This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a talk_page archive covering a period from 2003 to September 2005. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives.

2003

October

Chinese Catholicism

I am wondering about the inclusion of info on "Chinese Catholicism." I've made edits to that but, not wanting to get into a "revert war," thought I'd explain why I think that that particular bit of information is out of place and hope the author of that paragraph might see my point - or argue me out of mine.

The official so-called "Catholic" Church in China -- i.e., the State- recognized Church -- isn't Catholic at all. They don't recognize the papacy, don't (as the editor affirms) recognize Vatican II as a Council convened by a legitimate Pope (not because of sedevacantism, but because they deny the papacy itself), etc. They are no more "Roman Catholic" than Falwell is Catholic.

In other words, saying "Not all groups which reject Vatican II are considered traditional Catholic" and then going on to talk about a State-sponsored, Communist, pro-abort "Church" that denies the papacy would be like saying, "Not all groups which reject Vatican II are considered traditional Catholic. Most notably, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Benny Hinn, reject all pronouncements by the Vatican." To me, it makes no sense to include that information because it's -- well, it's like, "No duh. Why wouldn't they? They're not Catholic, so what are they doing in an article about Catholics?" It only serves to obfuscate the issue at hand: traditional Catholicism.

The CCPA (the state-"church" in China) actively persecutes Roman Catholics, and any use of Roman Catholic liturgy by them is simply a means to get Catholics from the underground into the State "Church" where the State has control. Pope John Paul II has to name Cardinals in the real, underground Church there "in pectore" so they won't be imprisoned or killed.

For more information on the Chinese "Catholic" Patriotic Association and the real, underground Catholic Church in China, see this website: http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/ [USER: La Minturnesa | La Minturnesa]

Maybe you haven't grasped the fact that wiki operates on the principle of NPOV. All the paragraph states is that usage of pre-Vatican II liturgy does not automatically indicate adherence to what the article calls Traditional Catholicism but in the Chinese case means something different. It is 100% factual and 100% correct. You may regard the official state Catholic Church in China as a true branch of Catholicism, but that is simply your POV. The article does not express an opinion on the validity or otherwise of this institution, merely states it exists, it adheres to liturgy that could be identified as Traditional Catholic but it isn't part of that branch of Catholicism. Stop deleting a factual paragraph to push your agenda. Your attempts will simply be reverted every time. FearÉIREANN 20:59, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First, that's not what the paragraph says. It says that not all who "reject Vatican II" (whatever that means, exactly) are "traditional Catholics" (there are a lot of "conservative Catholics" who reject the Novus Ordo, while still claiming it is valid -- just as, say, the S.S.P.X. does -- while not "rejecting Vatican II" (again, whatever that means. How does one "reject" Vatican II? By believing it never took place? By not beleiving it to be a validly convened Council (the sedevacantist -- not necessarily "traditionalist" -- position)? By reading the Opening Address and determining it was a pastoral, non-dogmatic Council? By not going along with people who twist its documents to mean that Jews no longer need Jesus to be saved, unlike any other group of people? Etc.)

And I don't regard the state "Church" in China -- the "Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association" -- to be a part of the Universal Church; nor does Pope John Paul II, and that's the point. Read Pope Pius XII's "Ad Apostolorum Principis" and "Ad Sinarum Gentem"(both available at the Vatican's website). Because the state-sponsored "church" in China is NOT Catholic, I wonder why it is being mentioned in an article about traditional Catholicism (or any kind of Catholicism). The true Catholic Church in China (i.e., the Catholic Church that the Pope sees as "the Catholic Church," the Church he appoints Bishops to in pectore, the Church that doesn't deny the Petrine Ministry) is underground and persecuted by the state-sponsored "church" that denies the papacy, supports abortion, is pro-Communist, imprisons the Catholic Bishops appointed by the Pope, etc. It's not a matter of my "POV"; those are just the facts, and I maintain that that particular paragraph has as much place in this article as a paragraph detailing how Benny Hinn and Jerry Falwell "reject Vatican II" but aren't "traditional Catholics." La Minturnesa

And on the above note: China arrests a dozen Roman Catholic priests, seminarians; demolishes church La Minturnesa

Sorry, but your "facts" are actually opinions. We here respect your right to disagree with the Catholic Church; yet we are disappointed with your angry attacks on it. However, the point here is that you are continually violating Wikipedia NPOV policy by pushing a conservative fundamentalist anti-Catholic religious agenda as "fact". These opinions are not "facts", and you aren't fooling us. RK 21:48, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

You are expressing a POV. Whether it is the right POV or the wrong POV is immaterial. Wikipedia is based on NPOV. In China a religion exists which claims membership of catholicism but has broken with the pope. You may think that having broken with the papacy and having been set up by the state it is not a real Catholic Church, but that is your opinion. An encyclopædia based on NPOV cannot make that presumption. Please understand what NPOV is and how it works. If it has many of the trappings of catholicism (liturgy pre-Vatican II style, hierarchy, ordained celibate clergy, etc), calls itself catholicism but has some deviations (ie, the papacy and the reforms of Vatican II) wikipedia cannot simply sit in judgment and rule on whether or not it is catholic. That is based on a subjective judgment call, and while many others inside and outside Catholicism can make such a call, a neutral encyclopædia cannot, anymore than it can rule on whether the enthronement of the new Anglican bishop in New Hamsphire is valid or invalid, whether George Bush is a good or a bad president, etc etc. All it can do is report views of others who make judgments. In this article, it is simply pointed out that simple adherence to pre-Vatican II liturgy is in itself not evidence that a group belongs to the 'Traditional Catholic' category, one example being quoted being that of a state-organised group in China which calls itself Catholic but which has not implemented Vatican II. The article clearly and unambiguously states who this group is. Stop mis-representing the contents of the article, claiming it says things it clearly doesn't and demanding that wikipedia do something that it by definition cannot do, namely express a POV on the status of that group. (BTW I don't regard that organisation as a valid branch of Catholicism either, but I don't have the right, and nor do you, to demand that opinion be treated as fact when others hold contrary opinions they too believe to be facts.) FearÉIREANN 23:52, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2005

February

Recognition of the pope

I'm just one voice in the crowd, but I'd argue that the traditional Catholics are the ones who recognize the Pope and obey him as the Vicar of Christ, and that the so-called "Traditional Catholics" who defy the Pope's teachings or deny his valid election should be called "reactionary Catholics" or "rebellious Catholics."

