along with anti-Semitism and intolerance)? That is why I am bothered that Catholic fundamentalism redirects to this article. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 08:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

"Anti-Semitism and intolerance": I don't think that "political correctness" should be part of the definition of "fundamentalist". Theosophy isn't called fundamentalist because it was (or is) Antisemetic. Also, many traditionalists would quarrel with the modern definition of "tolerance": classically, "toleration" was a virtue of prudence where a small amount of evil is accepted to avoid a greater evil (such as tolerating a little bit of crime to avoid a police state); this is contrasted with the idea of tolerance being the blanket acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

Fundamentalism in Christianity is a specific movement that accepts a "lowest common denominator" of creeds as the absolute basis of its faith, which are called the six fundamentals. It is also highly iconoclastic, and is not noted for any kind of art. The same kind of basic, iconoclastic form of Islam is also called fundamentalistic. Traditional Catholicism has much in common with Islamic Sufism, with is rich art and mystical traditions; fundamentalist Islam specifically attacks Sufism in favor of a plain version of the religion.\

I agree that "Traditionalist Catholicism" <> "Catholic fundamentalism". So, what's the solution? Is there such a thing as "Catholic fundamentalism"? According to --Marcusscotus1's definition of fundamentalism, "Catholic fundamentalism" isn't just misnomer, it's almost an oxymoron. (Roman) Catholicism is based heavily on tradition (as in "the deposit of faith") which by definition includes beliefs which are outside a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I agree that there is really no such thing as "Catholic fundamentalism" or "Catholic fundamentalists." It is a purely Protestant apelation which they freely choose to label themselves with. The term "Catholic fundamentalist" is a pejorative that of those who oppose the traditionalist in order to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the eyes of the faithful not familiar with the issues in the hopes of discrediting them. It is best to limit the term 'fundamentalist' to the Protestants since it is descriptive of them and is a term that they themselves embrace. Fjapinteric

I would propose removing the redirect from Catholic fundamentalism to Traditionalist Catholic and then putting Catholic fundamentalism for AfD. One argument I can see for keeping Catholic fundamentalism is if there is evidence that this phrase and misconception is sufficiently widespread to warrant debunking in an article unto itself.

Here's a hint from the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism...

In its broader sense fundamentalism has been applied to some Catholic as well as Protestant groups within Christianity. Arguably fundamentalist features within some Catholic monastic or religious orders, past or present, have not yet been sufficiently discussed. Members of the Catholic group, Opus Dei, insist that they lack fundamentalist and other traits usually ascribed to cults or sects. They add that if their perspective can be called fundamentalist, then so can many other groups among Catholic and Protestant Christians. Their critics would readily agree and expand the issue: fundamentalism exists more pervasively, add critics like Roderick Hindery, than has been previously realized. Fundamentalist dysfunctions and functions recently recognized in new religious groups are freshly perceived as increasingly visible among larger traditions. In short, intensive fundamentalist traits shed new light on the presence of fundamentalist features in more comprehensive and traditional contexts. Further discussion might disclose how deeply fundamentalist phenomena may or may not be rooted and spread throughout broader religious traditions.

The above text suggests that an article could be written about "fundamentalist features within some Catholic monastic or religious orders, past or present". However, unless someone is proposing to write that article, I think we would be better off to delete Catholic fundamentalism.

--Richard 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Fundamentalism article, it seems that the word is defined as being that which is opposed to Modernity and Liberal religion, which is a very broad, and I think, misleading, redefinition. From a traditional Catholic viewpoint, Liberal and Fundamental religion have, surprisingly, a lot in common, such as iconoclasm, tension between faith and reason, ambivalence to tradition, de-emphasis of human will, subjectivism in interpreting the meaning of scripture, and lack of ecclesial unity. In other senses, Fundamentalism and Liberalism are on the opposite sides of the Aristotelian Golden Mean, such as Docetism vs. Arianism. Shameless self-promoting chart showing common differences between fundamentalism, liberalism, and orthodoxy in Christianity. I think it is funny that Opus Dei is considered fundamentalist, since that group was the model for the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, and that the group tends to be disliked by Latin-Mass-attending Catholics for its overwhelming support for that Council. By the way, I'm enjoying this conversation! --Marcusscotus1 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally know three Catholics who insist that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be taken as a literal discription. Jhobson1 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative

To call traditionalist Roman Catholicism fundamentalist is pejorative and polemical, certainly not fitting for a neutral encyclopedia.

Also I think we must stick to the official version of the Vatican officials in this question, along with defense of traditionalist Catholics themselves, not with personal interpretations of certain anti-traditionalist Catholic and non-Catholic writers at Wikipedia.

This article is not meant to be a discussion forum, but an objective article. As the Vatican's assessment is normally negative, we should offer the accused (the traditionalists) a platform to moderately defend themselves, to stay neutral.

Weird allegations about sacramental validity, not condeded by the Vatican authorities (which do recognize e.g. the Thuc consecrations, as confirmed by Vatican officials I know), are not fitting. Especially not, as these are quarrels about traditionalists themselves.Smith2006 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Smith repeatedly gives himself as the source of what views the Holy See rejects, what is the official version of Vatican officials, what the Holy See really means. "This article is not meant to be a discussion forum, but an objective article". It should indeed report (not explain away) the view of the Holy See about the different kinds of traditionalist Catholics, on the basis of authoritative published documents, not on the basis of "Vatican officials I know". Lima 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's predeliction of neutrality is a myth. NPOV=left-wing opinion.--146.145.70.200 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thuc Seiwert-Fleige

"(This absolute denial of recognition of the effect of these consecrations and ordinations need not be considered revoked by the reported acceptance as a priest of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, when he was reconciled with the Church. Though he was one of the laymen ordained to the priesthood on that occasion, he was afterwards conditionally ordained to the fulness of priesthood by another irregular bishop.)"

This statement is false. Seiwert-Fleige was ordained by Thuc and consecrated by Clemente Dominguez y Gomez. He was re-consecrated. Not re-ordained by the vagant Bishop Roux. His ordination was recognized and remains so. The argument dóes prove, that Thuc's episcopal consecrations are valid as well as his priestly ordinations, as Seiwert was ordained at the same ceremony in which bishops were consecrated. His re-consecration does not prove anything, as a layman is generally considered not to be able to be consecrated to the bishopric. For this, the theologians agree, valid priestly ordination must be received beforehand. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei recognizes the Thuc validity and admitted their priests to concelebrate with Pope John Paul II. Note that. Smith2006 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please quote source for this last statement. I will read your response when I get up tomorrow. Lima 20:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong: it was not Ecclesia Dei, but the Pontifical Congregation for the Clergy, headed by Castrillon Hoyos. You may call and email them, and you will get the same response. Or do you think invalid priests assist at Papal Masses? (See picture at Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige) The old argument quoted above is erroneous and not in concordance with Roman Catholic teaching. Presumably, one cannot be consecrated a bishop without being a valid priest. And Seiwert-Fleige was only ordained a priest by Abp. Thuc in 1976. Smith2006 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"You can email them and get the same response" is not the same as giving a source. Surely there would be some published source to prove it, if the priests in question were admitted to concelebrate with Pope John Paul II. (I presume Smith does not mean that they just went along with the hundreds of other priests who, without checking of identity or priestly status, concelebrated with Pope John Paul II at Holy Thursday Chrism Masses. Neither the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei nor the Congregation for the Clergy "admitted" people to that.)

On what grounds does Smith "presume" that conferring episcopal ordination on someone not a priest, or conferring priestly ordination on someone not a deacon, would be not only anticanonical (which it is) but also invalid? Lima 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find this section rather had to follow. It doesn't flow well, and it's not clear why it's even there. PS, what exactly does the picture prove? Gimmetrow 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have therefore shortened the section, hoping that it will thereby also become less controversial. It is surely enough to give a picture of the Holy See's view of the validity of the orders of just a few representative traditionalist Catholic clergymen. Lima 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. The quote seems to say that ordinations (bishops and priests) will never be recognized, but the 2001 reconciliation seems to show something softer in practice 25 years later. I don't know the ins and outs of this, it just seems useful to mention. Gimmetrow 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am confused. There must surely have been some explanatory declaration, if not by the Holy See, certainly (presumably in German) by the diocese he is now serving; but all I can find with Google are secondary sources, like Wikipedia, about him. I suspect that the matter is less straightforward than presented in those sources. Lima 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it even clear that he currently serves a diocese?[2] Tboyle.net merely says he "resides in Rosenheim".[3] Maybe it really should go. Gimmetrow 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schuckhardt was not an important person. It was a scandal-filled media-preyed person, but not the typical traditionalist Catholic at all. Again, he is merely a USA person, not world wide. "Traditionalists" however are spread around the world.Smith2006 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't simply revert the entire article, if something seems incorrect. Leave the correct changes in the article. Don't be lazy and revert entirely, thus loosing valuable added information. It's silly. Smith2006 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Traditional vs. Traditionalist again

In just a few minutes I set out on a journey that will keep me away for a month. I have no time to discuss or edit Piston's changes. Someone should tell him the question has been discussed at length before. Lima 07:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should not have been moved without a peep. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't moved without a peep. 2nd Piston Honda 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets Recap

Perhaps we can cordially discuss the changes. Traditional vs Traditionalist was discussed. It comes down to specific vs general terms. Traditional Catholics do not include those discussed in the article. There are Traditional Catholics who do not hold all these things discussed in the article to be true, so the more specific term traditionalist was used, as the Vatican used the same term.

As far as action vs belief, that they desire the changes vs making the changes, the gist of that consensus was that the belief was that the Church as a whole should be worshipping in the manner pre-Vatican 2, not just that they should. The more general belief that these are people who are in some way separated from the Church would be erronious by claiming that this includes only those who are able to attend a pre-1970 Missal Mass.

I hope we can discuss the reasons why those two things are important to the long term editors here. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I protected the redirect. Hopefully this will not happen again. Just zis Guy you know? 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, you say that "traditional catholics do not include those discussed in the article." What precisely distinguishes "traditional catholicism" from "traditionalist catholicism"? Gimmetrow 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was recapping arguements made before. I think we are referring to those who do not subscribe to everything here, may attend 1970 or 1962 missal Masses, or believe other reforms are problems and fall into the grey area. I am not trying to reargue this. I am referring to those discussions without using neologisms. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional has its roots in the past, impying continuity; traditionalist explicitly rejects any changes made after some particular point, implying discontinuity. I think there are other situations where comparable definitions of the terms apply. Just zis Guy you know? 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's just that as the "Roman Catholic Church" vs "Catholic Church" issue wages on, I found the naming issue between "traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" somewhat parallel. I can understand the principles that result in choosing the first of both pairs, or the second of both pairs. Gimmetrow 01:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"intro" section

[01]"Traditionalist Catholic and Traditional Catholic are terms used to refer to Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s", is an undiputedly true statement, and has been the intro to this article for a long time.

[02]The proposed change by 2nd Piston Honda to "Traditional Catholic and Traditionalist Catholic are used to refer to Roman Catholics who practice Catholicism as it was practiced prior to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s" does not work, in that it excludes many, if not most, traditionalist Catholics, in that many, if not most, traditionalist Catholics do not attend mass every Sunday (or some, even at all) and many do not obey their local bishop. Many, if not most, traditionalist Catholics also do not hold to the lenten fast of old, even though, stated generally, it can be truly stated that they want the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics to return to those prevailing before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. pat8722 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[03]I made the change because I felt the intro was defining traditional Catholics entirely by the cause to get the Magesterium to return to tradition. They are first and foremost Catholics who follow the faith as it was always taught. Looking after their own souls and the souls of their families take priority over a movement to save the souls of the world and to restore tradition in the Church, even though those last two are very important to them. So i think the Intro needs to more accurately define them.

'[04]I do know that my edit was insufficient. I just threw it out there pretty quick as a substitute. There does need to be a mention of the cause for a return to tradition, since it's an important part of what they spend their efforts doing and why this article exists. So let's work on a compromise. Or if you totally disagree, let me know. 2nd Piston Honda 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[05]Also, Pat8722, "practice" is synonymous with "follow" in this case. You can practice Catholicism perfectly even when there is no Mass to attend, because the faith prescribes what one should do in such situations. 2nd Piston Honda 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[06]Always? I don't think so. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[07]Since before V2 at least. 2nd Piston Honda 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not always. As with every other definition of the term "traditional", it puts a stick in the ground at some arbitrary point in the past. Go back to the Gospels, do you see any evidence of an exclusive ordained ministry? Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we look to the New Testament in general? There are countless references to the Church, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc. 2nd Piston Honda 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quote chapter and verse for any text which gives a scriptural warrant for an exclusive ordained ministry. Also the verse which specifies the language to be used in the Mass. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5; 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15; Acts 6:1–6. As for the language of the Mass, the only part of the Mass that is required to be unchanged forever is the form of Consecration because they are the words Christ used at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). If you want, i could go into more detail about the concerns over the Novus Ordo Mass. 2nd Piston Honda 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the basis of this discussion. The point is that in terms of this article traditionalists are a subset of the larger group of traditional Catholics. There are too many traditional Catholics who object to the narrow definitions in this article. At the risk of promoting the off topic tangent, I would love to hear a verse that supports Latin as the language of the Mass. The point as we all know, is that the Church observed that tradition in Western rites, and also supported venacular Mass in many Eastern rites. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Language was never the issue. They actually wrote a new Mass. It wasn't just the English version of the old one. If you'd like a side-by-side comparison of the two Masses (both in English), go here http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html. 2nd Piston Honda 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[08] I have added numbers to our paragraphs in order to aid referencing. If anyone objects, please let me know. At paragraph [03], 2nd Piston Honda says "I made the change because I felt the intro was defining traditional Catholics...", and that is the problem - this article is NOT defining "traditional Catholics", it is defining "traditionalist Catholics". If anyone wants an article about "traditional Catholics", they can create an article with that title, and put their claims about that topic into it. Although the intro section to this article is true, it is the first sentence following that sentence that does the defining for this article, i.e. "Traditionalist Catholics have in common a dedication to attending Mass celebrated in Latin in accordance with one of the editions of the Roman Missal published prior to the liturgical reform of 1969-1971". I propose we remove the term "Traditional Catholic" from the intro section, as it appears to be the source of confusion, and because the group that claims that latter term is small and self-defined, and not deserving of special mention in the intro, anymore than the society of St. Pius X. pat8722

I think you're confused on the issue of "traditionalist" versus "traditional". Both are used to describe the same group of people. "Traditionalist" is used most often in the media, or by non-catholics or Novus Ordo Catholics as it's a more derisive term. "Traditional Catholic" is used by those within the community or by others who wish to identify them as they would prefer to be identified. 2nd Piston Honda 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They are not entitled to claim the term traditional so as to exclude other Catholics who do not agree with the traditionalist credo, and yet lay an equally valid claim to being traditional Catholics. There are Catholics who prefer the 1962 Missal, but think there are larger issues to fight about than the 1970 missal and the deficiencies of the Mass. No person has the right to claim they are not traditional or "really" Catholic. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we are talking here about Catholics right? the same people Anglicans like to call "Romans," no? From the point of view of the average English speaker and average Catholic, Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming Benedict XVI would be a traditional Catholic. That is, he was in line with the Church's teaching (not throwing out Vatican II) and working to preserve the integrity of the ancient faith. Traditional means in line with Rome, because it is the Tradition of the Church to obey the Magisterium.

Conflicting with the Magisterium makes one a dissident either to the right or to the left. Failure to give assent to the highest teaching office of the Church, an Ecumenical Council promulgated by the pope, is DISSENT. That is where "traditionalist" comes in. And I am not a "Novus Ordo Catholic." There is no such thing. What you call a "Novus Ordo Catholic" if he is in line with the Magisterium is just a regular Catholic in the traditional sense, that is, a traditional Catholic. If you are a dissenter and you don't like being labeled, tough. It is time for you to learn the true meaning of "obsequium religiosum" (Which BTW, is an article that needs writing on WP!). Vaquero100 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are higher authorities than a Church council. Namely, the teachings passed down to us. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. The Church is here to teach, govern, and sanctify, not to innovate. 2nd Piston Honda 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Church is here to teach, govern, sanctify, not to innovate but to interpret authentically Scripture and Tradition, neither of which is left to private interpretation. Lima 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article rating

I apologize if I have given offense to anyone, but I would like to explain why I have rated this artile as Mid level importance. My understanding of the Traditionalist Catholic article is that it discusses the desire of some Catholics to return to the pre-Conciliar liturgical practices and teachings of the Catholic Church. While I agree with those of you who attribute the decline in the Church's adherants in the first world (and the conversion of Latin Americans in large number to Evangelical churches) in large part stems from the degradation of the traditional Church, it would be a real stretch to say that most Catholics are eager for a return to the Tridentine mass. In most cities there is just one or several Churches offering the Tridentine liturgy and they are not bursting at the seems.

While Catholics 45 and younger have a strong attraction to the tradition of the Church and aspects of the earlier traditional forms, most are not demanding a complete reversal of the reforms. So, while a significant number of Catholics, myself included, identify themselves as traditional (which I understand to mean obedient to the magisterium and the liturgical laws) those who are Traditionalist (which I understand to mean practicing or preferring the Tridentine liturgy) are tiny but vocal minority of the Church today. In fact, if we were to go by numbers alone, this article would be hard pressed to rate a "Low." I do not say these things to offend, because I do very much respect the Traditionalist position and support a broad expansion of the indult for the Tridentine mass. Still I do not believe there are great numbers committed to sustained practice of the ancient rite. I would be glad to talk about this more, if you like. Vaquero100 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The imprtance of editors working on this article is based on experience from wikipedia, and the desire of certain activist groups to twist the PoV to be flattering to thier private interpretation. The flaw of this system is that the ratings are entirely at the whim of the person rating the article. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The rating system is internal to a wikiproject; it exists to help editors prioritize their own work in relation to the project topic as an encyclopedia article, and is not worth fighting over. This is more than a "nice to have" article but between mid and high does it really matter? Gimmetrow 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

similar sections

"Relations with other Catholic groups" and the newly created "Criticism by mainstream Catholics" are too similar to keep as seperate sections in my opinion. What do you guys think? 2nd Piston Honda 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A question of mere curiosity

Can anyone tell whether the photograph in the article Solemn Mass shows a typical Netherlands Mass congregation in 1946? Before the Second Vatican Council, Dutch Catholics had the reputation of being among the most fervent anywhere, and the effect of the Council on the Church in that country was seen as a case of "corruptio optimi pessima". I am therefore surprised to see that the congregation in the photograph was composed overwhelmingly of women. (I also notice that the apse was to the west - note the position of the mid-morning sun.) Lima 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Latin Mass Practice, accepted and unaccepted groups

Sorry, I'm new to this, and so I'm not sure how to do this and remain as un-biased as possible. I just wanted to speak about my issue with this article. It seems to me that it is trying to embrace too much, and does not clarify and represent well all the groups it tries to embrace. In this quote from the article:

"Some traditionalist Catholics do not dispute the lawfulness or doctrinal soundness of decisions taken by the Holy See in recent decades - for example, on the revision of the Mass liturgy. They do, however, question the wisdom of those decisions.

Other traditionalist Catholics reject as illegitimate and even doctrinally erroneous certain recent declarations and decrees of the Holy See (see above, Allegations of discontinuity and rupture). One criticism that is levelled at some of them is that they appear to treat the decisions of the Pope and senior churchmen (to whom they may refer using expressions such as "Vatican hierarchs") as little more than the opinions of individuals."

-there are those who accept the revision of Mass liturgy and those who don't.

To me this article seems to include groups like Opus Dei, which practice the Tridentine Mass, yet which are undoubtedly Catholic and very close to the Holy See, and then groups like Sedevacantists which are not in communion with Rome. Correct if I am wrong, that if the article in it's entirity seems to includes those two groups.

I suppose maybe this reason is because I am not familiar with the term "traditional" and "Traditionalist" Catholic (referring to pre-conciliar groups). There seem to be those who are familar with such terms. I think however, in there own familiarity they do not fully clarify on what those terms mean, and for those who do not know about the Catholic Church, I think the article particularly the introduction can be misleading.

Also, I believe there to be too much bias in words such "allegations" and that the allegations section should probably be inserted into Criticisms, to show the variey of veiw on this topic.

Final Question: Does this article include groups like Opus Dei by it's definition or solely groups who wish to get rid of the post-conciliar Mass? If it does, do you feel it does just in clarifying the difference between groups that are in communion with Rome and those that are have there own popes?

Lastly, if you are going to change what I wrote here, because it's don't like a post, please leave me a message how I should post in this talk. Thank you. If there are questions about Opus Dei, as someone who attends their activities regularly, feel free to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis419jn655 (talk • contribs)

Welcome, Francis. Discussion will help us both, and others, to clarify our ideas.

First, Opus Dei is not a traditionalist organization, favouring use of the Tridentine form of Mass. So the article does not speak of Opus Dei at all. It speaks of three categories of groups and individuals, all of them associated with use of the Tridentine Mass:

1. Those that use the Tridentine Mass, but admit that the Holy See had the right to revise the Roman Missal and that it did so without introducing heresy etc. (groups such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney). They think the old was better and that it was a mistake to change.

2. Those that think the change was not just unwise but actually a betrayal of the Catholic faith. They dispute the Holy See's right to make the change, while recognizing, however, that Benedict XVI - as well as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II - is Pope. The best known such group is the Society of St. Pius X

3. Those who do not recognize Benedict XVI or his immediate predecessors as Popes at all and believe in sedevacantism. They, or at least some of them, claim to be in communion with the Catholic Church in the same way that Catholics remain in communion between the death of one Pope and the election of his successor.

(Perhaps those groups that have elected their own Pope could be added as a fourth category; but they are "independent Catholic Churches" rather than traditionalist Catholics.)

Personally, I think the article would be clearer if it explicitly distinguished these three categories. This has not been done because of strong opposition on the part of one editor and her associates.

I hope this explanation will be helpful for understanding the part of the article that you quoted.

"Allegations of discontinuity and rupture" is a reference to Pope Benedict's distinction (mentioned immediately before the appearance of this phrase) between two ways in which the decisions of the Second Vatican Council have been interpreted. Traditionalists of categories 2 and 3, as well as the diametrically opposed proponents of "the spirit of the Council", interpret it as marking a break, a rupture, a discontinuity. Other Catholics, and the Holy See itself, interpret the Second Vatican Council in terms of "reform and continuity". Can you think of a better expression? If so, do propose it here on the Talk page.

You need have no fear that anyone will "change what you have written here." Everyone has a right to have their say on the Talk page of the article without interference, and it would be wrong for others to change what they write.

Finally, please remember to sign at the end of your comments by typing a tilde (~) four times. Lima 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis419jn655 probably attends Mass in Latin, not the Tridentine Mass. That would explain his associating Opus Dei with traditionalist Catholics. Lima 06:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Francis again. First of all, thank you for the clarification. According to latinmass.org/faq.html, the Tridentine Mass is also said by Opus Dei preists. However, I see after studying the groups mentioned above like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the groups under category 1 seem to place a large emphasis on the perservance of the Tridentine Mass, whereas groups like Opus Dei do not place the emphasis of their on group on the Tridentine Mass, but they do use it. I do think thought that the article does need some more clear statements and less verbosity in it's explanation. Categorization of traditionalist view would seem an answer much in line with the style of wikipedia. Also, it would help since currently the wiki seems to sort go from reffering one form of traditionalist to another form, numerous times in the wiki and within the same paragraphs. This all blends them into one, when there are distinctions amongst them. I'm starting to get this due to your clarafications. Thanks. However, ideally one shouldn't need one-on-one clarifications in order to understand the wiki. /*I think I'm getting the hang of this*/Francis419jn655 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis. Actually, the website you mention does not say that Opus Dei priests use the Tridentine Mass. It only mentions what appears to be a rumour, not a verifiable fact, that the founder used the Tridentine form when not celebrating Mass in public. Of course, it is quite possible that some Opus Dei priests use the Tridentine form sometimes or even always. The same can be said of Dominicans, of diocesan priests ... But it is certainly false to say that "Opus Dei priests use the Tridentine Mass", as if that were the general or universal rule. Why not ask the Opus Dei priests with whom you have contact whether, when they celebrate Mass in Latin, they use what is today the normal form or instead use the pre-Vatican II form?

The present introduction came about through a laboriously reached compromise with some people who wanted the article to reflect only the point of view of traditionalist Catholics of categories 2 and 3. They wanted to exclude from the definition of "traditionalist Catholic" those of category 1, or at least to maintain that the category 1 people, as individuals - whatever about the declared views of the associations to which they belong - really do not accept internally the authority of the Holy See to make the revision of the Roman Missal that it actually made or to interpret the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in the way that the Holy See actually interprets it. The sentence "Some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are more moderate" in the second paragraph is meant to express their point of view. If this sentence is vague, that again is because it is the result of a compromise that took many months to reach.

(By the way, this reminds me of Conrad Adenauer's remark: "The reason the Ten Commandments are so clear and unambiguous is that they were not drawn up at an international conference.")

Of course, the Ten Commandments are not necessarily clear and unambiguous. How do you "keep holy the sabbath"? In the Summa Theologia, Thomas Aquinas takes about ten pages to merely summarise what "You shall not steal" means. Jhobson1 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a result of the opposition I have just mentioned, the article does not list the three categories of traditionalist Catholics that I have distinguished. This in turn means that the article must several times speak of "some traditionalist Catholics", without specifying which traditionalist Catholics. This, as Francis rightly says, is an obstacle to clarity.

At this moment, I do not wish to make any substantial change in the introduction, for fear of stirring up the controversy once more. The only thing that would alter my opinion and make me take the initiative of changing the introduction would be if a sufficient number of others who are interested in the subject were to state here that they certainly favour explicit mention of the categories of traditionalist Catholics that can be distinguished, and moreover that the categories to be mentioned are indeed the three that I have given. Lima 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. If Opus Dei is not a 'traditionalist Catholic' group, what then is the correct term for Catholics who a) accept without question the 'authoritarian' structure of the Church, b) stress the importance of various unfashionable traditional practices such as frequent reception of the sacraments, an active and well structured prayer life, mortification of the flesh, et cetera and c) actively work and pray for the intentions of the Holy Father? Cspalletta 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The general shorthand in the English speaking world is "Conservative Catholics". JASpencer 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the conservative modifier. I would call them Catholics, or faithful Catholics. Nothing about Opus Dei denegrates other Catholic practices, just as a Franciscan would not criticize the Carmelite Monastic rule. Using the term conservative makes there appear to be a separation of some Catholics like Opus Dei from other Catholics. Just because traditionalists have different practices, does not mean that some do not enjoy mutual union with the Pope. There are many who attend Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass, as their state in life allows. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (edit) Dominick ^(TALK) 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

)

Traditionalist Practices - The Rosary and Frequent Confession (new)

The following references to the statement

"devotional exercises such as praying the Rosary and wearing a scapular; while these practices are not peculiar to traditionalist Catholics, one distinguishing mark of certain — not all[7] — traditionalist Catholics is their non-acceptance of the five Luminous mysteries that Pope John Paul II added to Mysteries of the Rosary."

I think that this should be modified, as it leads to a misrepresentation of mainstream Catholics of which there are many who pray the Rosary and wear scapulars. The customs (particularly the scapular) even extends sometimes to those who do not practice the Catholic faith to it's fullness. I am not saying that such customs and those who practice them are not devout, but that the customs of the Rosary of and the scapular are not solely or even largely kept only by 'traditionalist' Catholics. There are numerous Catholics who have a great devotion for the Rosary and there are numerous "non-traditionalist" religous orders that practice the use of the scapular and distribution such to the lay faithful. I am not the best with words but the first portion of the statement should either change the word "peculiar" which is ambiguous in what it precisely means. The last portion should be kept in that the Luminous are not accepted by traditionalist Catholics, but the prior portion needs revisions. Also, to a minor note the "one distinguishing mark of certian..." does not flow well and I have no idea what the "of certain" part is supposed to refer to.--Francis419jn655 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough -- the Rosary and scapular are both alive and well in post-Vatican II Catholicism. I think the point that was trying to be made is that Traditionalist Catholics are more likely to practice these devotions than your "run-of-the-mill" Catholic. However, I cannot imagine that this could be verifiable, so I would have no qualms with it being modified as you suggest. One minor comment: The Luminous mysteries are accepted by some Traditionalist Catholics, so that cannot be a blanket statement. LotR 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you LotR (awesome name by the way). If no one has any complaints or does not take action by All Saints Day, than I will make a slight change to the aforementioned paragraph. I am not the greatest with words and stuff, so if you are pretty good at encyclopedia writing, please place your suggested revision here and give us a couple days. Peace.--Francis419jn655 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... :-) Sounds good -- happy editing. If what you write needs tweaking, there are volunteer editors, like myself, standing by who just live to tweak... LotR 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit, by Lima which I think missed what I was saying. It did acknowledge that not all "traditionalist" Catholics do reject the Luminous mysteries, which is good and considered LotR's point. However, I believe the edit completely missed my point. My point, to state it cleary, was is it accurate or not to say that traditionalist Catholics practice the customs of the Rosary and scapular more than mainstream Catholics. Now, I have never known a "traditionalist" Catholic so I cannot speak for them, however I know that there are mainstream Catholics who devoutly practice the Rosary (and they are not a small number). However, I suppose the word "more" may be arguing percentage-wise, and includes non-practicing Catholics and "Sunday Catholics" to determine the mainstream Catholic percentage. Assuming that "traditionalist Catholics" argue against Vatican II and hence take their practice more seriously, then of course we could argue numerous Catholic practices are done more by "traditionalist" Catholics, by percentage. The practices of "traditionalist" Catholics section should really be focused on those practices very much associated with "traditionalist" Catholics and not often associated with Catholics in general. This is my point. Please tell me what you think. Peace.--Francis419jn655 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some traditionalists who reject the Luminous Mysteries, and some who do not. The order of the Rosary and the Stations have both been sacramentals that have been altered from time to time. Many who wear scapulars wear them for cultural reasons more than devotional ones. I think it is a generalization to say this group is marked by scapular wearing people. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Added fact templates in case someone has a good source for the statements about traditionalist devotionals. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To Lima, thank you for the changes. They seem to be more representative and factual then the previous "Traditionalist practices" section. In the words of wikipedia, however, for the Rosary part there is a "weasel word" in that you writes "SSPX churches sometimes schedule public recitation of the Rosary." I have never been to a SSPX church, so I don't know what you mean by somtimes, whether this means occassionally, depending on which parish, or what portion of the community participates. From my own perspective, the rosary portion with that statement as basis for traditionalists may still be arguable. To give a mainstream Catholic version of "scheduled recitation of the Rosary", at my home parish there is an unwritten schedule after each weekday Mass for praying the Rosary. Some do it after Sunday Mass too, but I probably don't see it so much since I go to the evening Mass, where they lock right after. Also, the liberal University Catholic Center (UCC) near my school, they do schedule public recitations of the Rosary during Lent. Also, the devout groups at the UCC such as SVdP always have "scheduled" praying of the Rosary. Aside from these things, it is just done in small groups such as our youth group occassionally, not scheduled but done. If you can explain and semi-prove what extent you mean by "SSPX churches sometimes schedule public recitation of the Rosary" as so to make them different from mainstream Catholic parishes and groups, then please tell me and I'll concede happily. However, if not this section still can still I think be misrepresentative of both parties. Thanks for your time and Peace be with you.--Francis419jn655 17:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this comment by Francis yesterday. I am even more sorry that I could not and cannot think of anything better than "sometimes": all I am sure of is that the scheduled times for the Rosary were on the notice board outside the SSPX church in Edinburgh last year. That notice about recitation of the Rosary, on its own, not part of some other function, must surely have been meant by the priest in charge of that church as indicating that he considered it an important distinguishing mark of his form of religion.