Iceberg3k 19:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is a fair point. However these are the generally used terms. They may be inaccurate IMHO and in yours but we don't decide these things. We simply have to write an NPOV article explaining the perspectives of those who hold these views and those who are critical of them, while pointing out where the majority opinion is. What we can't do, even if the anonymous user above won't accept it, is to insist categorically through use of language that one side is of course right and one side by definition wrong and imply as fact that one side, the majority, is wrong and are all heretics. That is a POV, and here we don't do POV. FearÉIREANN

Reverting to remove POVing this article and turning it into pro-Traditional Catholic propaganda. I've also cut and pasted the NPOV edits that had been subsequently made by another anonymous user so that they are not lost. His or her work should not be lost by the determination of one pro-Traditional Catholic user to highjack this page and propagandise it. FearÉIREANN 05:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April

Accuracy

I don't know about the NPOV issues, but I think factually this article needs a lot of work. "Traditional" can mean simply a preference for traditional forms or devotions, something which is entirely compatible with being 100% in line with being "with Peter". (Ambrose of Milan "It is to Peter that he says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church." (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 A.D. 389)) There is nothing inherent in being traditional or conservative as they are usually used in Catholic circles that suggest being upset w/vatican ii in any way. They maybe upset with some ways Vatican II has been interpreted, but they have their own rival school of interpretation in which vativan II is still very important and valued.--Samuel J. Howard 16:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved it to "Traditionalist Catholic" this makes far more sense. To call one very small group "traditional" is odd considering that even the most liberal catholics view the Catholic church as depending dually on Tradition and Scripture. This is in line with the emerging use adjectives vs. -ist's for describing religious/ideological movements. Compare to calling radical militant islam Islamist, rather than Islamism.--Samuel J. Howard 16:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Appropriate?

Well,the way Jtdirl carries on about the True Catholic Church being correctly called by its preferred deliberately-making-the-person-referring-seem-to-endorse-them-over-Rome orthography of "true Catholic Church" I think you may be in for a grilling on what these people call themselves.Does the typical linked TrCath website prefer "Traditional Catholic" or "Traditionalist Catholic"?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What someone calls themselves is not relevant. It's not the "everyone's autobiography" Wikipedia. The article on "The Christian Church" that is, the restorationist denomination that calls themselves "The Christian Church" is at Disciples of Christ not at Christian Church. Wahhabism isn't reflected at Islam even though many Wahhabis would call themselves simply Islam, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 19:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well,User:Jtdirl practically goes into raging fits telling me that ONLY what people call themselves is relevant.See Talk:True Catholic Church and our respective user talk pages.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 05:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Louis. What I said was that if they had a name that no-one disputed (ie, no other religion claimed, for example) then in the interests of NPOV we would have to use it. If it was disputed, then we would have to make a judgment call on what name to use. The true Catholic Church name is not disputed (These guys are so on the fringe they are not worth disputing anyway) so we must use it. If there is no dispute by a third party and thes guys call themselves Traditional Catholic then it should be called that. If there is a dispute we may have to form a judgment on what to use. The Christian Church (AKA the Disciples of Christ) is disputed so a choice had to be made. The right judgment was made and the article was put at the correct name. Please don't mispresent wht I said, Louis. FearÉIREANN 03:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say the name claimed by the Pulvermacherites is "not disputed",I see it as being almost universally dismissed out of hand.In any case,you said that names people claimed had to be used if not disputed.So where do you stand on this article?--Louis E./12.144.5.2 21:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV intro

I had found today that someone had replaced the introductory paragraphs that were not NPOV. There wasn't a user name associated with those edits, there was only an IP address. I went back through the history of the article, and replaced the introductory paragrahps with the ones that were present before this person changed the introduction.
JesseG 19:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

June

Terminology debate

Your (Jtdirl's) claim about the use of the term "novus ordo mass" also by its defenders is utterly baseless. You so far were not able to provide one single reference that the term "novus ordo mass" is used also by its defenders let alone by the Vatican.

The term "novus ordo mass" is never used by the Vatican, and I don't know of single quote where a theologian or bishop in union with Rome would use such a term. The catholic belief is that there is only one mass celebrated since apostolic times. What changed is the order of mass (Latin: ordo missae) not the mass. For this reason the term "novus ordo mass" is actually offensive for a catholic. I don't know how you can claim that neutralizing an offensive term (just indicating who might use it, not removing it) could be POV. To speak of the mass in the catholic church today as a novo ordo mass is definitely not neutral. Why do you insist on this non-neutral use of language?

And could you be so kind, before changing things back again to provide at least one example of a reliable source where somebody knowing theology and in union with Rome actually calls the mass as celebrated today a novus ordo mass?

According to the Catholic Church, Novo Ordo is CORRECT. see talk page. Reverted. FearÉIREANN 09:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Catholic Church knows Latin better.
Again (the fourth time), the question is not about "novus ordo" (as in novus ordo missae = new order of mass) but about "novus ordo mass" or "new order mass".
If you want to tell us that something is "according to the Catholic Church" such and such you have to provide authorative teaching.

I spoke to the Dublin Diocesian Press Office about this issue recently (while I was checking some facts for another article). They said it is perfectly correct term to use. I was on to the Vatican Press Office on Thursday about something unrelated to wiki (I am working on something on the RC church right now, and in particular to do with marian apparitions). I mentioned this issue and they said "it is an often used and perfectly correct term." And Tridentine Mass is widely and universally used, including by a Vatican Press Release which I received four months ago in which they used it, explaining how permission has on occasion been given "for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in preference to the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missæ in latin". But then I knew that both terms are perfectly acceptable and not in any possible way seen as POV. But your attempts to suggest they are POV when they are clearly not is unambiguously POV. So please stop doing so. FearÉIREANN 03:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If it was "an often used and perfectly correct term" it should be easy for you - as I kindly asked you to do - "to provide at least one example of a reliable source where somebody knowing theology and in union with Rome actually calls the mass as celebrated today a novus ordo mass. (Of course publicly and checkable.) You did not provide a single one. (And BTW a Press Office is not a source for what "according the Catholic Church" is correct. It is not at all an authorative source.) User:129.187.254.12 (since s/he never seems to want to sign their messages, I've done it for them.)