If Francis thinks the mention of the Rosary should be omitted entirely, and if nobody else disagrees, I would be quite happy to see it deleted. Let us leave it for about four days, to see if there is any reaction. Lima 17:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection, Rosary recitation and Scapulars are not unique to traditionalists. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that. LotR 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that someone put again in the "Traditionalist Practices" section, Frequent Confession and daily recitation of the Rosary. I deleted both of them. We discussed the subject of the rosary and it's daily use among both Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist Catholics. Frequent Confession, I believe to be the same; it cannot be shown to be particular to Traditionalist Catholics. If you would like to discuss the this, I'm fine with that--Francis419jn655 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, well, I reverted you, but then added a further explanation to the Rosary, noting the Trads' rejection of the Luminous Mysteries. Regarding Confession, would it be fair to say that Trads generally always go to confession before receiving Communion, as prevailed prior to Vatican II? I'm bending over backwards here, because a)nothing suggests that to be included in this section, a practice has to be exclusive to the trads, and b)I am certain that frequently praying the Rosary and frequent confession are practices which are, in fact, much more common among the Trads than among other Roman Catholics in general. --Midnite Critic 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Midnight Critic, I guess you're a little new to this subject. But all of us both sides of the issue agreed (as seen above) that we cannot duly say frequency recital of the rosary is particular to Traditionalist Catholics. Both Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist parishes have scheduled times to pray the Rosary. It is common in the non-Traditionalist parishes I have been to that the Rosary prayed after daily Mass. As for frequent Confession, the Church in communion with the Holy See have always urged frequent Confession. Until, a settlement is reached I am going to delete the remarks about frequent Confession and daily recital of the Rosary, since that is how things were originally before someone created this new addition.--Francis419jn655 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Francis: Again, AGAIN, there is nothing in this section to indicate that these practices are exclusive to trads vs. Catholics in general (although many of them obviously are). These practices are DISTINCTIVE of trads but not necessarily exclusive to them. If you insist on making comparisions, the point is not what parishes in general do or don't do, or what Rome urges Catholics in general to do. The point here is that traditionalist Catholics, like it or not, are more likely than Catholics IN GENERAL (as opposed to, say, members of the Legion of Mary, Opus Dei, or other such organizations) to frequently pray the Rosary (without the Luminous Mysteries, of course), and to go to confession more frequently, like weekly, or, I would think, always prior to receiving communion (whether they "need" to or not), a practice that prevailed among devout Catholics prior to Vatican I, but which is not common now among Catholics generally, devout or otherwise. (Isn't once a month sort of the standard, barring intervening grave sin?) Having said that, and to digress a bit, what I would be interested in knowing is whether or not trads tend to receive as often, or less often, than Catholics in general, which, pretty much, seems to be routinely at every Mass attended. --Midnite Critic 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Midnite, I had to learn this when I started working on this article. You have to wait until get a few peoples comments before you make changes. So before changes dealing with this subject are made, it should be accepted by the group, as this is open to the public. Out of respect for the benefactors of this article, please wait before you change anything. I will discuss with you more later, but am busy at the moment. As a note, I removed the Rosary statement, since we had discussed this and accepted a group that the Rosary should not be under "Practices of Traditionalist Catholics."--Francis419jn655 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• So Midnite, before we continue this discussion. We need to decide what groups we are categorizing here. Also, we need to examine the other practices in the section. Now, I believe one should not group all non-practicing or "Sunday" Catholics in this argument as to lead to statements such as Traditionalists Catholics go to Sunday Mass more, or Traditionalists Catholics are late to Mass less,etc. No "holier than thou" arguments should be here since they are typically subjective. To get to my point, I think we should compare the faithful of traditionalists and non-traditionalist Catholics. Now all the other practices of Traditionalist Catholics are not followed the majority of faithful non-traditionalist Catholics (i.e, abstaining on Fridays, kneeling when receiving Holy Communion, women wearing veils in Church). However, for practices like frequent Confession and daily recital of the Rosary is very arguable. Unless you can say by definition or by obvious fact that either of those practices should be in the section "practices of Traditionalist Catholics," I do not believe either should be there. Merely look at the title of the section. Please all those aside from me and Midnite, please speak your view.--Francis419jn655 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Francis, Of course I am open to the consensus of the group (any actual trads involved?). However, I think your argument is misplaced. Mainstream Roman Catholicism at this time includes a broad cross-section of people with a wide variety of commitment levels, and yet all are considered "Catholic", so I do not think that one can simply compare trads in general with a subset of mainstream Catholics, which we might, for convenience, term "hardcore." In any event, my vision for this article in general, and for this section in particular, is to present an accurate picture of the persons discussed, who are traditional, or traditionalist Catholics. Given that, it obvious that some things which are identified with them, such as praying the Rosary frequently or going to Confession often, will also be found among some, more commited, more devout mainstream Catholics. To address your concerns, I am open to acknowledging in the article that this overlap exists. However, I think that removing any reference in this article, in this section, to recitation of the Rosary is selling both somewhat short. There are other things, as well, which could be added, such as a preference for homeschooling (which, again, would not be confined to trads, or even Catholics, but which, I would think, would correlate highly with a traditionalist position. However, the question of the Rosary sort of gets to the heart of the matter. --Midnite Critic 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the earlier discussion on the mention of the Rosary as a practice of traditionalist Catholics, the context of that mention has been changed substantially. I think that, as now expressed, especially with the further retouching that I have just added, the statement in the article cannot be denied. No claim is made that all traditionalist Catholics do actually say the Rosary, whether frequently or only occasionally. Nobody would bet money on that statement. All that is said is that they are more likely than the average Catholic - "average" takes into account those with very little commitment - to do so. Lima 08:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. --Midnite Critic 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• In order to resolve our differences I suggest this:

“- Pastoral emphasis on frequent confession, as post-Vatican II popes have continued urging.

- Pastoral emphasis on prayers such as the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary in the form in use before the late twentieth century“

I will not to edit yet, as I prefer read your opinions Tradewater (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that in general, but I guess I'm confused on the wording vis-a-vis "pastoral emphasis". "Pastoral" as distinct from what? In terms of Confession, is this a reference to the "devotional Confession," not strictly required because grave/mortal sin is not involved, but yet considered to be a good practice? --Midnite Critic (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK. forget word 'Pastoral'. My proposal with some another little modifications. I think it is a text that everybody, Tratiditionalist and mainstream, can accept:

"- Emphasis on frequent confession, as post-Vatican II popes have continued urging to all Catholics.

- Emphasis on prayers such as the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary, as post-Vatican II popes have continued urging to all Catholics. Some of them have not accepted the modifications introduced by John Paul II"

If everybody agrees I will edit on MondayTradewater (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No comment whatever on the changes I have proposed? My idea was to remove the suggestion, implicit in "are associated with", that traditionalists are the only people or almost the only people who observe these practices. I proposed replacing that phrase with the, I believe, unquestionable statement that traditionalists stress these things. That does not suggest that other Catholics fail to observe them. Tradewater is proposing "are often associated with ... emphasis on ...". (He has in mind the text as it was before I made my proposal, since he surely does not mean to say, in tautologous fashion, that "they stress ... emphasis on".) What Tradewater proposes is thus only a much more complicated way of saying: "They stress". Tradewater also applies the stress/emphasis to only two areas, while I would apply it to all.

In addition, I have proposed that, on the two matters that trouble Tradewater, it be clearly stated that what traditionalists stress is the old form of the prayers, to the exclusion of "new-fangled" ideas such as a fifteenth Station of the Cross to recall the resurrection or the Scriptural Way of the Cross, and the like. Surely that is what traditionalists stress, not the Stations of the Cross in itself.

Are these ideas so unworthy of any consideration whatever? Lima (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lima. They are indeed worthy of consideration. My main concern is that the Rosary and frequent Confession continue to be mentioned in this section; I am less concerned about the specific details (although, as noted above, I was confused by the phrase "pastoral emphasis"). --Midnite Critic (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, they can continue to be mentioned, with the indication that what traditionalists stress is the "traditional" form. (That means, in fact, the form prevailing from about 1800 to about 1950. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Way of the Cross indicates that it was only around 1800 that the fixed series of fourteen specified stations became the only one. And in the 1950s Pope Pius XII introduced novelties such as afternoon or evening Mass, no need to fast since midnight, abolition of almost all octaves, etc.) What does Tradewater think? Lima (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As Midnite Critic main concern is to include the mention to frequent confession and to the prayers, my main concern is not putting side by side what could be considered just old-fashioned practices with matters that have been repeatedly stressed by the popes and the majority of bishops. In other words, personally I consider unfair and insidious comparing fasting from midnight or women’s veiling with frequent confession or Rosary praying. But this is wikipedia, not my personal web page, and I wish no edit war. New redaction for the proposed edit: “They emphasize, as post-Vatican II popes also do, frequent Confession and prayers such as the Station of the Cross and the Rosary. Some of them have not accepted the modifications introduced in those prayers by John Paul II.” About what Lima says, I agree, and in fact the only Tridentine mass in my town is in the evening. I propose to add to that point: “Some Tridentine masses are celebrated in the evening, so it is implicit the observance of the fasting according to the Pious XII’s regulation.” Tradewater (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tradewater has a decidedly valid point about most traditionalist Catholics and fasting from midnight. It would be an absolute rule only for those who reject Pope Pius XII changes; and there are some who do reject them. As for frequent Confession, I think the contrast is between what in most Western countries is present practice (not what the Popes say ought to be the present practice) and what was the general practice in the first half or so of the twentieth century. I say "in most countries", because in Poland you still see long lines of people on both sides of the confession boxes waiting their turn. Before Pius X (and even still in the mid-twentieth century for many older people), the practice for "ordinary" Catholics was to confess their sins just once a year. Even in the 1950s the priests used to remind people of the obligation to receive Holy Communion "during the Easter time". (I am old enough to remember, and I hope this "Original Research" is forgiven on a Talk page.)

I have tried to incorporate these ideas in the article. If you think I have done wrong, just revert, wholly or partially. Lima (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy. --Midnite Critic (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indult Catholics, not as traditionalist Catholics.

I was going to suggest a merge of indult Catholics since they do not differ from traditionalist Catholics, except by the declaration of some groups. Discussion? Dominick ^(TALK) 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an "Indult Catholics" page is superfluous, provided that an important distinction is clearly made that "indult" Traditionalist Catholics are not schismatic. LotR 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an AFD for indult Catholics, we can comment there.Dominick ^(TALK) 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything, don't you think it more appropriate to merge the Indults to the main RC article rather than TC. Aren't Indults simply main group Catholics that prefer the older forms and the Holy See has accomodated them. They are not "anti-reformists" actually, are they? --Justanother 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got no idea what Dominick is doing. Is everyone who assists at a Tridentine Mass the same? Why not merge Democrat with Political activist as all Dems are involved in politics. JASpencer 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Catholics who attend Masses offered by indult are traditionalists, some are not. But to Dominick, all it takes is a preference for the pretty incense to be a "real trad" -- that and a complete acceptance of the prevailing interpretations of Vatican II documents. He's been trying to change the focus of this article since he first started in on it -- trying to change the definition of "traditionalist Catholic" to indicate neo-conservative Catholics, and slamming trads all the way through in the meanwhile. Look at the article as it is now: it is riddled with debate, exceptions, and "buts." Instead of simply describing the beliefs and practices of traditionalist Catholics in the main section of the article and having a single section devoted to other Catholics' opinions and rebuttals, neo-conservative arguments pervade the article, and there is not one but TWO sections devoted to how much Catholics like Dominick disagree with traditionalists: "Relations with other Catholic groups" AND "Criticisms by other Catholics." Go back through the archives, note diffs like this [4] and this [5]. It's ridiculous. And he's gotten away with it for about a year now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.14 (talk • contribs) .

Although I am relatively new to this page, I have some general comments. First off, so-called "indult Catholics," if they are indeed a well-defined group within the Church, ought to be mentioned on both the main RC article as well as TC, as they qualify as both. For that matter, TCs themselves deserve mention on the main RC article (if they aren't already), as they are not necessarily schismatics, and thus may be considered "merely Catholic" as well. In fact, isn't "indult Catholic" just a label used by the more radical TCs (including schismatics) applied to TCs attending "approved" Tridentine Masses (as well as the Novus Ordo) and thus are in communion with Rome? In general, RC, IC and TC are not mutually exclusive, and should not be construed as such. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it: ICs are a subset of TCs, and many TCs (including ICs) are a subset of RCs. Finally, just a friendly little reminder to keep in mind WP:EQ (please try to comment on content, not editors). LotR 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to have anonymous radicals attack my postings with silly accusations, so I have nothing to say to that person. JASpencer, My point is that so called indult Catholics are also traditionalist in the outlook and practices. It would be like the difference between somone not eating and fasting. You would not be able to identify if they were simply not eating or if they were fasting. All people not eating are not fasting, but all people fasting are not eating. Practices of an indult Catholics are identical on the face as a traditionalist. My goal is not to separate groups into tiny bunches. Many traditionalists are Catholic, and Catholics should not be divided by adjectives. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Capricious"? "Radical"? "Silly"? Keep in mind WP:EQ.

Yes, some traditionalists are Catholics, and some aren't; you can determine who the "official Catholics" are by finding out if a certain editor likes them or not [6]. According to some, "practices" are all that "traditional Catholicism" is about, see; belief (other than the belief that the traditional Mass is prettier) has nothing to do with anything. Why the phenomenon of liking a pretty Mass requires its own entry is puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs) = 64.12.116.13

If only these people liked the pretty Mass, they, too, would be traditionalist Catholics.

Gibberish

I removed the second paragraph because it reads like gibberish in my opinion:

"Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teachings have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree. Some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those who disagree with this view."

I hope the way I have revised the first graph suffices. Sometimes, copy editing requires tightening language and eliminating redundancies.

I am an experienced newspaper copy editor, so if my assistance could be used in your revision process, I'm happy to help out.--FidesetRatio 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stick around, FidesetRatio. This entry could use a good copy editor!

Prefer vs. want

Prefer excludes the notion of matter. Want is too colloquial. I know Traditionalists have an exclusive preference for the Tridentine Mass.