The article inaccurately used the term Novus Ordo Mass when it should have read Novus Ordo revised rite of Mass. That was an inadvertent slip up. But that term is widely used in a colloquial sense and is accepted in general usage by Catholic Church, because the term Novus Ordo (or rather Novus Ordo Missæ, to give it its full name) is used as a shorthand term for the revised Missal introduced by Paul VI.

As to Novus Ordo Missae, that is the correct version to use. For example:

EXAMPLE NO 1: A CONSERVATIVE CARDINAL
The Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted-represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. . . . Therefore, we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us--at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church--of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by your Holiness and so deeply venerated and loved by the whole Catholic Church.

The words of Cardinal Ottaviani, written to Pope Paul VI in 1967. (BTW Ottaviani was an extreme conservative who reluctantly accepted what he called the Novus Ordo Missae).

EXAMPLE NO 2: A DEFENDER OF VATICAN II
Anathemas are attached to those who disobey Papal decrees, based on Papal Authority as affirmed by Vatican Council I. Those who refuse to recognize Papal authority on the Novus Ordo (thinking that they know tradition better) are condemned by the decrees of Vatican I, a decree that on the surface they accept.

If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3).

The words of John N. Lupia, PhD in his A Defence of the Pauline Mass (so no need to guess where he stands, then!)

EXAMPLE NO 3: A NEUTRAL PRIEST WRITING ABOUT MASS
In the middle ages a "pax brede" (instrumentum pacis, or osculatorium) was used; a board which the priest and other ministers kissed and which was then passed to the congregation. Later, and up to the present day, a formal gesture of embrace was exchanged among the ministers at the altar in certain forms of the Roman Rite.

The kiss of peace was included in the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969, but only as an option and not as a requirement.

Words of Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. in his On The Celebration Of Mass (revised 16 March 2003)

EXAMPLE NO 4: A CONSERVATIVE CRITIC WHO RELUCTANTLY TOLERATED VATICAN II
First, let me clearly distance myself from any who would impugn the legitimacy of the recent pontificates, the orthodoxy of Vatican II, or the validity of the Novus Ordo as a true rite of the Mass which can be of great benefit to those who partake in it. I am sincerely convinced that Vatican II was a gift to the Church.

Words of Michael Houser replying to the claim by Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ that "The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The University Concourse Volume VIII, Issue 2 January 13, 2003

EXAMPLE NO 5: A PRO-VATICAN II PRIEST POINTING OUT THAT LATIN STILL COULD BE USED IN THE NOVUS ORDO
Most surprising of all, perhaps, is that the form of Mass that seems most clearly to have been intended by the Council -- one that preserves the use of the Latin language for the fixed parts of the Mass and gives a preferential option to Gregorian Chant -- is entirely permissible within the liturgical regulations of the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969.

The words of Father Joseph Fessio, SJ', who is pro- the Novus Ordo, in The Mass of Vatican II in the Adoremus Bulletin Vol.IV No.8 Dec 1998/Jan 1999

EXAMPLE NO 6: A CRITIC OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS & THEIR USE OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS
Now, 22 years later, we witness a steady trickle of young Australian men moving to the United States or to Europe to study at Una Voce seminaries: to be ordained exclusively in the Tridentine Rite, with the resolute exclusion of saying any Mass in the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI as a result of the liturgical changes that had been introduced by the Second Vatican Council.

Frits Albers, Ph. B. IN DEFENSE OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI (1st edition 1978, final edition 2000)

Oh and, with regard to your pre-occupation with calling the Tridentine Mass the so-called Tridentine Mass

Of course the celebrant of the "'Tridentine"' Mass should not fail in their preaching and contacts with the faithful attending such Masses to emphasize their own adherence to the legislation of the universal church and their acknowledgment of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revisited after the Second Vatican Council. Under such conditions, it would seem unnecessary, even unduly painful, to impose further restrictions upon those who wish to attend such celebrations.

Cardinal Paul Augustine Mayer, President, Pontifical Commission, referring to Pope John Paul II's encyclical ECCLESIA DEI issued in July 1988.

So Novus Ordo Missae is correct. And Novus Ordo Mass is an inaccurate colloquialism used to use the name of the revised liturgy with a statement that it is a Mass, something non Catholics would not necessarily know. As was said by the Vatican Press Office, it isn't strictly accurate but it is a generalised colloquialism used to describe a type of Mass with the fact that it is a Mass, something which non catholics might not otherwise know. And absolutely no-one but you thought it could possibly be offensive. FearÉIREANN 11:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. Novus Ordo Missae is correct. Novus Ordo mass is inaccurate. I still disagree as to the claim that this inaccurate colloquialism is often used by people in favour of the new Missal (I never ever found this either said or written by Catholics in favour, but all the time by people against), but after your last change to the article this is immaterial for the article.

I hope you accept the small change I introduced, because it makes for people who don't know Latin clearer that "novus ordo" actually means "new order" or - somewhat ambiguous - "new rite". (Ambiguous as rite in Catholic theology is often used in the sense of the whole system of Christian religious services as in "Latin Rite", "Russian Orthodox Rite" and so on.)

Oh and, with regard to my pre-occupation with calling the Tridentine Mass the so-called Tridentine Mass

What do you think are the quotations marks around "Tridentine" for? They of course fulfill the very same function as my "so called". As a matter of pure logic: For the very same reason that "Novus Ordo Mass" is an inaccurate colloquialism "Tridentine mass" is one. And the "so called" or the quotation marks are meant to signal this. As I'm equally happy with the quotation marks and you don't object to them in your citation I will use them in the article.

Actually, I think I found a better way - in parallel to the new rite of mass. (I hope, Jtdirl likes it better too :-)

I typed in the text. I put quotation marks in. There were meant to be two single marks to italicise the word to show its use. Instead I inadvertently put one double which doesn't italicise. That is the reason. And BTW a press release issued by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin recently.

This is funny. Because on all sites in the internet which have the text there are those quotation marks too.

Cardinal say church still unavailable for Tridentine Mass

Cardinal Desmond Connell today repeated that one of Dublin's oldest churches, which ceased to be used for Novus Ordo Missae and Tridentine Mass in the early 1990s, will not be made available again in the forseeable future for liturgical celebration. A spokesman for the archdiocese explained:

"The rising insurance costs and small number of practising Catholics in the local parish makes the opening of Arran Quay Church impractable at present. While the church has not be deconsecrated, the cost of repairs to what is one of Dublin's oldest inner city churches makes it beyond the financial means of the Dublin Archdiocese to reopen the nineteenth century church for worship."

The Archdiocese's refusal follows a request from some adherents of the Tridentine rite replaced by the Novus Ordo in 1969 that the Archdiocese reopen the Church for Masses celebrated with the Archdiocese's permission using the Roman Missal as amended in 1962. The Archdiocese has promised to facilitate the celebration of the Tridentine rite in another city centre church and has indicated that it will begin discussions with the Matt Talbot Society on the selection of a different church in the near future. 17 May 2003.

So yet another Cardinal talks about the Tridentine Mass, not the "so called" Tridentine Mass. How many is that now?

To be precise: We don't know what the Cardinal said. It isn't quoted. His press office then uses the term.

Oh I almost forgot:

Pope prepares to lift restrictions on Tridentine Mass Catholic Herald, 2003

Last month, the Holy Father, who celebrated a Tridentine Mass last summer, published a command called Rescriptum ex Audientia to authorise the celebration of the old rite Mass in St Peter's Basilica, Rome, by any priest who possessed an indult. The Vatican also asked the Scottish bishops, ahead of their five-yearly ad limina visit to Rome in March, to reveal what provisions they made for the celebration of the old rite Mass in their dioceses. Since the meeting, the Scottish bishops have stepped up their provision from just four a year in the whole of the country to at least one a month in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The Catholic Herald uses the term then.

Vatican officials favor elements of older Mass

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. National Catholic Reporter Staff National Catholic Reporter, June 30, 2000

In statements sure to fuel Catholicism's already fierce debates over liturgy, two high-ranking Vatican officials have signaled support for changes that would either restore elements of the pre-1970s Latin Mass or make the older rite itself more widely available.

Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, head of a papal commission charged with overseeing use of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, told an Austrian news magazine in June that he favors wide freedom to celebrate the older rite. At present, the rite, often referred to as the Tridentine Mass, can be celebrated only with permission from a local bishop.

The National Catholic Reporter reports the the rite is often referred to as the Tridentine Mass. That amounts to something like "so called".

"Mindful of the will of the Church to preserve her sacred rites, and attentive to the entreaties of the People of God, and after having consulted with the Council of Priests of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, we now deem it fitting to establish St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, as a personal parish to serve the needs of Catholics who wish to attend the rites of Holy Mother Church according to the 1962 Missal, and in accordance with the provisions of the indult, Ecclesia Dei, of our Holy Father Pope John Paul II," said Msgr. Dora.

The Tridentine Mass was celebrated by the Western Church from 1562 to 1962 when, during the Second Vatican Council, changes in the liturgy, including use of the vernacular language rather than Latin, were promulgated. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 is now in use, but Pope John Paul II in 1984 gave permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass if the validity of Vatican II liturgical reforms is recognized. Archdiocese of Atlanta - 18 March 1999

That's from their Newspaper, written by a staff member. So journalists working for the Archdiocese of Atlanta use the term.

According to the Rev. John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, the desire for such reconciliation was one contributing factor in the Vatican's plans for a return to liturgical stringency.

"Now, as I understand it, nothing will stand in the way of a priest wishing to celebrate the Tridentine Mass anymore," he said. "So at least on this score there will no longer be a reason for disagreement with the Lefebvre people."

UP international report in the Washington Times, May 15 2003

Oh and there is a book called The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass published by Cardinal Alfons Stickler.

That's a good example.

So I guess that covers the Archdiocese of Dublin, the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the National Catholic Reporter, the Director of the Catholic Information Center, the Catholic Herald, Cardinal Desmond Connell, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Stickler, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos oh and the Pope, who has begun using what his own press office calls a Tridentine Mass, following the Roman Missal of 1962. And according to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, the late Cardinal O'Connor in the late 1990s invited Cardinal Stickler to celebrate what it called a Tridentine Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. So much for a non-existent term offensive to Catholics. Unless of course Cardinal Desmond Connell, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Stickler, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, Cardinal O'Connor and the Pope aren't catholic. FearÉIREANN 22:26 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, for one I never said that the term "Tridentine Mass is offensive. I also never claimed that this term is only used by critics of the new Roman Missal. I said, that it is as much inaccurate as the term "novus ordo mass". As far as I can tell, this is an inaccurate colloquialism one sometimes hears or reads. To you impressive list: To be precise you would have to take of some names, namely the Archdiocese of Atlanta, Cardinal Desmond Connell, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the Pope, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese and Cardinal O'Connor. For none of these you actually showed that they use the term.

I like the change. One point (not strictly related to this article). I think I should rename the Novus Ordo to Novus Ordo Missae because Novus Ordo is also used politically by some fringe types for 'New World Order'. I'll make the change. Let me know what you think. If you think it is a problem I can always change it back but it is more accurate. FearÉIREANN 22:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy that you like the change. I think your change of name is correct. Ah, and as you liked the change the small here, I hope you allow me to change that article in a similar way ...

I dont get how this can be argued so much, but: "The term "novus ordo mass" is never used by the Vatican, and I don't know of single quote where a theologian or bishop in union with Rome would use such a term. The catholic belief is that there is only one mass celebrated since apostolic times. What changed is the order of mass (Latin: ordo missae) not the mass. For this reason the term "novus ordo mass" is actually offensive for a catholic. I don't know how you can claim that neutralizing an offensive term (just indicating who might use it, not removing it) could be POV. To speak of the mass in the catholic church today as a novo ordo mass is definitely not neutral. Why do you insist on this non-neutral use of language? "

The term is used in english or latin to refer to the roman rite of the mass that has been in use since 69. It is to distinguish it from other rites such as the Antioch Rite, or the Liturgy of Jerusalem, or what is called the "triditine rite" which was the roman rite before the romans switched to this new rite. It can not be stated that the rite past 69 is similar enough to the one before so that it would be incorect to call them different. (if people can call the dominican rite a seperate rite, with a diff file output of about 3 lines, then they can and do distinguish the two rites). Anyway, if we all agree absolutely that novus ordo is a bad word, then please create a new word to describe what the romans do since 69.