Here are a few dictionary definitions to illustrate my point from Dictionary.com.

pre‧fer  –verb (used with object), -ferred, -fer‧ring. 1. to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken. 2. Law. to give priority, as to one creditor over another. --FidesetRatio 17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If the first paragraph is what is being discussed, it seems to me that "want" is the correct verb. According to the definition given there, traditionalist Catholics do more than prefer the older customs and forms of worship, they want them restored to general use. Lima 19:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor 64.12.116.13

(This editor also links up through ISP 205.188.117.73)

Anonymous 64, who I hope is not the persistent AOL vandal of User talk:64.12.116.13, is persistently attributing to all traditionalist Catholics a belief that "the presentation of teachings (of the Catholic Church) that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use."

It would be helpful if Anonymous 64 would explain his/her views here.

Would Anonymous 64 please indicate on what grounds s/he thinks s/he has verified that all traditionalist Catholics reject the Second Vatican Council's presentation of the the Church's teachings. In many cases, the opposite seems to be true.

Does Anonymous 64 perhaps claim that the position upheld by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney etc. etc. means that they are not traditionalist Catholics? Not everyone agrees with this idea. Lima 15:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say a word about "the position" upheld, you claim, by various priestly fraternities or by individual priests in those fraternities, but you might try talking to FSSP priests sometime and finding out if they believe that "believe that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs" of the Catholic Church should be restored or not. All the ones I know do. The article is, in any case, about traditionalist Catholics, not traditional priestly fraternities.

And I hope you are not the persistent non-AOL vandal "of" User:Lima.

Anonymous 64 is the fourth name by which this lady has gone since I got to know her style. And she has yet another name on her website. Does she really believe that no FSSP priests, not even the superiors, follow the declared position of their societies and that they all instead follow her position? What about the priests of the Saint John Mary Vianney Administration, who all signed a declaration of recognition of the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council and of the validity of the Mass approved by Pope Paul VI? Would Anonymous 64 please attempt rationally to demonstrate the verifiability of her claim about the attitude of all traditionalist Catholics to the Second Vatican Council's presentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Lima 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not who you think I am.

2. I don't know what positions on a website you are talking about.

3. Even the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of Vatican II and the validity of Paul VI's Mass.

4. I said nothing about "the Second Vatican Council's presentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church." My revision reads, "The terms traditionalist Catholic and Traditional Catholic are used to refer to Roman Catholics who believe that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church."

5. To the others: a traditionalist Catholic is defined by his beliefs and goals with regard to practice; not by where he worships. There are trads who attend Masses offered by indult, Masses offered by the SSPX, the SSPV, independent priests, sedevacantist priests, etc.

I never met an Indult Catholic who didn't consider himself or herself a traditionalist.--FidesetRatio 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Has Anonymous 64 met one who didn't?

She has instead written of "trads" - a term I dislike - "who attend Mass offered by indult ..." Does she think she can verify that all of those "trads" believe that the presentation of teachings that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council needs to be restored to general use in the Latin Church? Lima 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would I have to prove that all those that Ms. Lima is calling "trads" believe that the presentation of teachings that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council needs to be restored to general use in the Latin Church?

A traditionalist Catholic, by definition, is one who believes "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church." I don't think trads should be divided up according to where they worship (though the various options and reasons why different traditionalists choose those options should be mentioned in the article). Such matters are prudential concerns -- or matters of "tactics" rather than the traditionalist Catholic "strategy" that all traditionalists have in common. As I said, some trads attend Masses offered by indult, some attend Masses offered by the SSPX, the SSPV, independent priests, sedevacantist priests, etc. Some go from one venue to the other and back again. And there are non-trads who attend Masses in all those venues. For ex., merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX. What makes a Catholic a traditionalist is his belief "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church," no matter where he finds it prudent to worship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous 64/205 attempts to prove that all traditionalist Catholics - the term "trads" is hers, not mine - believe that the presentation of teachings that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church, simply by declaring that traditionalist Catholics are persons who believe that. She has thus fallen into the logical fallacy known as petitio principii or begging the question. She is right when she states the obvious fact that "merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX." The consensus here, on the basis of the existence of people who are generally classified as traditionalist Catholics and don't believe there has been a revolution in the presentation of the Church's teaching, has been rather that what makes a Catholic a traditionalist Catholic is wanting the forms of worship and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council to be restored to general use in the Latin-rite Church. Lima 13:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Begging the question"? Where's the argument? It is not at all begging the question to say that trads are those who believe "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church" any more than it is "begging the question" to say that trads are those "who want the forms of worship and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council to be restored to general use in the Latin-rite Church" and that "many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teachings have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree."

Those who don't believe a veritable revolution has taken place in the human element of the Church -- whether because of the inherent nature of Vatican II documents or because of bad interpretations of them and/or a lack prudence after the Council -- should listen to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected viafacti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-Revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789."

If you Google "traditionalist Catholics," you won't find much, if anything, about Catholics who don't believe "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church" and that a veritable "revolution" hasn't taken place in the human element of the Church.

Why would you claim, contrary to all evidence, that those who don't fit the definition I've offered above are "generally classified as traditionalist Catholics"? It's been determined on these talk pages that it isn't the use of Rosary, the scapular, etc. that distinguishes trads from plain old conservative Catholics, and you admit that "merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX." So it must be something else that makes a trad a trad. 205.188.117.73 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would concur, it seems like Anon64 is the same person. I don't have much to say Lima, life is too short to deal with some people. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:EQ. 205.188.117.73 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dominick, much patience is again needed in dealing with her (unless some Administrator decides that she should not be allowed to continue as long as before - remember how she was warned more than once). The second paragraph of the article exists/existed to cover her view: it stated clearly enough - until someone recently removed that phrase, which I must now reinsert - that some traditionalist Catholics (she, for example) think that those who disagree with her on the question of teaching do not deserve to be called traditionalist Catholics. However, there are people who do disagree with her and yet consider themselves to be traditionalist Catholics. A NPOV article must not adopt her view to the exclusion of theirs. For balance, it must give both views. This point she refuses to address. Lima 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Case in point below. I have no response. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When you get done playing your ad hominem guessing games, perhaps you will answer the question, which was: "Why would you claim, contrary to all evidence, that those who don't fit the definition I've offered above are 'generally classified as traditionalist Catholics'? It's been determined on these talk pages that it isn't the use of Rosary, the scapular, etc. that distinguishes trads from plain old conservative Catholics, and you admit that 'merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX.' So it must be something else that makes a trad a trad." (again, the definition referred to is that "traditional Catholics are Catholics who believe 'that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church'"). Do you think that traditionalists are happy with the typical RCIA program and position statements from Bishops' councils? Or do you think that traditionalists don't see a difference in how Catholic teaching used to be presented and how it is presented now? Or do you think they do see those differences but don't care or don't think they should be changed? Or are you claiming there are no differences in fact so it is all moot? (if "yes" to that last question, your opinions have no bearing on what traditionalists think, and it is their opinions that are the focus of this entry).

Another question: what is the ambiguity you see (14:52, 12 May 2006 and 15:46, 12 May 2006) in using "traditional" rather than "traditionalist" and how does that play into what you are asserting here, which seems to be that a mere preference for the traditional Mass and a fondness for some old customs make one a "traditionalist" (rather than "traditional," I might add)? So far it seems as if the consensus is against your and Dominick's view, but you keep reverting anyway. 205.188.117.73 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Polyonymous, I do not intend to defend "generally classified". I need only say that at least some do classify as traditionalist Catholics certain people whom you refuse to classify as such. Why should your view be the only one to appear in the article, to the exclusion of theirs? Lima 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions. Would you, please? 205.188.117.73 15:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Polyonymous, I refuse to follow your red herrings. Take it, if you wish, that I was wrong on all those matters. Now say why the article, which at present gives the two interpretations that exist, should not be allowed to give the view of those who differ from you. Lima 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The entry should have nothing to do with my opinion or yours, but with a mutual desire to build an encyclopedia by, with regard to this entry, answering the question of what is, in fact, a "traditionalist Catholic." If, per the above, you are now saying that it may be taken as a premise that you were wrong in

* not believing that traditionalist Catholics are those who believe "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church" and are not those with a mere preference for the traditional Mass and some traditional customs, and

* intimating that Googling "traditionalist Catholic" will give one results supporting the assertion that "traditionalist Catholic" generally or with any notable frequency refers to Catholics who don't believe that a veritable "revolution" has taken place in the human element of the Church,

then I have to ask whose "interpretations" you are concerned about here. Do you have any notable sources in which the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to refer to Catholics who, at the least, don't have problems with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who merely "prefer" the traditional Mass? 205.188.117.73 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Polyonymous, someone said above that he never met an Indult Catholic who didn't consider himself or herself a traditionalist Catholic. There can be no doubt that, among these many people who call themselves traditionalist Catholics (with as much right to do so as you have), Dominick is by no means the only one who has a different idea from yours of what makes a traditionalist Catholic. They hold their idea, you hold yours. The "Voice of the Shouter" cannot make them or their idea disappear into nothingness. On what grounds do you claim that their idea should be ignored in a Wikipedia article on traditionalist Catholics?

I have come in late and am going to bed. When will you finally answer this one question, the only one I have been putting to you? Lima 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Lima, I don't know what you think my opinions are about "indult Catholics" (a phrase I don't use and which I find ridiculous, which you'd know if you'd read what I've written), why you presume I am Catholic, why you presume I don't attend Masses offered by indult, why you think you know what my opinions are when you apparently haven't read what I've written, and why you completely ignore what I have written as to where trads worship, but I am curious to know the reasons for it.

I don't think anyone's ideas should be ignored. Now will you finally answer the questions I've put to you -- the ones referred to at 15:52, 13 November 2006 first? 205.188.117.73 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one of Polyonymous's ideas with which we are concerned here is the one that she has in writing expressed on what makes a traditionalist Catholic, and that she wishes the article to present as the only correct one. Other questions that she tries to raise, such as where people worship (which is irrelevant for defining a traditionalist Catholic and is accordingly not mentioned in the article's definition), are only her red herrings. Would she please keep to the point in dispute, namely the ideas, hers and that of others, about what essentially makes a traditionalist Catholic.

She has made a slight advance by saying: "I don't think anyone's ideas should be ignored." Would she please expand that to: "I don't think anyone's ideas about what makes a traditionalist Catholic should be ignored in a Wikipedia article on traditionalist Catholics. There are people whose idea of what makes a traditionalist Catholic differs from the one she has expressed. On what grounds does she wish their idea to be ignored in the Wikipedia article on traditionalist Catholics? This is the essential question. She has not yet answered it. Lima 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Lima is not answering the questions I've posed to her at 03:32, 13 November 2006, 13:29, 13 November 2006, and 15:24, 13 November 2006. One set of questions at a time, please. This will keep order. 205.188.117.73 09:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion began about someone's insistence on limiting this article to her personal idea of what is a traditionalist Catholic. ("Anonymous 64 ... is persistently attributing to all traditionalist Catholics a belief that 'the presentation of teachings (of the Catholic Church) that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use.' ... Would Anonymous 64 please indicate on what grounds s/he thinks s/he has verified that all traditionalist Catholics reject the Second Vatican Council's presentation of the the Church's teachings. In many cases, the opposite seems to be true.") To avoid responding, the "Voice of the Shouter" keeps trying to distract with other questions. To keep order, she should leave her red herrings aside, and finally answer the question how she thinks she can justify limiting the Wikipedia article (which must be NPOV) to her idea of what a traditionalist Catholic is, excluding the idea of those who disagree with her notion that a belief that "the presentation of teachings (of the Catholic Church) that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use" is a necessary element in being a traditionalist Catholic. Now that she has spoken about keeping order, will she finally attempt to answer that question, the question that is first in order of time and, more important, the question that the discussion is about. Lima 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin rite?

For one, there isn't such a thing as the "Latin rite" anymore than there is such a thing as the "Greek rite." There are/were Latin rites plural. The trads aren't generally clamoring for the restoration of the Sarum rite, Ambrosian rite, Gallican rite or the Mozarabic rite, not to mention the rites belonging to the various religious orders. I think it should be the "Roman rite" in the first graph, not the Latin rite.--FidesetRatio 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As FidesetRatio rightly says, there is no such thing as the Latin liturgical rite. There are several. There is such a thing as the Latin Rite in the sense of the Latin particular Church, which uses these several Latin liturgical rites. I suppose that the traditionalist Catholics with whom FidesetRatio is familiar know only the Roman liturgical rite. However, the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite and, I suppose, any other Latin liturgical rite still in use were also affected by the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council. Certainly the two non-Roman Latin liturgical rites that I know adopted the vernacular language and made other modifications. I presume there are people in those areas too who wish that things would return to how they were before. So, while I readily admit that others' opinions may be better than mine, I do think that the reference to the Latin-Rite Church in the first paragraph of the article can stand. Lima 09:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites were revised along Novus Ordo lines in the 1980s. Those clamoring for the restoration of the Dominican or Carmelite rites are a tiny minority of the traditionalist movement.

How about Latin Church as a compromise?--FidesetRatio 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant

Let's find a way to merge this section with the first section because it's redundant and repeats what's been said further up.

"'Places of worship'

A pre-Vatican II Latin-rite altar with reredos

Some traditionalist Catholics attend celebrations of the pre-1969 rite of Mass which are officially sanctioned by the Church authorities. The Congregation for Divine Worship's circular letter Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 granted an "indult" (from Latin indultum) for bishops to authorize "priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, ... to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition", on certain conditions, including that those who make the request clearly do not question the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the 1970 edition. Pope John Paul II reiterated this in his 1988 letter Ecclesia Dei: "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." Priests who offer these "indult" Masses may be members of priestly societies in good standing with the Holy See, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, or they may be ordinary diocesan priests or members of religious institutes. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, occasionally celebrates Mass in public with the 1962 Missal, and other cardinals have also done so in recent years, though much less frequently.

The website of the traditionalist International Federation Una Voce provides an international list, with addresses and other contact information, of priestly societies and religious institutes in good standing with the Church authorities that are dedicated to preserving the older rite of Mass.

Many other groups and individual priests celebrate the Tridentine Mass in a situation of schism or canonical irregularity. The best known such group is the Society of St. Pius X, which offers Mass according to the 1962 Missal in its own Mass centres, maintaining that Catholic priests do not require any permission to celebrate the Tridentine rite. It rejects the conditions laid down in Quattuor abhinc annos, teaches that "the Indult Mass ... is not for traditional Catholics",[7] and takes the view that "those who are only near Masses 'of Pope Paul VI' or to traditional Masses said under the 'Indult'" are excused from the obligation of attending Sunday Mass.[8]. The Society adopts a similar attitude towards the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter.[9]

Others, rejecting the 1962 Missal, offer Mass according to earlier editions, especially sedevacantist groups who do not recognize Pope John XXIII as Pope. They include the Society of St. Pius V and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. It is debatable whether these groups are Catholic at all (in the sense of being part of the Roman Catholic Church, which they claim to be), as while theoretically they profess their obedience to the Papacy, they do not practically recognize the Pope nor any means of electing a new Pope (see also Great Apostasy and anti-Catholicism).

Those who worship independently of the diocesan bishops justify their position on the grounds that they must do so in order to ensure they are able to administer or receive all of the Sacraments - including, but not limited to, the Eucharist - in the traditional way, and to be able to give or hear sermons on controversial matters (e.g. ecumenism, evangelism, liberalism, sin, Hell, political issues) without fear of reprisal from disapproving bishops." --FidesetRatio 02:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro does NOT accurately define what a traditional Catholic is. Let's work on this once and for all and come up with a solution that is both absolutely accurate and allows for Indult Catholics (if we come to that determination) to be included with their own seperate accurate definition. Here are the issues i have with it currently:

1. Traditional Catholics are defined by thier beliefs, not by their want of the forms of worship and customs to return. The wanting of the return to those things is just one of the many things which follows from their beliefs.

2. Are we to include as traditionalists those who don't think there have been any teachings that contradict tradition, but simply think the old forms of worship and customs should be restored? We need to make that determination, so we can have a consistent approach in this article in that regard.

Here's a possible first paragraph we could use:

The terms "traditionalist Catholic" and "Traditional Catholic" are used to refer to Roman Catholics who believe that many of the changes in the teaching and forms of worship during and since the Second Vatican Council have been contrary, either explicitly or in tone, to the traditional teachings of the Church. Many of them actively seek to have such changes reversed.

Let me know what know what think about it and the above two issues, and submit your own drafts. 2nd Piston Honda 17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My entry: The terms traditionalist Catholic and Traditional Catholic are used to refer to Roman Catholics who believe that it is acceptable to refer to female altar servers as "girl altar boys". -- Cat Whisperer 17:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. more accurate and substantive than the current. 2nd Piston Honda 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this points out a great weakness in wikipedia in general. We need to include possible members in this informal group, rather than exclude them based on the whim of one subgroup. We may or may not agree that sedevacanists are included since they removed themselves from the Church or claim the Church removed itself from them. I think it is a matter of consensus and above board discussion without sniping.

Why would someone attend a indult Mass if they did not feel that he 1962 Missal better expressed themselves in worship? Why would the make them less traditional? I don't think that "contrary to the teaching of the Church" is a good way to express that. I think the action is visible and the internal belief is inherently not visible. I think that all traditionalist Catholics are easily grouped by Mass attendence at a 1962 missal, and the internal belief to the nature of the reforms is not universal among Catholics traditional or not. There are a lot of 1970 missal worshipping Catholics who detest EEMs and altar girls, and think we have been making grave mistakes of overreaching reforms since Vatican II. The definition proposed then includes them into this group when they are not really part of the group. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A traditionalist Catholic is one who believes "that the presentation of teachings, forms of worship, and customs that prevailed before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council should be restored to general use in the Latin Church." Where they decide to worship is a prudential judgment based on their various understandings of supplied jurisdiction, the requirements of Christian obedience, the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass when it comes to venues in which both the Novus Ordo Mass and traditional Mass are offered, etc. Some trads worship at Masses offered by indult, some by Masses offered by the SSPX, some by sedevacantist priests, some by all three, some at whichever chapel/parish is closest to where they live, and some are "home-aloners." Some think the N.O. Mass is valid but vastly inferior; some think it is invalid. Some think Vatican II was not a true Council called for by a true Pope; some think it was a true Council, called by a true Pope, and which resulted in badly written documents that need to be read only in light of Tradition. Trads are distinguished from other Catholics not simply by the places they worship (a fact conceded above by Ms. Lima 13:17, 12 November), but by their goals (the restoration of the traditional liturgical rites and those disciplines that were effective in guarding and transmitting the Faith) and beliefs (which, at the least, means they disagree with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and which must, by definition, entail their believing what Catholics before the Council believed). 205.188.117.73 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dominick, I would say that anyone who detests EEMS and altar girls is probably a traditional Catholic, whether they know it or not. Also, consider that there are many many traditionalists who attend Novus Ordo because they have no Tridentine to attend. It's not about what Mass you attend, it's about your belief that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo have diverged in many ways from true Catholicism.

To be more clear, this article should be entirely about the controversy of V2 and the Novus Ordo that brought about "traditionalist Catholics", and not about some group who mysteriously and arbitrarily wants the old "forms of worship and customs" back, and this should be reflected in the Intro. 2nd Piston Honda 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By specific citation, from a polynominous editor, that if a Catholic would ever have the temerity to attend Mass at a 1970 missal Mass, that would disqualify them from the group of traditionalists. I would not use the term true Catholicism, I would think the concept you are esposing is 'that the forms of worship are less effective in preserving and promoting the teachings of the Church'. I think we are communicating the idea effectivly,

I would love to hear what Lima thinks. Going back, you may see me advocate that absolute 1962 Mass attendance is not a requirement for traditionalism. I think I may even say that we agree that a 1970 missal Mass, when said properly, do transmit the Faith properly in the course of worship. When you add a lot of nonsense, they become less effective. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being in opposition to altar girls does not make one a Traditionalist -- for example, up until just this year, the bishop of the U.S. Arlington, Virginia Diocese had permitted only males to be altar servers while simultaneously not granting even a single "Indult." But I digress. 2nd-Piston has a point here, namely that Traditionalist Catholics should not be construed to be merely a bunch of old fogies who, from a quaint (but misguided) nostalgia, feel "attached" to the old medieval Mass. As anyone who has recently been to a Tridentine Mass can testify, such Masses are populated by a significant contingent of faithful who were born post-Vatican-II. LotR 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Lima referred to me as "Polyonymous" above, I assume you are referring to me here when you speak of a "polynominous editor". Perhaps you can point out a "specific citation," or even a non-specific one, in which I have said that "that if a Catholic would ever have the temerity to attend Mass at a 1970 missal Mass, that would disqualify them from the group of traditionalists." And what does "When you add a lot of nonsense, they become less effective" mean? 205.188.117.73 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

since I don't know who you are, Mrs, ip-addresss, I can't possibly make a citation. It is best to ignore the openly hostile, lest I become infected with that contagion. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can most certainly cite the post which has led you to believe that I believe "that if a Catholic would ever have the temerity to attend Mass at a 1970 missal Mass, that would disqualify them from the group of traditionalists." Would you, please? And please remember WP:EQ. 205.188.117.73 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A point should be included that a lot of younger Catholics are attracted to the old rites and to Traditionalist Catholicism, and there are plenty of news articles out there to that effect.

Secondly, I vote that Indult Catholics SHOULD be considered traditionalists because they generally, at least from my experience, would like to see Vatican II repealed. I belong to a Byzantine Catholic parish with a lot of trads, and that's their consensus. I don't presume to speak for all traditionalists, but this has been my experience. In my opinion, we should be discussing about what they believe without involving ourselves directly and personally in the argument, and idea I borrowed from the OrthodoxWiki's rendition of the NPOV rule.

I have seen articles written by FSSP priests that are every bit as critical of the liturgical changes since Vatican II as either a SSPXer or a sedevacantist. I came into the Catholic Church through the Indult community, and their sentiments were scarcely any different from the SSPXers.

Folks, before we get an edit war going, let's cool down, remember our Christian charity and discuss the issues at hand in a dispassionate manner--FidesetRatio 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what I've written, there is no single practice (Rosary, use of scapulars, etc.) that makes a trad a trad (see "Traditionalist Practices - The Rosary, revision section" above). Some who attend Masses offered by indult are trads, some who attend Masses offered by the SSPX are trads, some who attend Masses offered by sedevacantist priests are trads, some who are home-aloners are trads, etc. Some who attend Masses at those places (or not, in that last instance) aren't trads (Ms. Lima concedes this point 13:17, 12 November 2006). What makes a trad a trad is not the prudential judgment that leads to his choice of Mass sites, but his goals (the restoration of the traditional liturgical rites and those disciplines that were effective in guarding and transmitting the Faith) and beliefs (which, at the least, means he disagrees with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and that he, by definition, believes what Catholics before the Council believed). 205.188.117.73 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Is there anything about my version of the Intro that you would change? 2nd Piston Honda 10:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Honda really agree with Poly that, to be a traditionalist Catholic, one must "disagree with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents"? What does the vague expression "typical interpretations" mean? Does it mean anything precise at all? An encyclopedia article should be more concrete, saying something like, for instance, "the Holy See's interpretation". And if "believing what Catholics before the Council believed" makes one a traditionalist Catholic, thank God we are, in that sense, almost all traditionalist Catholics. Honda's notion of what is a traditionalist Catholic is, I am certain, not as vague and meaningless as that; and what he has said should not be interpreted as support for such a definition. As for attendance at a particular form of Mass, I do not remember anybody putting that forward as an essential element of being a traditionalist Catholic - except of course the imaginary straw man that Poly keeps talking about. Lima 10:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To find my definition, one need look no further than my version of the intro. I generally stand behind that, although the first "many" could be changed to "some". How can you think that one can be considered a traditional Catholic without being part of the counter-revolution of V2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo? By "typical interpretations" i think Poly is saying "the interpretation that Church officials have obviously given it as shown by their actions". I agree that we need to be clear and not vague, though. 2nd Piston Honda 11:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The "vague expression" regarding "typical interpretations" is explained more fully in the sections "Traditionalist beliefs" and "Allegations of discontinuity and rupture". One can't cram everything into the intro, which I would write like this: "A traditionalist Catholic is a Catholic who believes that there should be a restoration in the Latin Church of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council." A sub-section would address the issues of where such Catholics worship. A sub-section below that would be the place for controversies and for criticisms of Catholic traditionalism (as opposed to having such debate all throughout the article as it is now, which makes for bad copy and a very difficult to read entry). Let trads state their goals, outline their beliefs, describe their places of worship, etc., without other Catholics adding tenuous "buts" and "howevers" to every paragraph, and let everyone keep the fighting confined to one section. 205.188.117.73 11:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Honda, for your confirmation of my understanding of what you meant. Your substitution of "typical interpretations" with something that has meaning is an immense improvement.

As for your own proposed definition above, it claims that traditionalist Catholics believe that the Church's teaching has been changed during and since the Second Vatican Council. Not all those who react negatively to the non-doctrinal changes, the most striking of which, for the general public, was the revision of the rite of Mass, agree with that. Some of them think these changes should definitely not have been done, and wish a return, not just for themselves but for the whole Church, to what was before - they are thus part of what you call "the counter-revolution of V2 and the institution of the Novus Ordo" - but they by no claim that these changes are contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church. To claim that these changes are contrary to the Church's traditional teaching is equivalent to saying that the Church - I mean the concrete visible Church that includes the Pope himself, not some semi-dissident "remnant" - no longer follows Catholic teaching, and has become a different religion. Very many of those whom almost anyone would classify as traditionalist Catholics would repudiate with horror a definition that attributes such an attitude to themselves.

By implicitly giving a negative answer to your preliminary question 2, it seems you are, like Poly, excluding the other POV. In consideration of this, you may wish to modify your proposal.

If you could solve this problem, I would support your proposal. The reference to "customs" ("disciplinary and devotional practices" might have been better) in the previous version referred to matters such as abstaining from meat on Friday, kissing a bishop's ring etc.; I agree with you that these things are, in the context of the article, secondary to the "changes in forms of worship".

I see that Poly has responded here, but not above: she still cannot get herself to try to explain how she thinks she can justify turning a Wikipedia article into a presentation of her POV alone. Lima 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will have to ask my question once again: You are asserting that the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to describe those who don't have, at the least, issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents. You've been asked to explain why. Who describes them as such? Do you have any notable, authoritative source for such a statement, especially when you've agreed above that it isn't the use of Rosary, the scapular, etc. that distinguishes trads from plain old conservative Catholics, and when you admit that "merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX." 205.188.117.73 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No traditionalist Catholic believes that the Church has changed Her teachings because no traditionalist Catholic thinks it is even possible; the Church is conceived by them as being spotless and absolutely incapable of teaching error. So there goes that theory. The presentation of teachings is another matter, and it is here that trads agree with the items mentioned in the "Allegations of discontinuity and rupture" section. Some attribute the changes in the presentation of Catholic teaching to the Council itself (which they may see as either not a true Council at all, as in the case of sedevacantists, or merely pastoral, teaching nothing that Catholics must accept de fide), and some attribute it to false interpretations of its documents. All would say that post-conciliar weak leadership and the rise of a false view of collegiality had a role.

As to your last paragraph, you are asserting that the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to describe those who don't have, at the least, issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents. You've been asked to explain why. Who describes them as such? Do you have any notable, authoritative source for such a statement, especially when you've agreed above that it isn't the use of Rosary, the scapular, etc. that distinguishes trads from plain old conservative Catholics, and when you admit that "merely attending a Mass at a parish pastored by an FSSP priest doesn't make one a traditionalist Catholic, and neither does attending a Mass offered by the SSPX." 205.188.117.73 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK lets look at the questions Lima posed. It is essential that we avoid "typical interpretations" as that does mean different things to different people. The terms "obviosly given" and "their actions" are also vague, and if you spend time watching the Vatican you know they are big on talk and speculation and slow on actions. I think traditionalism should be described in the concrete terms of the visible actions, and visible reactions. Lets take one who may not have a suitable 1962 Mass available. We can't distinguish them in the pew, but we can describe the opinions thay may hold openly and nearly universally.

We also need to remember this is a loose definition, not an official group that is spelled out by a charter. We could identify Lefebvreists, Neo-Jasenists, Siri-vacantists and other groups very easily, but the tradiionalist group is very diverse and multifacted, unlike the PoV of some editors. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't essential to avoid the use of the phrase "typical interpretations" when what is meant by that is explained in the entry. I have no idea what you are referring to when you speak of the "PoV of some editors," but if you are referring to me, I've said numerous times on this page that trads attend Masses in all sorts of chapels and parishes, that some attend Mass not at all, that some are sedevacantist, etc. 205.188.117.73 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When you can debate without being hostile, perhaps we will discuss this topic. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What hostility? 205.188.117.73 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Polyonimous about his assessment of what a traditional Catholic is, and i think his version is a step forward. Lima, i think our disagreement is over the use of "teachings". Just to clarify, i didn't mean to say that the Church had erred and taught things to be held de fide that were in contradiction to tradition, but that the presentation of the teachings was such that it was likely to be interpreted as a change in the Church's stance, and that even if there were explicit contradictions with tradition, they weren't done in a way which would otherwise be considered infallible. 2nd Piston Honda 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"A traditionalist Catholic is a Catholic who believes that there should be a restoration in the Latin Church of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council" (Poly's latest proposal, which I take to be the one that Honda "wholeheartedly" agrees with) is certainly immensely better than Honda's own proposal. It is also somewhat better than what Poly was trying to insert in the article. I am afraid that, if I say I accept it, Poly will, as she has done in the past, immediately withdraw her proposal and replace it with something quite unacceptable. However, I am prepared to take that risk. In my poor opinion, her latest proposal is broad enough to cover even those whom she seemed to be excluding in the past. It covers people like her, who believe there has been wholesale discontinuity and rupture, and people like - in my perhaps wrong interpretation of him - Dominick, who believe there has been reform and continuity and who prefer the older presentation of what in fact remains exactly the same as before, even if some portions of it are now presented differently. Dominick may well wish to comment immediately on her proposal; but I think it would be best for him to wait a good while, not only to give her proposal serious thought, but above all to see if she will now react by changing her proposal and insisting on talk of "typical interpretations" etc.

And what do others think? Lima 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you think I am, who you think I excluded "in the past," what you think a person "like [me]" is like, and why you are wanting, "above all," to see if I will now "react by changing [my] proposal," but I find this language bothersome.