Please be careful in the interests of NPOV to balance links. Don't overload the article with too many links from one side, whether pro- or anti Traditional Catholics. If possible, to avoid accusations of bias an even number of both should be concluded. FearÉIREANN 18:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Saints

This isn't good enough: "As an example, there are two saints from the time of the Great Schism, one of which accepted the anti-pope as valid and the other of which accepted the true pope. ". If this point is germane to the issue, would someone make it so, with the necessary specifics? --Wetman 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

July

Links to SSPX

Why have we got so many links to SSPX? They have their own entry, yet I've counted five links to various parts of the group.

If this is meant to show how important they are on the trad scene - which I don't doubt - then this should be reflected in the text of the article itself and not in a large amount of links in an article on a movement of which they are a constituent part.

Also I've changed the category back to Category:Catholic Traditionalism which itself hangs off the RCC cat.

JASpencer 12:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

September

Cleanup

Lots here needs fixing. I thought I would post a "here it comes" note here, before I commit my offline changes. Dominick 13:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

When people speak of "Traditionalist Catholics", they absolutely do not mean just "Roman Catholics who hold a conservative brand of Catholicism". They would not dream of attaching the label "Traditionalist Catholic" to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, though practically everyone (except, of course, extreme Traditionalists) would classify them as conservative, not "progressive", in their religious stance. "Traditionalist" is much more than "holding a conservative brand of Catholicism".

When was the term "Traditionalist Catholic" first used? Only after the Second Vatican Council. Who was it applied to? It was first applied to people like Archbishop Lefebvre and others like him, who took up a stance of opposition to the Council and the reforms, especially of the liturgy, that followed it. It was not and still is not applied to generically conservative Catholics. These factors are absent in the new "definition".

There are other points too in which I am honestly convinced that the previous text, with all its faults, was clearly superior. But rather than reverting, wholly or in part, I prefer to await the reactions of others.

Lima 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not an official definition, and I used what we in the Catholic Church hold as the definition of Traditionalist, not any outside bodies. The definition that was used before was the one that commonly was used by the SSPX. That definition was written by a Bishop who is excommunicated and indeed can't be considered Catholic. Furthermore, since tradition upholds that the Holy father is the Supreme Legislator of the Catholic Church, and may make changes as Christ entrusted that duty to him, the excommunicated leader of that body defies tradition by judging wrongfully that later revisions of Canon law are not valid within the Church. Finally, if one holds that any one of the Rites of Mass, as promugulated by the Church, is not valid, as I suspect you do, then that further weakens the arguemtn they are Catholic.

My goal was to include those who attend Officially appoved Indult Mass and the Normative Mass of the Church, the Novus Ordo. Every Catholic must hold that those Rite are valid, if you hold the Novus Ordo is invalid, that is beyond the scope of our interaction here. It is important to include those who believe the CHurch may change the Mass, but it would have been better to have not changed as much, and among them would be Cardinal Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict.

You are correct there is a difference between those who exclusivly attend Indult tridentine Masses, and those who never attend them. The category that this unofficial designation misses are those who sometimes attend both, and should rightfully be included as Traditional. My point os bourne out better if we consider those who may not attend Indult Mass due to a lack of an Indult and do not with to imbibe the schismatic mentality of the SSPX, but hold that they would much prefer a Tridentine Mass. According to your narrow definition, that is coincidentally held by the SSPX, those Traditionalists would be excluded because they could not attend an Indult Mass. Dominick 20:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The above gives a new definition of "Traditionalist Catholic", namely: Catholics who at least occasionally attend a Tridentine Mass. Though faulty, this would be a far better definition than the one now put into the article, one that fits perfectly the vast majority of Catholics. If "Traditionalist Catholics" meant no more than "Roman Catholics who hold a conservative brand of Catholicism", there would be no need for the term. It is obviously quite false to claim that that is all that the general body of Catholics ("we in the Catholic Church", to use Dominick's expression) understand by "Traditionalist Catholic".

Dominick now says that those who deny the validity of the Mass liturgy revised in 1970 are not Catholic. So they cannot be Traditionalist Catholics. He also says that a Bishop who was excommunicated "can't be considered Catholic". That means excising much of the existing article on Traditionalist Catholics, and making "Traditionalist Catholics" mean scarcely anything more than mainstream Catholics.

Lima 04:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

These are terms in common use by the Church. It is not predicated by what Mass you attend but the beliefs you hold, as Tridentine Masses are not universally available despite the Indult, and most strictlyTraditional Catholics will not attend illiict Mass, Tridentine or not, as this is a inseparable part of Catholic Tradition from Arian and Gnostic times. The term existed before the current difficulties, Wikipedia is not a place for those who use terms for purposes of activism. Ironically, The position of the SSPX is indeed a novelty as the defintion of Catholic Tradition is normally stated.

As far as your objections to my pointing out that Bishops from the SSPX are not properly Catholic, most Catholic apologeticists agree, Catholics are those who are properly recognized by the See, and furthermore, tradiionalists are those who believe the entierty of Catholic teaching, not selected parts as the SSPX has taught. In an overabundance of Chatiry, and to see the NPOV requirements of Wikipedia, we should include schismatic bodies, and Sedes.

I think that this article needs editing with these principles in mind I this that an unilateral revert or backtracking on your part is unwarrented.Dominick 10:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In what Dominick writes, does "you" mean "Lima"? It was not I who made the changes. Now that I see there is at least one other person who thinks you have decidedly disimproved the text, I may well revert. But not just yet. (Please excuse my imitative "you".) Lima 11:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I meant future tense, after that edit, I looked at History and I discovered someone undid the changes. I think this arguement is overcome by events as I split the definition, so we can ensure both the Apolegetic definition and the narrow SSPX definition are used in the article. (BTW, a few ":" will indent your text) Dominick 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it best to edit the article, quoting Catholic and general media and Holy See sources to show what people do mean by "Traditionalist Catholic". This is better than putting forward a personal interpretation and claiming that that interpretation is what "we in the Catholic Church hold as the definition". Lima 20:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you single source this exclusivly from SSPX sources expect to have difficulties. I have seen this before in your other edits.Dominick 20:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

New Edits

This is much improved, my compliments. In my reading over the past day, I feel I have some support in my position, however, this term isn't defined by the Church. Usage of this term is spurious, and for different speakers, it meant different things.

In the article I think the term "Dissenting" is much preferred. Losing the pejoritive is appreciated. I added a paragraph about incardination. I also fixed a clumsy phrase. I almost removed the CCPA, but I guess it should be left, even though they say a Tridentine Mass, it is hard to call them Catholic, as a Body. Reports of CCPA Priests visiting Rome is perplexing. Dominick 12:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Split definition

I split the definition. Please edit yours, and please alter the heading as you think it best, then we can turn around end critique each others work. I think this will end this impasse. I will add footnotes later. Dominick 11:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Dominick 15:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user's objections

A revert is not a vandalism. The entire opening paragraph was nonsense: "Traditionalist" Catholics don't want to "bring back" the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church "back to how they were" (such inelegant language) before the Second Vatican Council. They want to preserve them, and have been doing so since the Council and before. Additionally, "the Council" isn't what changed the liturgy and rites; these things came after the Council.

The stuff about how the term is used in the media -- "Pope mees head of rebel Catholic traditionalists" -- is also nonsense. Not only is it inflammatory in its language, it is also incorrect. There is no "head" of "Catholic traditionalists" but the Pope and Bishops (assuming said traditional Catholics aren't sedevacantist).

The entire section, "Distinction between Traditionalists and other Catholics," is also inflammatory and is mostly about liberal Catholics. The line about "Vatican authorities" who "believe that the Second Vatican Council did not in fact alter the Church's teaching" is set in opposition to the perceived traditional Catholic view. But the fact is that different traditional Catholics believe different things about Vatican II. Some believe the Council did not conflict with Catholic teaching at all but that the documents were ambiguously written and have been INTERPRETED to conflict with Church teaching. Others think the documents themselves are in conflict. And sedevacantsts don't believe the Council was a valid Council at all.

As the article was, it was POV-based rhetoric that attempted to paint all traditional Catholics with one brush, smear them by reference to what the media have to say (as if the media are operated by theologians), and which was apparently written by someone who has no idea what traditional Catholics think about Vatican II.

sorry you dont like the edits. Violating the revert rule is not how to do this. You need to stop. Dominick 02:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I will endeavour to respond to the remarks of the anonymous user (whom I invite to join as a named user) one by one.

1. "Traditionalist Catholics don't want to bring back ... they want to preserve them". I think we should be grateful for that observation, regretting only that it was not communicated sooner. I will endeavour to edit the text in its light.

2. Extracts from various sources were given to show how the term "traditionalist" is in fact used in connection with Catholics. (Remember that the topic of the article is "Traditionalist Catholic".) This is better than having just one person give his or her personal idea, ending up with perhaps the vague tautological definition preferred by Anonymous, which really comes to "traditional means traditional". The extracts were not only from the media, Catholic and general, but also from a Holy See source. They were all given simply to show what is the actual general usage, an objective fact, whether someone approves or disapproves ot the fact. Anonymous objects to the word "head", which ABC probably used rather than "leader" - and Traditionalists have many leaders, sometimes in conflict with one another - simply because it is two letters shorter; so we can pick another general-media extract at random to put in the place of that extract.

3. Anonymous’s comment on painting all Traditionalists with the same brush is, I think, ill-founded. Anonymous seems to consider that all Traditionalists dismiss the Second Vatican Council's teaching as at least dangerously ambiguous. The article says that some Traditionalists do not at all object to the Second Vatican Council's teaching, but simply prefer, "for spiritual or merely aesthetic reasons", the older forms. It seems therefore that it is Anonymous, rather than the article, that paints all Traditionalists with the same brush. Anonymous is, of course, welcome to continue the discussion on this and other points.

Lima 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Lima by Anonymous

Re: "Extracts from various sources were given to show how the term "traditionalist" is in fact used in connection with Catholics. (Remember that the topic of the article is "Traditionalist Catholic".) This is better than having just one person give his or her personal idea, ending up with perhaps the vague tautological definition preferred by Anonymous, which really comes to "traditional means traditional". The extracts were not only from the media, Catholic and general, but also from a Holy See source. They were all given simply to show what is the actual general usage, an objective fact, whether someone approves or disapproves ot the fact. Anonymous objects to the word "head", which ABC probably used rather than "leader" - and Traditionalists have many leaders, sometimes in conflict with one another - simply because it is two letters shorter; so we can pick another general-media extract at random to put in the place of that extract."

Do we have to get ABC's opinion on primates and have their opinions entered into the page on monkeys?

Traditional Catholics disagree about things just as people of all groups disagree about things, but if words are to have meaning at all (and if they don't, let's close Wikipedia down), then basic definitions have to be agreed upon. The bottom line to the traditional Catholic movements is this: all traditional Catholics -- whether they attend "indult" Masses, SSPX Masses, Masses offered by independent priests, or are sedevacantists -- believe that the Mass, Sacraments, culture, and teachings of the Church must be preserved. That is what "traditional Catholic" means -- and most of the rest of the entire article explains what "traditional Catholics" think, and gives examples of how those different groups of traditional Catholics might disagree over this or that.

Also, the mention of "integrists" here is extremely inflammatory, even with the "though that's now how they describe themselves" bit.

Re: "3. Anonymous’s comment on painting all Traditionalists with the same brush is, I think, ill-founded. Anonymous seems to consider that all Traditionalists dismiss the Second Vatican Council's teaching as at least dangerously ambiguous. The article says that some Traditionalists do not at all object to the Second Vatican Council's teaching, but simply prefer, "for spiritual or merely aesthetic reasons", the older forms. It seems therefore that it is Anonymous, rather than the article, that paints all Traditionalists with the same brush. Anonymous is, of course, welcome to continue the discussion on this and other points."