I'm only for this version as long as there's also explanation in the Intro of why traditionalists want the return to those things, and their general views of Vatican II and the changes since then. 2nd Piston Honda 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this definition is an improvement over the current version. LotR 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I herby propose (eschewing all credit for the idea): "A traditionalist Catholic is a Catholic who believes that there should be a restoration in the Western Roman Catholic Church of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council" I replaced Latin for the term Western Roman Catholic. Even if it is withdrawn, then we can continue the discussion. I think this actually covers what 2nd Piston was thinking. We have been doing this for what, a year? Dominick ^(TALK) 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of "Western Roman Catholic Church"; it makes it sound as if the entry pertains to members of some organization that is other than the Roman Catholic Church, or Latin Church, if you prefer. 205.188.117.73 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "the Latin Rites of the Roman Catholic Church"? LotR 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's much better than "Western Roman Catholic Church," IMO -- though it might be best of all to just say "Latin Church." 205.188.117.73 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's just accept Poly's text, which has the advantage of brevity and, because of the wikilink with Latin Church, clarity. I trust Dominick and LotR will agree. Lima 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my text should've read "Latin Rite" singular, as Lima had correctly pointed out way above (I corrected my text). I agree with Lima's proposal to simply say "Latin Rite" (conciseness is good), but please note, Lima, that this was not the original proposed wording (which was "Latin Church," which I think Dominick was objecting to). LotR 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised. Both at Dominick's ready acceptance of Poly's proposal (with a very minor amendment), and at Honda's withdrawal of his vote in favour of her proposal (with which he had declared that he "wholeheartedly agreed") precisely on account of my support for her proposal! Will she too now oppose her own proposal, for the same reason? What a controversial person I am! Lima 15:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Did he say somewhere that he expressed a concern of his "precisely on account of [your] support for [my] proposal"? 205.188.117.73 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC) In the edit summary accompanying the withdrawal of his vote in favour. Lima 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, now -- a feat to be sure, but no gloating here, please. LotR 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining my laughter. Lima 15:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it doesn't exclude anyone and doesn't point a finger at the current rite. IMHO, for Latin rite, the correct term is western. Is there a citation for Latin Rite? Lima, it isn't too far off on what we agreed on before, what, six months ago? Frankly we have enough eyes on this article to do it right, assuming that nonsense does not start with the ip-address person. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop with this animosity? I remind you of WP:EQ. 205.188.117.73 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reservations about the term "Western" since this can be confused with "Western Christianity"; it likewise may have the connotation of schism. LotR 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for feeling a bit confused about some of the latest comments, and I wonder if it is worth while trying to puzzle it out, considering that those comments might change when I point out that my wikilink Latin Church was a piping to Latin Rite ([[Latin Rite|Latin Church]]). Lima 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it worthwhile to disagree with Poly over such a minor matter. Lima 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops -- looks like the link to Latin Rite caused a mental hiccup -- I thought you wrote Latin Rite. Anyhow, this way (i.e., Latin Church) is fine with me. LotR 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is fine by me, too. 205.188.117.73 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My posting of the following has been delayed because of an edit conflict with Dominick's latest comment. I meant my comment and my change of the article to be contemporaneous.

I believe parliamentary practice is that amendments, unless they negate the main proposal, are discussed later. To make sure we are all talking about the same thing, I make bold to put Poly's text in the article now. Lima 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

--FidesetRatio 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)== Possible amendment of new Intro == On the page Latin liturgical rites and in other places, wikipedia uses the Latin Rite or Western Catholic Church as a unified term. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I have reservations with "Western Catholic Church." I've not encountered this terminology and it sounds schismatic to me. We should leave it as is, as the persuasive Lima suggests. LotR 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to the orders of the day. I suggest we add Western Church, it dont see it as schismatic, as it is used by the Church. Can we provide a verifiable reference here? Dominick ^(TALK) 18:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible variant of Dominick's proposal: Change [[Latin Rite|Latin Church]] to [[Latin Rite|Latin or Western Church]].

Reason: So as not to add a fourth instance of the word "Catholic" to a short text that already has it three times.

Observation: I personally prefer to leave Poly's text exactly as it is. I have no objection to this variant of Dominick's proposal, but I think it unnecessary and perhaps just a trifle confusing. Lima 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine we have bigger fish to fry. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The canonical name of the Western Church is the Latin Church, per the 1983 Code of Canon law. Why not stick to the proper name used by the Vatican.--FidesetRatio 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The name that has been agreed on is in fact "the Latin Church". Lima 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is closed as far as I am concerned. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like i said, it needs explanation as to why traditionalist Catholics want such a restoration. There needs to be a summary of the why there is such a controversy over Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. 2nd Piston Honda 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Two separate issues. The 1970 edition of the Roman Mass, and the Vatican II conference. In many circles, one doesn't follow the other. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Only when Honda formulates a concrete proposal (hopefully, not a POV one), can we discuss the idea. Lima 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

hello bigger fish. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditionalist orders and priestly vocations

I thought it might be interesting to mention that the traditionalist orders have been bucking the trend for declining priestly vocations. The FSSP and SSPX both have more applications for their seminaries than they have room for.www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/061027 --FidesetRatio 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm...though their seminaries are rather small to begin with...

also, it seems the general decline in seminarians has been easing everywhere.--Samuel J. Howard 13:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To put things into perspective: even leaving aside long-established institutes like the Jesuits and Franciscans spread throughout the world - the "traditionalist orders" could be meaningfully compared only with individual provinces of these - there are relatively recent non-"traditionalist" institutes that ordain more than fifty new priests in a year. See Cardinal Rodé ordains 55 new Legionary priests. Lima 16:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

one thing I don't understand regarding traditionalist catholics is how traditionalist catholics can refer to themselves as catholics at all, I mean no offense but it seems unreasonable to refer to to oneself as a catholic (as apposed to new orthodox for example) if one refuses to accept the teachings of the holy mother church. I do not refer here to those catholics who accept the second Vatican council but prefer the old rites, instead I refer to those who refuse to accept the second Vatican council at all based upon the theory that the church has erred and gone onto a morally wrong path. As a catholic doesn't one have to accept the infallibility of the church and pope regarding spiritual matters?. It is not a denigration on the people who believe so, only a question of semantics. I realize this seems to smack of POV but I mean it legitimately as a question and not to insult anybody . I have little doubt that traditionalist catholics are true and devout Christians but wonder if the term catholic is a technical misnomer, at least sometimes. Please do not take offense as I ask the question as a Catholic and believe that its a reasonable point for the article as the perspective of Roman Catholics Colin 8 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Low Mass" Picture

though this picture on the page says in the caption that it is a low mass there are six candles lighted on the altar.

That would seem to suggest a Missa Cantata.

What say ye editors?--Samuel J. Howard 14:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Missa Cantata quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia as saying a Missa cantata is in fact a Low Mass, the defining characteristic of a High Mass being the service of Deacon and Subdeacon, not whether or not the Mass is sung. Makes sense to me. --Midnite Critic 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Midnite Critic has made what I think is a very good observation.

Apart perhaps from the candles, nothing in the picture tells whether there is a choir (or even any person whatever) behind the priest and the two servers, the only people to whom was assigned any function whatever at a non-sung Low Mass.

As well as the article that Missa Cantata refers to (written by the eminent liturgist Adrian Fortescue), the Catholic Encyclopedia has another article, Altar Candles, by a less famous author. This article states that at a Missa Cantata "at least four" candles are required. This fits in with Midnite Critic's observation: six candles is "at least four".

The same article states that at what it calls a "strictly low Mass" a priest who is not a bishop may use only two candles. It says that at a low Mass celebrated by a bishop four candles were usually lit, although this was against the rules, which prescribed that, apart from more solemn feasts, the number should be only two. It adds that "in a parochial or community Mass on more solemn feasts or the Mass which is said instead of a solemn or high Mass on the occasion of a great solemnity ... when celebrated by a priest more than two candles, and when celebrated by a bishop more than four candles may be used." If the Mass illustrated is not a Missa Cantata, it seems we must conclude that what is illustrated is a Low Mass celebrated by a bishop for a community on a more solemn feast!

The article shows what a lot of complex legislation outside of what the Roman Missal prescribed applied to the Tridentine Mass. The Missal itself only said that on the altar there should be "a cross in the middle flanked by at least two candlesticks with lighted candles" (Rubricae generales Missalis, XX - De Praeparatione Altaris, et Ornamentorum eius). However, the same section of the Missal laid down that in a window or on a small table to the Epistle side of the altar there should be placed, together with the cruets of wine and water, a bowl and finger-towel, and a small bell, a candle to be lit at the elevation of the Sacrament. Though kept even in the 1920 typical edition of the Roman Missal, this last rule seems to have been completely ignored even by the time when the Catholic Encyclopedia article was written. Lima 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the present rule, clearly stated in the Missal itself (GIRM 117), is: "On or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the Diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used." Lima 09:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the "Low Mass" reference at all in the caption?--Samuel J. Howard 08:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lima, thanks for the additional clarification. It is indeed helpful. Samuel, I wondered the same thing myself until I scrolled further down the page. Below this image, farther on down, there is another image of a Mass which is clearly a High Mass, given the additional ministers present, and it is identified as such. --Midnite Critic 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of discontinuity and rupture" Clarification Please

Francis again. I just wanted to ask if anyone can think of a less ambiguous and confusing title for the "Allegations of the Discontinuity and Rupture" headline. I think maybe we could say "Traditionalist Catholic allegations of discontinuity in the Catholic Church." Please tell me what you think. Merry Christmas and Happy Solemnity of Mary.--Francis419jn655 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously everyone, with the new additions to the Allegations section, I do not understand any of it. Numerous times the paragraphs start with "they." Who is "they"? Can anyone clarify? Whose alleging against who? If it's the Roman Catholics against the Traditionalist Catholics, then I think the section should be called Criticisms.--Francis419jn655 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little cleaning up, but am still not totally happy with the horizontal lines. The section definitely does need a new title. The current one makes it sound like a section for allegations of discontinuity and rupture within the Traditional Catholic community. 2nd Piston Honda 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my hurried misunderstanding. I have no objection to Honda's preference for the previous text. Lima 11:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Freestanding Altar Image

Nice image, Lima. However, the controversy about the celebrant standing "versus populum" as opposed to "ad orientum" is not discussed in the article, although the caption on the new image alludes to it. Anybody want to tackle that? --Midnite Critic 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although I would not cast the altar orientation as a controversy. I think the image only shows that not all altars were arranged with the people facing the same direction as the priest. Even the Latin terminology versus populum indicates that the priest was facing "against the people" -- implicit is the fact that the priest (and the people) would've understood that they were still "facing God." The controversy lies not in the fact that freestanding altars existed prior to Vatican II, but that the concept of the Mass being a sublime prayer directed toward God has been diluted post-Vatican II. LotR 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following was written before I read the comment by LotR, and was delayed because of an edit conflict with his observation, and then by a notice that the database was locked for maintenance. I am not commenting on what LotR has written.

Thanks for these kind words about the image. It is not at all as good as I remember it when it was a new slide some forty years ago. I have done my best to correct the deterioration of the colouring, but I can do nothing to restore the clarity it once had. As for the versus populum matter, I was thinking much less of this than of putting something in to balance the image of the, to my taste, frightfully gaudy altar and reredos that has long been in the article. (I recognize that the taste of others may be directly contrary to mine.)

I have now changed the caption to avoid referring to a matter not raised in the article. Surely Midnite Critic or someone else can think of a caption much better than the vague one that I have put in. Lima 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

External link

An anonymous IP user continues to remove the following link, alluding to, but not citing, WP guidelines.

Traditional Roman Catholic Network

I think this should be included for the following reasons. 1)It is representative of "sedes" and other independent traditionalist RC's without being tied to a specific organization, such as CMRI or SSPV; 2)It is a longstanding, stable website; 3)As a webite, it is relatively well-done and contains a great deal of relevant information.

I have not been able to locate the Wikipedia guidelines relating to external links. Is anyone aware of a guideline which would indicate that this link should be excluded from this article? Or, alternatively, given the mandate to ignore all rules when necessary, do others have an opinion on linking to this site? --Midnite Critic 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The link has in its favour the fact that it has been in the article for I have not checked how much time and so is part of the status quo. I think therefore that the onus lies on the user at 76... to give some specific reason, any specific reason, for deleting it. Saying that "they" (whoever they are) "don't allow links like that" is not giving a reason. Though I am not enthusiastic about the link, I am therefore restoring it, while we await an explanation. Lima 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Midnite Critic 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, the guidelines are at WP:EL. -- Cat Whisperer 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cat. I see nothing here that would indicate this link should not be included. After reading the guidelines, I also considered the DMOZ option, but it does not seem to have a "Traditionalist Catholic" category per se (of course, like with the guidelines, I could have missed it). --Midnite Critic 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for its removal is that it is a monograph site, run by a single individual with no accountability, no oversight, no authority, and no notability. 75.51.216.176 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it is run by several, not one, priest, although one priest in particular is primarily associated with it. In any event, I see nothing in the external link guidelines which requires sites to meet any of the criteria you cite. I am, once again, going to revert you, but if you can come up with a similar site, not associated with a particular traditionalist group, I am open to alternatives. Please do not revert this again unless you can propose an alternative site which is similar to this one and does not simply represent a specific traditionalist group. --Midnite Critic 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken about Traditio being run by several priests (or by any priest at all), and I'm not sure either of could prove our case either way. That's the problem. As to alternative sites, Fish Eaters is the obvious choice as it is about the traditional beliefs and practices all traditionalists share. It's comprehensive, "non-partisan" with regard to debate between sedevacantists and non-sedecantists, has a forum with over a thousand members and which gets more traffic than Angelqueen, and is linked to by major sites all over the Catholic spectrum -- both "mainstream" (including the Catholic Encyclopedia, The U.K.'s Latin Mass Society, Latin Mass Magazine, universities, etc.) and those run by people who worship outside ordinary diocesan structures). 75.46.80.122 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording used by User:75.46.80.122 sounds very like that of the owner of the site she recommends. Lima 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll tell my wife that "Lima" thinks I sound girly. 75.46.80.122 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I'm open to Fisheaters a site which, frankly, had slipped my mind. What do you think, Lima? --Midnite Critic 14:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In view of the complex relationship that has existed between Wikipedia and the owner of this site (whose ideas and the language in which she expresses them in her polyonymous interventions are by now easy to recognize), I prefer to leave consideration of the question to those who have the rank of Administrator. And though I did intervene above to demand that the link that has been in the article should not be removed without giving some explanation, I have no strong feelings for or against that site also. Sorry for not having reached a definite opinion on either of these questions. Lima 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked tradito.com and got nothing but a load of spam, I guess you mean traditio.com? As to fisheaters, isn't it funny how anonymous editors are in the vanguard of pressing for links to that site? You can see my reasons for not linking that at User:JzG/Fisheaters. The site owner has spent many hours arguing for inclusion of links to her site but very few hours (none I can see in recent times, and certainly none claimed in the last lengthy debate) adding content rather than links. An editing pattern which almost without exception leads to blocking and blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, that changes my opinion. I was unaware of that history. Guess I'm back to supporting Traditional Roman Catholic Network then. --Midnite Critic 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Guy hasn't gone through the history for this entry, where evidence can be seen that the owner ("Used2BeAnonymous" at Wikipedia) of the site in question spent months adding content. You can see the site owner's version of the story Guy links to above by going to the Fish Eaters domain and then to the page wikipedia2.html The site owner was only blocked once for the same "edit-warring" Dominick engaged in and got away with. She then deleted her account. 75.46.80.122 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no desire to get involved with the disagreement between Guy and User:75.46.80.12 over this issue, although I also have to say that in general I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to registered users over anonymous users. Ideally, some additional input would be good as well. Are we four the only folks who are interested in this article? Or maybe only in this question? Whatever. Here are a couple of additional sites for consideration.