At some point, all traditional Catholics do have to be painted with the same brush if words are to have any meaning. If we were talking about monkeys, there's no need to paint them all as capuchins, hence my statement about painting all traditional Catholics with the same brush. At the same time, one wouldn't throw in talk of ducks and then complain that any balking at the suggestion is an attempt to paint traditional Catholics with the same brush. So I refer you to the definition of "traditional Catholic" given above. A mere preference for the traditional Mass doesn't qualify one as a "traditional Catholic" or else Andrew Sullivan would qualify -- a man who wants to normalize homosexuality, encourages gay "marriage," and wants to eradicate the celibacy of the priesthood in the Latin Church. You'd also have to include the Chinese "Catholic Patriotic Association" that uses (or at least used to use) the ancient Mass -- but which denies the primacy of the papacy and endorses abortion. See my point?

Anonymous at 02:42 on 26 November 2005 - if he signed in, he could write all this with four tildes (~).

Even compilers of dictionaries do not decide what words mean. They examine actual usage and build their definitions on that. Larger dictionaries quote examples of actual usage, which explains why the 1989 Oxford English Dictionary is in twenty very large volumes. ABC, CNN and other mass media aim to be understood; they have to use words in the sense in which they are generally used; they cannot call ducks monkeys or monkeys ducks. A Wikipedia article too must follow general usage, even if some people disagree with that usage. It is to prevent individual Wikipedia-users from trying to impose their preferred POV meaning that the article gives some examples, out of hundreds of thousands, of the way in which "traditionalist" is in fact normally used of Catholics. Yes, words do have meaning, a meaning that individuals cannot, Humpty Dumpty-like, change at will.

(The definition at the start of the article refers to "worship and practices", not to "a mere preference for the traditional Mass". It obviously excludes, for instance, someone who wants to "normalize" homosexuality, encourage gay "marriage" and do away with clerical celibacy.)

- Lima 09:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I was editing some of the anonymous edits, the ones submitted were good, but there was a revert in the middle. Conservative Catholic doesn't belong in defining Traditionalist, especially as a foil or a straw man to prop up the narrow definion. I am tired of this RV war. If you don't want to sign in thats fine, but getting around the 3RR rule by not logging in will not work. It isn't hard to fix vandalism to the PoV of this article. I think using the narrow term as defined by the SSPX and noplace else, is wrong for Wikipedia and violates NPoV.

I agree with Lima, the general use must be treated, and that was my complaint when this started. Lima responded like a Rose (hehe) and did a good job. I think the preference for the Mass, is irrelavent to the actual practice, but that is my PoV.

BTW Lima, "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean,"- The Red Queen (Alice in Wonderland)

Dominick 13:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

More from the anonymous user

Again, there are problems with POV alterations. This for ex., when speaking of the FSSP: "They do not claim that the Council and the Popes have altered Catholic doctrine," is contrasted with the ALLEGED view of OTHER "traditionalist Catholics" (nevermind that most of them refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics") who, readers are being led to believe, all claim that "the Council and the Popes" have altered Catholic doctrine. The person who'd write such a thing simply has no idea what traditional Catholics think -- nor has he spent much time reading "Latin Mass Magazine" which includes the writings of Fr. Ripperberger, FSSP, who criticizes some of the post-Conciliar changes in the same way those "other traditional Catholics" do.

And then there's the following from the section labelled "Traditionalist Catholics dissenting from but not organically separated from Rome" (inflammatory. How do we know what "Rome" thinks aside from infallible definitions? Does Cardinal Bobby Whatsisname's personal opinion count as "Rome"?): "They claim that the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council conflict with or distort historic Catholicism and amount at best to a "watering down" of Catholic teaching and practice." Again with the changes brought about "by the Second Vatican Council" when not all traditional Catholics attribute the changes to the 16 documents of the Council themselves. It is this sort of sloppy language which proves to me that it isn't "traditionalist" Catholics who overstate Vatican II, but the neo-conservative ones who do.

And there's this in the same section: "While the Holy See does not view this Society (the SSPX) as a schismatic Church, it has officially declared that, when in contravention of an express papal prohibition Archbishop Lefebvre and his fellow Traditionalist Bishop António de Castro Mayer consecrated four priests to the episcopate on 30 June 1988, the six clerics concerned committed a schismatic act and incurred excommunication. It has also stated that many members of the SSPX are in fact schismatic as individuals." What the heck does "many members of the SSPX are in fact (no punctuation) schismatic as individuals"? Where did THAT come from? Who are these "members" of the SSPX (clue: only priests can be members of a priestly fraternity). This paragraph, intentionally or not, implies that people who attend Masses at SSPX chapels are "schismatic." The writer might want to look into the case of "The Hawaii Six" -- and ask himself why His Holiness John Paul II (R.I.P.) considered relations between "the Vatican" and the SSPX "an internal matter." And how could the Holy See even possibly see the Society as a "schismatic Church" when there is only One Church according to Catholic theology? (a matter of dogma. Check the Nicene Creed, read Mediator Dei, pick up the old kiddie Penny Catechism if you have to)

Aside from this, the whole first paragraph is sloppy. It was much more clear and better written in earlier versions. Seriously, this stuff about what the media say is silly. Traditional Catholics are a group of Catholics who want to preserve Tradition (all of it, not just the purty Mass). They have a right to be called what they want to be called (and for most, the term is "traditional Catholic" with a small "T" -- the "T" being an adjective, not some new brand of Catholic Church). And have the right to be discussed using that term and without the media's permission. No one would balk about the drag "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" having an entry by that title without having to have "ABC used this name for them in an article once."

The Hawaii six was a specific case, and is not germaine here. What is germain is the MP stating that those attending SSPX masses are imbibing a schismatic mentality. So members attending SSPX masses are progressing down that road, according to an official Church document, just like "call to Action" memebrs are progressing down the schismatic road as well. Membership alone doesn't make a person schsimatic. They have to take further steps. Officially, the case revolved around attending SSPX Mass, and if that in itself was a schismatic act, and the Church rightfully stated attendence was not, but it also recommended that one do not attend an SSPX Chapel.

The PoV you have is fine, and you are welcome to it, but the larger sense of the term Traditional should be preserved in this article. This is a not an SSPX advertisement. Dominick 13:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Specific cases are how we can know the intentions of those the "conservatives" like to call "Rome," and how Canon Law is actually interpreted. Contrary to what you say, attending an SSPX-offered Mass is not to "imbibe a schismatic mentality," and, in fact, the Hawaii Six case was resolved by this, written on behalf of then-Cardinal Ratzinger: ""From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity."