Traditional Catholic Apologetics

and

Traditional Catholic

Of these, my choice would be for Traditional Catholic Apologetics. --Midnite Critic 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're smart for not wanting to get involved in that dispute; it is ridiculous. I hate how Wikipedia too often comes down to personalities, personal spats, and "page-owning" by a handful of people (one reason why I and a good number of traditional Catholics I know don't bother to register or edit at all). Instead of worrying about Guy or me or Used2BeAnonymous or whomever, and who's registered and not registered, why not stick to the ideas proposed, look at the sites in question, and judge them on their own merits? Which site is most comprehensive, is the least "partisan," serves as the best general introduction to traditionalist Catholic beliefs and practices, has the most traffic, is linked to from high quality sites of different types, is frequented by traditionalists of all varieties, etc.? Dismissing the Fish Eaters site because of some spat that happened two years ago, especially given the facts of the matter per the Fish Eaters URL above, is just wrong. 75.46.80.122 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This person is trying to plug his fisheater site. They've been trying to do it for years. Traditio.com is one of the most well-known traditional Catholic sites and has been around basically since the beginning of the internet. I, as a traditional Catholic, would never want to associate myself with a site called "fisheaters". I've never heard that term at all and find it weird and disrespectful. 2nd Piston Honda 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every person reviewing this saga came to the conclusion I did. The original objection was that she was using wikipedia to drive traffic to the site. It was shown that after fisheaters was removed from Wikipedia the reported traffic there plunged. The point is moot since fisheaters is blacklisted mainly because she decided not to work with people and that her personal views of wikipedia justified picking fights with a lot of editors. The comment by 2nd Piston rings true to me, there are a lot of weird things about the whole fisheaters saga, among them how I became the lightning rod for her wrath.

In any case, there are a lot of sites not edited by one person that made the case for traditionalism. There are many others that I would never choose as sources. Traditio has been a decent site. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny this should come up. I'm a fan of Fisheaters, and asked that it be unblacklisted. Eagle101 said he would whitelist a single deep link for the Traditionalist Catholic article if the editors agreed and stuff; see here. Dominick and JzG, seriously, would you deny a valid link because of bickering between you guys and someone? I'd be willing to rationally discuss the case for why it should be linked if you're open to having a fresh discussion that puts the saga aside. You don't have to like people allow a link to their site if it is a good link, and I think FishEaters is a good link, and I would be willing to defend it. I think it deserves a single link at this article. So, are you guys willing to hear an argument for it? Seriously. I think it's a worthy link. BTW, Traditio, which I also frequent, is edited by one person - Fr. Christopher Morrison. I don't see how the number of people editing a site is relevant as long as the material is well done and pertains to an article. Krnlhkr 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Seriously? I dont see the point in white listing her. Fisheaters is just not that special, and is not a tracable source. It is definatly blog quality and is not a valid link. So on this issue the horse is dead, quit beating it. In addition, there really isn't any reason for me to change my position.This Fisheaters editor has shown her contempt for wikipedia as a whole, by maintaining and touting attack pages for wikipedia and against me in particular. She shows up here with implausable sockpuppets, and in various IP disguises. While contempt for wikipedia isn't a disqualification, why should we expend the effort. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why it's curiouser and curiouser? But I disagree that it's blog quality. The articles are originally written, quotes provided, and referenced with footnotes - it's not a diatribe of personal opinion. Rather, it's a collection of articles on Traditional(ist) Catholic beliefs, customs, and practices. Did you mean traceable? By that do you mean citing references? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're looking for, so I don't know how to respond. As far as contempt goes, I read both the FE statement and JzG's statement, and my personal opinion is that everyone got ticked off out of control over nothing. It seems to me that she linked relevant pages on her site to specific articles in good conscience, not as a spammer. This was seen as link spamming by Wiki, and then a huge argument ensued and spun out of control. There's kind of been contempt on both sides e.g., right above FE is referred to as "blog quality". C'mon - if you spent time writing all those articles, researching, etc., and someone said it was "blog quality" you'd be ticked off, too. Sockpuppets and IP disguises I don't know about, nor do I really care because I care about the content of the site making a good resource for Wikipedia readers. The reason you should expend the effort, in my opinion, is that it's not a huge effort to just whitelist a single link for a single page. FE is really unique in its presentation of Traditional(ist) Catholicism and is faithful to the Magisterium. If you can find something comparable to FE, I'd shut up, but I don't think you will. Traditio, for example, is fine, but they refer to NewVatican, NewPope, etc. That's one view and FE presents a different view. I think it's important to show the different facets of Trad Caths for the people who are looking into it. I don't want to fill the talk page with this discussion, but I would like to make a case for it. So, pick the venue - my talk page (don't have one yet), e-mail, etc., and I'd be happy to discuss it with you and JzG and whomever else will take a minute and listen. Krnlhkr 14:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I see what you mean by "IP Disguises" now I think. Those are dynamic IP addrs assigned by SBC. Do a reverse DNS lookup on them. It's not a disguise - just how the ISP assigns IPs. Still not sure about "sockpuppets". Krnlhkr 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I knw as an ARBCOM decision, this matter is closed. I have no desire to continue. I don't know you are not Madame Fisheater. I dont care. Goodbye. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I could certainly prove to you or anyone else I am not "Madame Fisheater", but that's irrelevant (yet I will gladly do so if someone wants me to). What's relevant here is that this is a good and valid link. I don't understand all this paranoia about "sockpuppets," "IP Disguises," (which look like dynamic IP addresses to me) and thinking I'm (sic) "Madame Fisheater." If this is an encyclopedia, shouldn't you be viewing the material and external links solely on the merits rather than personal likes / dislikes or feuds? If it is whitelisted for a single link in a single article I don't see the problem. Krnlhkr 06:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is exploitation of wikipedia, she is perfectly willing to use wikipedia to sell her website to the public. She isnt a authority on the Church, she isn't a member of the Church heirarchy, and her information is third party by her own admission. Look over the former discussion. We cut out all third party links a long time ago. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I would be happy to discuss this off the talk page, but I can do it here. The only external link that is run by members of the hierarchy, though "irregular", is the SSPX. A priest is not a member of the hierarchy in Catholicism, nor is a religious, and Fr. Morrison of Traditio is an Independent (he is not under a bishop) or episcopus vagus (wandering priest). The geocities link doesn't even give a clue of who the author is or his /her standing, and any information will be third party because it is of a theological nature - you can't talk about the Tridentine Mass without referring to third party sources. Traditio is almost all third party information quoting from various texts, etc. The Una Voce link is even broken (I'll fix that now). Personally, I don't see any problems with any of those links, but they fail the same criteria you are applying to fisheaters. I'm a third party, and I want the link not to promote a specific website but because it has information that I think is well-written and informative for people who want to know what it's like to be a traditional (traditionalist) Catholic. I'll be devil's advocate though. Say she wanted to just promote her site (and I don't know that to be the case); if the information is useful to wiki readers, who cares what the intention is? I understand all the history and the arguing and stuff. I see both sides of the issue. All I'm saying is that I think a single link on this article provides a valuable resource to people who want to find out what traditional Catholicism is like and that should really be the only consideration, you know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krnlhkr (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Krnlhkr 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is closed, and like madame Fisheater you obfuscate the issue. You argue the same way, answering questions that are not posed. The site is black listed. I can't like the blacklist, and I object to a whitelist. I am done. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I think "Madame Fisheater" argues well, so I will take that as a compliment :-) I am not answering questions that are not asked, I am making statements of fact. You suggested I look at the previous discussion, I did, and I pointed out the fact that many of the 3rd party links allowed on the page have the same issues as you claim Fisheaters does namely: they aren't authorities on the Church, they aren't members of the Church heirarchy, and their information is third party. Therefore I can only conclude you won't allow a link solely because of a personal disagreement. I think that's sad considering wikipedia readers won't have notice of a good source of information on traditional(ist) Catholicism from a site that is faithful to Rome. In any event, I will be happy to contribute to this article and others on Catholicism. Perhaps after time, after a show of good faith on my part by contributing, you will believe me to be serious in my arguments that this is a good link and reconsider your position and the reasons for it. Krnlhkr 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 priests say X, ... or if even the Pope himself teaches X; if X is not truly consistent with Scripture and Tradition [as you yourself on your own authority interpret them - no, rather as I interpret them for you], then X is not an infallible Catholic teaching. It is as simple as that. ... In order to be a good Catholic, you simply must come to learn [by reading what I give you and interpret for you on this site, and certainly not by reading what the Pope and the Catholic episcopate as a whole teach] what the Church has always taught. And in order to fully benefit (in the subjective order) from the Church's liturgy, you must to do all you can to worship the way the Church has always worshiped [i.e. from the Middle Ages to about 1965, and only in the Roman Rite, and you must at all costs avoid worshiping in the way that the Pope worships and as his immediate predecessors have worshiped]. ... let me give you a quick rundown of the basic errors you will see taught even by some of our most powerful hierarchs" (quotation from the site under discussion [with comments]).

Though I have thought that a link to the site in question would be useful as an example of a separatist kind of traditionalism that expresses itself rather rabidly, the nonsense claim that it is "a site that is faithful to Rome" (!) simply turns me against it. 77.49.15.242 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is unfortunate that you adulterated what the site says with childish venom. First, this is an article about traditionalist Catholicism which holds worship has been the same since before the Middle Ages so obviously you are not a traditionalist Catholic and have a biased point of view. Second, it is Catholic teaching that the Pope cannot teach infallibly unless he is teaching ex cathedra or with the ordinary Magisterium. You also ignore this statement: "I encourage guests to read Catechisms, papal documents, and other works to assure themselves of the site's accuracy, and to notify me of any errors they might find," and this one as well: "I believe each and every point of dogma in the Nicene Creed in the same manner the Church has always understood them. I believe each and every solemnly defined dogma ever offered by any Pope or Council, and fully agree with each statement given in Sacrorum Antistitum. I believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. I believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition. I believe that Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that we must pray for him and his Bishops every day." Further, you might want to brush up on what an infallible teaching is: But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V The Church has always allowed theological debate, and it continues to do so. Krnlhkr 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Worship has been the same since before the Middle Ages, but not since 1970. Someone who is not a traditionalist Catholic has a biased point of view. The way I believe each and every point of dogma is the manner in which the Church has always understood them, unlike the way those hierarchs in the Vatican believe them. I believe Vatican II was a pastoral Ecumenical Council, not an authoritative one. Benedict XVI is the true Pope and we must pray for him and his Bishops, that they may turn from the errors of their ways. 77.49.15.242 12:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah equally pointless points. How nostalgic. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dominick, I think they're only pointless to someone who has made up his mind based on a personal feud. Krnlhkr 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming my motives. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another external link: the independent chapels

Lima, et. al:

Sorry, I shouldn't have just added the link (Holy Family Chapel) and left it at that. However, after reading the discussion of traditionalist factions on the "overview" link, I began to think the article gives the independents short-shrift. There is only one short paragraph devoted to them in the "Survey of groups" section, but, according to the Traditio site, which has a comprehensive directory of Tridentine Mass sites in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, fully 30% of these in the U.S. fall into the independent category, second only to diocesan sites at 37%. In particular, I want to expand what the article says about the independent approach, which is discussed on the overview link, and also found on the Holy Family Chapel site, which, according to the latter site, is stated as, "Holy Family Chapel has no formal ties with any movement or organization other than the Roman Catholic Church; it has no agenda other than to preserve the traditional Latin Mass in order to preserve the Catholic faith, which is in crisis." This approach, it would seem, is probably pretty close to that of the late Malachi Martin and, as stated above, seems to be shared by a large number of traditional RC's. Therefore, what I will probably do is to expand the above-mentioned text and use the Holy Family site as a reference. Okay by y'all? --Midnite Critic 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to see of what use the link in question is except as a source, within the article, for the short quotation given. I, for one, expect an "external link" to give fuller information than that, fuller information indeed on at least some aspect of the article's subject matter than is found in the article itself. Perhaps there is very little that one can say of the "independents". What positive elements do they have in common other than use of the Tridentine form of the Mass? I suppose their common negative elements are: NOT part of the "regular" Catholic Church; NOT part of "irregular" associations such as SSPX. None of this seems to warrant more than a very few words, even fewer than those quoted. But Midnite Critic will doubtless explain their "approach", helping me to understand better. (I am sorry, I also do not understand what is meant by "the overview link".) Lima 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• This link, added recently by User:Smith2006

Roman Catholic Traditionalism? --Midnite Critic 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link equates "independent" with what I above called "irregular", saying SSPX is the best-known independent group. Lima 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. So I guess what we are talking about is a subset of these "irregulars," characterized by a lack of affiliation with the SSPX or a similar organization. However, at the same time, I suspect that a good chunk of these unaffiliated chapels are more sede in orientation. In any event, I have some family issues to deal with, so I will stick with the article's status quo until I can get back to it. --Midnite Critic 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss to see how a "somewhat dated" Geocities site meets WP:EL. I removed it. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, content?...--Midnite Critic 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The content as judges by the attribution policy? Guy and Lima are right. This is an unsigned monograph, with nothing but unattibuted original research. It doesn't even list the sources the author used to create the article. This is not a primary source. Should not be included. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and you will notice that I have not replaced the link (the geocities link). The problem, when dealing with marginal groups/movements, etc. (I run into the same thing elsewhere, such as with various little known political groups) is that there is a lack of "good" sources. Given that, I added the geocities link when I found it because I thought that on its face it gives a good overview of traditional catholicism, even though, with its references to John-Paul II as pope, it is obviously somewhat dated. If anyone can find beter sources, by all means add them. --Midnite Critic 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All those reasons are valid but are not enough to ignore attribution. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditionalist devotions - veils

Lima, et al.

There is no evidence that Pope Linus' decree was apocryphal. It is in the Liber Pontificalis, an official document of the Church (not sure why you edited that out of the footnote). Further, you will find reference made to it here: http://www.diocs.org/q&a/answers.cfm?question=27mantilla on Q&A Section of a Catholic Diocese by Peter Howard, STL.

In addition, pants are not mantillas. What you cite is irrelevant. Pants vs. skirts are a question of modesty, not religious custom, tradition, or Papal Decree.

Finally, this is an article about traditionalist Catholicism. I'm not sure why we're debating traditionalist beliefs in it instead of just stating them for what they are. We wouldn't go to the Lutheran articles and debate Wittenberg there. All of these counter-arguments seem to detract from the topic.

So, I would like to change it back to what I originally wrote including the footnote. That Pope Linus ordered women to wear veils as cited in the Liber Potificalis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krnlhkr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

The Liber Pontificalis is not Sacred Scripture, and not I but the source quoted said that the decree attributed to Saint Peter's first successor is probably apocryphal. Is anything else attributed to Pope Linus? Or was this the most important thing he did as Pope? By all means mention that the Liber Pontificalis is said to contain that information. It was by oversight that I omitted the mention of the Liber Pontificalis, though the fact that I have no way of checking that the Liber Pontificalis contains that statement probably hd some subconscious part in my forgetfulness.

The question of women wearing pants came to mind because of the probability that the decree attributed to Pope Linus is aprocryphal. The letter of Pope Nicholas I is certainly genuine. I should indeed have stated explicitly that traditionalist women are, I think, less likely to go to Mass wearing pants than without a veil, and so the question of pants deserves to be listed among traditionalist practices as much as the question of the veil. If the pants question disappears from the footnote, I will certainly consider putting it in the body of the article. By all means add the point that I regrettably forgot to mention: that traditionalists do not like women in pants at Mass. Lima 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of wearing pants versus skirt/dress could be mentioned in the article, but the traditionalist practice arises more out of the sense of modesty, and this would have to be indicated. The issue of head coverings, however, which apply to men every bit as much as women, really have their origin in Scripture (which is correctly mentioned in the article), not whether or not St. Linus explicitly forbade it. If Linus did explicitly forbid it, then he would've been in line with St. Paul himself. LotR 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I've taken a look at your latest modification on this, and I now find myself a bit skeptical on the addition in the footnote. Looking at the English translation of Nicholas I, it's not completely clear what the context is and whether or not it really applies in the present context. He seems to be "ordering" pants for men, but then seems to grant an indult on the matter for both men and women ("pass from your prior custom to ours in all things" by "putting on spiritual pants"). Anyhow, it just seems a bit of a stretch to bring it up now in the footnotes. Am I misinterpreting it? LotR 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The context is that of an enquiry from a king who had just decided to become Christian, he and all his kingdom. Bulgarian women wore trousers, and he asked whether they should change their mode of dress to be like the women in Christian countries. Pope Nicholas told him it was not obligatory. In other words, trousers or skirts for women (or for men too for that matter - think of Scotland, Samoa, Fiji etc.) is not a graven-in-stone matter. Nor is wearing of hats or other head-coverings. Compare a street scene now with a street scene in films of over half a century ago. Nicholas didn't "order pants for men"; he only said that in Rome or in Christian countries in general only men, not women, wore them. And of course, at the time of the apostles, not even men wore them in the central and eastern Mediterranean area. The Romans even distinguished between the Celtic-inhabited area south of the Alps (Gallia togata - toga-wearing Gaul) from the area to the north (Gallia bracata - breeches-wearing Gaul). Sorry for being so loquacious. Lima 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I don't think it is an official "traditionalist position" that women must wear skirts as a "graven-in-stone matter," and the article does not suggest as much. But based on my interactions, this practice derives from a sense of modesty, which IS a matter of Christian morality. Although there have certainly been cultural variations of what constitutes "modesty," there have, generally speaking, always been codes of dress for both men and women.

However, now that you've raised the issue, there is a disconnect between this (wearing pants vs. skirts) and the issue of headcoverings. Generally speaking, the rule still applies to men in our modern times, even in your run-of-the-mill parish -- it is considered disrespectful for males to wear hats in church. The same would've been true for women at one time (vice versa, of course), at least in St. Paul's day -- he was unequivocal about the matter. The traditional depiction of the Virgin Mary in art, well after the time of St. Paul, I would imagine is meant to convey female humility. Pope St. Pius X evidently thought it to be a serious matter, even in the enlightened 20th Century. LotR 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with perhaps everything LotR has just said. Trouser-wearing by women has been and still is seen as immodest in many countries, as uncovering of hair by women has been and still is in many countries, especially Moslem ones. Matter-of-course hat-wearing by men and women was disappearing even before the Second Vatican Council was announced. In Western countries, pants-wearing by women (who at least in some countries preferred the term "slacks") was, if I remember, somewhat later in coming into general use, and is still much less universal. I notice too that LotR has not said that for women to cover their heads and be silent in church is a "graven-in-stone matter". Lima 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The author attempts, through use of the one photo of a Mass in the Netherlands in the 1940's, to insinuate that separation of men and women and the covering of the heads and impermissibility of trouser-wearing among women at Roman Catholic Masses in this era were laws that were often ignored. From this photo, though, it is not known whether the Mass being celebrated was Roman Catholic. Given that it was supposedly taken in the Netherlands, a possibility exists that the photo may have been taken at a church under the auspices of the "Old Catholic Church" which was founded in the Netherlands in defiance of Roman authority, and which modernised norms and standards of dress and behaviour, and yet had in many places continued to offer the Mass according to the traditional missal. A study of the picture's origin is in order, so as not to cause confusion as to the pre-Vatican II attitudes of the faithful and clergy in the Church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.62.50 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 March 2007

Types of traditionalists

Again, Lima, I do not understand your edit here. For one, Abp. Milingo is not a traditionalist and should not be included as a reference here. Second, the point was not what Rome says about the validity, but how the different types of traditionalists interrelate. Rome will not issue a decision on the validity without a hearing, and someone would have to ask for a hearing. That is why they have not made pronouncements on the validity. For example, the Anglican orders were not declared utterly null and void until the 19th Century.

Could you please explain what was wrong with my entry? You seemed to have not only changed the content, but the entire point. It no longer makes sense in that section. Krnlhkr 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was you who raised the question of the validity of orders. Good idea. I felt it merited a section on its own. Nothing exactly wrong with your entry. I just think my rewriting is better. Let others judge. I look forward to cooperating with you in improving the article.

Is none of those whom Milingo ordained classified as a traditionalist? I thought more than one was. Lima 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They were all previously consecrated in Old Catholic/Independent Catholic circles. --Midnite Critic 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Lima 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with terms

See 'Traditional vs. Traditionalist' below and passim; I for one find being called a 'traditionalist' disagreeable, not least because it is the name of a heresy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm), and because its meaning is ambiguous (do traditionalists like ties, high tea, and bowler hats?) and confusing (Apostolic Tradition? Traditional practices? (for instance the body of ceremonies that comprise the Roman Rite detailed in modern times in the various editions of the Missale Romanum before the reforms of the twentieth century, using unleavened bread in the Roman Rite and the laity's receiving under the species of bread alone, the body of ceremonies that comprise the Byzantine Rite, using leavened bread and receiving holy Communion by intinction in the Byzantine Rite, the chalking of doors at Epiphany, praying the Rosary, clerics' and religious' wearing cassocks, habits, riassas or other traditional clerical dress, the Use of Sarum, fasting and abstaining on certain days, the tonsure, the liturgical use of black in the Roman Rite, and so on)). I suppose what is discussed in this article is in theory the latter. I disagree with the article's title. It should probably be 'Tradition (The Catholic Faith)' (Wikipedia would probably want 'Tradition (Roman Catholic Church)', but that is another issue). PETF 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A Complete Rewrite?

This article is highly polemical, biased and scathing in many parts. The suggestion is made that the practice of Tradition is synonymous with having irregular relations with the Holy See here, with doubting the validity of the Second Œcumenical Council of the Vatican there, and in other places still there is a general suggestion that 'Traditionalists' ('qui se sentiunt traditioni latinae liturgicae devinctos', 'all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition' (Ecclesia Dei, 6. c.)) are all troglodytes, a bit weird, and are disobedient whingers who are stuck in the past. Please can we have some real, unbiased factual content, that befits an encyclopædia? Surely a 'traditionalist Catholic' is simply someone who believes that following the holistic received ways of the Church as they have developed, time-tested, down the ages is the best thing that the Church can do to be the Church. These so-called 'Traditionalists' may believe that following the holistic received ways of the Church as they have developed is the best thing the Church can do to be the Church as she should be, and that she should do these things rather than jettisoning them in a vain belief that Man of the 1960s knew better than everyone before him and so was able to dispense with whatever he felt, because he was somehow now, in the 1960s post-war era, endowed with a special wisdom that made him able to do everything better -- but it must not be stated in the article that there is any constrast or ideological 'clash' with non-traditional practices. Surely 'Traditionalists' believe that traditional practices are beneficial because of certain valid reasons (some of which I have descibed above) rather than because 'the Novus Ordo is bad': it may very well be bad, but that is not the point. Tradition exists outside the context of non-tradition and does not need to be defined as being opposed to non-tradition: it exists by itself, and has been the practice of the Church until the non-traditional or anti-traditional reforms of the twentieth century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PETF (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Is PETF perhaps in favour of ignoring the fact that many traditionalist Catholics do oppose Church authority, even to the point of appointing their own Popes? Many do express strong opposition to what PETF calls "non-traditional" practices (an extremely vague term that certainly also covers practices that the Holy See too strongly condemns). PETF describes traditionalist Catholics as if they all fitted into the first category that the article distinguishes. They don't all fit into that category. In the past, some editor(s) even opposed classifying such Catholics as true traditionalist/Traditional Catholics! Lima 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopædia. It has to include all information pertaining to its subject. The current article would not serve well to inform a person who had no previous knowledge; it would confuse. What do you mean 'oppose Church authority'? To the point of appointing their own Popes? These groups are marginal. The article should be about the practice and not about the practisers or their moral character. It might include some sections about certain groups who practise the practice, or criticisms of the practice. The article does not serve to inform. There are even discussions above in this talk page pertaining to whether women should wear skirts or trousers! This is utterly irrelevant! PETF 11:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re: wearing skirts or trousers: apparently this is NOT irrelevant to many "traditionalists". In any event, I don't really have a dog in this hunt: I am not RC, on the one hand, but, OTOH, as a clergymember of an Independent Syriac Orthodox Church, I do, for various reasons, have a certain sympathy for the folks described in the article, under whatever name. Further, I do have some experience in Journalism, and I do think this article is pretty "fair and balanced". However, if you disagree, as you obviously do, why don't you PROPOSE some changes in text here on the talk page? We'll be happy to discuss these proposals. However, please note that the main thrust of this article is PEOPLE, not practices in the abstract. If you want to start a separate article on "Traditional [Roman] Catholic practices", go for it.--Midnite Critic 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article has gotten somewhat disorganized over time, especially since it's a controversial subject. Maybe it would be better to reorganize it and make it a clearer and more concise article. 70.41.111.24 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Source of definition for "traditionalist Catholic"?

>>A traditionalist Catholic is a Roman Catholic who believes that there should be a restoration of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).[1]

What is the source for this definition? The term "traditionalist" is used to mean different things in different contexts; it would be useful to have an authoritative source backing up this definition that a Catholic traditionalist is someone who rejects Vatican II. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertwalsh9 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Benedict lifts restrictions

Now that Benedict XVI has lifted some restrictions on the Tridentine Mass, it may indeed need a complete rewrite. I wonder how traditionalists (and especially conclavists) are reacting. Aelffin 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Prevailing to everything before Vatican II is impossible so which period do they mean?

[10]. It appears that traditionalist catholics make no claim as to what period of church teachings they are keeping in tradition with? Since each Council makes developments as we can plainly see from reading the New Testament and comparing those teachings with that of any Council what period of development does a traditional catholic choose to be in? Could it be in keeping the Council of Carthage? Council of Trent? Council of Florence? I guess anyone could choose any period, even the 1st century and use the didache as their teachings of choice. I don't think the article is specific as to what period a traditionalist catholic wants to be in. (Runwiththewind 18:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

It is this built-in ambiguity that is mocked by the [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts|Society of St. Pius I], which advocates celebrating Mass in catacombs, not churches. But it is clear that most Traditionalists want the "Tridentine" Mass, and are loyal to their preferred liturgy rather than the Magisterium, come what may. The.helping.people.tick 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks. (Runwiththewind 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Some new edit read 'decades' preceeding Vatican II. I was hoping to get that defined more. Do they mean 1900 to 1962? (Runwiththewind 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

I see basically this edit [11] has been reverted back to the ambiguity of the original statement that appears there [12]. The statement that currently exists is an impossibility. There was no 'just before' period. There have been many periods of renewal and developments in the Church. (Runwiththewind 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

How are traditional Catholics "loyal to their preferred liturgy rather than the Magisterium"? Which teaching of the Magisterium are they not loyal to? 87.244.84.177 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here I am thinking of Sacrosanctum Concilium in particular, though other Vatican II docs also cause some discomfort among some Traditionalists. Do you disagree, 87.244? BTW, the heading for this section uses "prevailing" in a novel way that should not be immitated. The.helping.people.tick 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree that traditional Catholics are opposed to some Vatican II documents (Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio and Gaudium et Spes, for instance), though I, as many other traditional Catholics, would dispute the idea that these documents belong to the Magisterium at all, as they clearly represent a break with traditional teaching (compare them to, say, the 19th century encyclicals, clear reiterations of Catholic doctrine: Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, Immortale Dei, Libertas), whereas the ordinary Magisterium consists in fallible transmission of the received deposit of Faith. 82.112.153.136 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The effect of the Council of Trent, in the wake of the Protestant revolt, was to impose a fairly severe uniformity on Catholic churches in both teaching and liturgy. If development up to that point was 'organic,' Trent represented something of a trimming. This uniformity has many benefits (e.g., ability of the faithful from different places to participate in exactly the same liturgy) and some drawbacks (e.g., the tendency to see religion as merely legalistic, or a set of propositions to be assented to, lacking a certain vibrancy of faith). Vatican II changed things in the Church in ways that are uncomfortable for Traditionalists. I think it is safe to say that the period from Trent to Vatican II is generally the 'just before' period that Traditionalists long for. There was a liturgical renewal 'just before' Vatican II also -- I think it started in the 1920s and 30s, and was picking up some momentum in the 1950s (I'd have to go and check some books for exactness). Since the 1962 Missal is the liturgical touchstone for Traditionalists, it also provides a reference for what 'just before' Vatican II means. I agree that 'just before' is vague, but there would need to be a few sentences of explanation if you want more detail. The.helping.people.tick 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro Section insufficient

The current intro reads:

A traditionalist Catholic is a Roman Catholic who believes that there should be a restoration of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).[1]

I recently edited it to what i thought was a more accurate, albeit not quite finished, definition:

A traditionalist Catholic is a Roman Catholic who believes certain changes in the liturgical forms, public and private devotions, and presentation of Catholic teachings since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)[1] have been in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Church, and therefore should be rejected.

The emphasis of my edit is that Traditionalist Catholics aren't defined by just wanting a return to traditional ways arbitrarily, or just for preference. The belief behind wanting the return is essential to the definition, and thus should be in the intro.

Lima reverted it, saying "group 1 would not say the changes ' have been in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Church'"

Lima, group 1's definition states:

Traditionalists of this sort tend to regard the changes in the Church that followed the Second Vatican Council as being at least tolerable, though they may disapprove of them and wish them to be reversed.

If they are merely tolerable, or if they wish them to be reversed, why is that? 2nd Piston Honda 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that I disapprove of and wish reversed, but that I do not think are or have been in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Church. Lima 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just restating the issue. I'm asking why you disapprove of such things. If you say that it's just for preference, then i don't think that group should be included in this article. If it's because of concerns of orthodoxy, then i thought my "certain changes...in conflict with" would be broad enough for that. 2nd Piston Honda 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"i don't think that group should be included". Others think they should. "I'm asking why you disapprove of such things." Never mind me. Do you really think Bishop Fernando Arêas Rifan believes the canonical and liturgical changes are in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Church, and are therefore contrary to orthodoxy? Well, maybe you do. But not everyone does. Lima 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for group 1's objections to certain changes in the Church? Please answer. 2nd Piston Honda 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Objections": I don't see this word in the text. The Internet sites of associations of traditionalists who find the changes at least (not "at best") tolerable may perhaps help. It is not for me to speak in their name. Lima 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's not for you to speak in their name, then why did you say "group 1 would not say the changes ' have been in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Church'"? In any case, I'll go to these websites and see what they have to say, then post it here. 2nd Piston Honda 06:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Traditional nun.jpg

Image:Traditional nun.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)