Later, in a 2003 communique, Monsignor Perl said that one may attend Masses offered by the SSPX as long as one does NOT, in fact, do so with a "schismatic mentality." What Msgr. Perl wrote exactly was this: "We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." He also said that one can financially contribute to the upkeep of SSPX chapels if one attends them.

"Members" don't attend SSPX Masses; "members" offer them. No one can be a "member" of the SSPX without being a priest. The average Joe who attends an SSPX Mass is not a "member" of the SSPX, which is a priestly fraternity.

Not sure where you're coming up with this "this is not an SSPX advertisement" stuff and laying it on me. I haven't attended an SSPX-offered Mass in my life. But if you're going to lie or unintentionally spread error about the SSPX in this article that is supposed to be about "the larger sense of the term traditional" (small "T"), then I feel bound to correct it. Anonymous 10:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No this is wrong. It isn't germaine this isnt a SSPX debating society. The Motu Proprio said it all, but that is beyond the scope of the writing of a wiki article. It doesn't really matter the points you make false or true, what maters is that you can't reverse contributions made because they don't match your narrow definition based in your personal PoV. Lima made a clear concise artcle, and I support the consensus. Dominick 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Q. How do we know what "Rome" thinks aside from infallible definitions?

A. By reading its authoritative, even if not formally infallible, documents: encyclicals like "Humanae Vitae", apostolic constitutions like the one promulgating the 1970 revision of the Roman Missal), instructions like "Redemptionis Sacramentum" etc. etc. etc.

Q. What the heck does "many members of the SSPX are in fact (no punctuation) schismatic as individuals"? Where did THAT come from?

A. From a document of "Rome": letter 343/98 of 27 October 1998 from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, to be found at this site. It reads in part: "the Code of Canon Law defines schism as 'refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him' (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition." The same document states: "In the strict sense there are no 'lay members' of the Society of St. Pius X". "Rome" certainly did not need Anonymous's "clue".

A similar document of 29 September 1995, which can be found here, stated clearly: "it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses." ("Morally illicit" is an objective judgement; "sin" involves also personal factors.)

Lima 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed comment order

I fixed this page to be in wiki talk page order, as tradition dictates (I couldn't help it), and I ask to keep this page square we abide by the conventions in Talk Page. Dominick 11:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Catholics

Dominick goes on about "mainstream traditionalists" (where in the media are they spoken of?) and then freaks when those who attend FSSP Masses and don't worry about interpretations of Vatican II are called "mainstream."

WHAT is this article about? When people look up "traditional Catholics" are they looking to get info on the thoughts of the lady who attends the Novus Ordo Mass but wishes she were at an FSSP parish and who prays the Rosary every day? Or are they looking for info on the traditional Catholic movement to preserve and restore the Mass, Sacraments, and ALL the teachings of the Church?

This article is getting nuts.

You are making this tough by losing everyones edits, by your constant reverts. Dominick 11:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A days work wasted with a revert

Again the revert back several versions. The whole days work fixing this artcle and one of what I suspect are several anonymous users goes and reverts back. Dominick 01:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute from my Perspective

My thoughts are this term is used informally by those within Catholicism, describing a diverse group with a goal to restoring some practices that existed before the 1960s. This may include those who attend Tridentine Mass or not.

Lima and I differed on a few points, and came to an accord, as did other users. I objected to the false dichotomy of conservative and traditional, most who hold to any conservative catholicism, consider themselves traditionalist. If the definition is held to only include those attending Tridentine Mass, this misses a lot of people who may not attend those Masses, due to geography. There is no textbook Church definition of tradionalist, so the broader use is correct, IMHO. Historically, Church defintions of dash types (Western-Catholic, Odd-Catholic) have been rejected officially as an affront to the Unity of the Church.

In this I was hoping the term could be understood by a reader as a loose collection of Catholic and non-Catholic people. This should not be construed or even imagined to be a branch of Catholicism or worse, a schismatic organization. If one self-identifies as a traditionalist, then they are one, no certificate is needed.

The narrow definion favored by our anonymous friend, is the definition of a group called the SSPX, which holds itself as the champion of traditionalists, and holds any who attend the normal Catholic Mass in error. This definition is intriscially flawed, in that the Church regards the Trdentine Mass and the Novus Ordo (Normative) Mass are both valid. It is also flawed as it creates a defintion of an informal term a rigid definition based on the Mass one attends, and in common use, this is not true.

Changes were made to improve the article and at first, Lima and I talked and others threw in, the anonymous one objected, and we replied. Since he found himself at a disadvantage, instead of making concrete suggestions or edits, he decided to toss all edits out and go to a previous version that I had hoped we would leave behind for the problems it had.

I hope this helps give you my perspective on this sorry matter. I apologise for any mischaracterizations of edits I considered vandalism, I think that if you just toss peoples work away, that would qualify as vandalism. I will avoid fanning the flames. Dominick 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC) restored Dominick 10:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous to Dominick

YOU SAY:

I objected to the false dichotomy of conservative and traditional, most who hold to any conservative catholicism, consider themselves traditionalist.

I RESPOND:

And I object to you claiming to know who is "in communion 'with Rome'" and who isn't. But there is a dichotomy between "conservative Catholics" and "traditional Catholics." If there weren't, then there wouldn't be a split in the Catholic universe between "EWTN/Catholic Answers/JPII We Love U" crowd on the one hand, and those who object to all the things listed in the hideously named section "Attitude towards the Second Vatican Council of traditionalist Catholics not in full accord with the Holy See" (a name I absolutely object to because it is vague. This "in full accord with the Holy See" thing is also asinine because it conflates definitive teaching (i.e., solemn definitions, that which has always been taught, etc.) with anything some Cardinal wants to say.)

YOU SAY:

If the definition is held to only include those attending Tridentine Mass, this misses a lot of people who may not attend those Masses, due to geography. There is no textbook Church definition of tradionalist, so the broader use is correct, IMHO. Historically, Church defintions of dash types (Western-Catholic, Odd-Catholic) have been rejected officially as an affront to the Unity of the Church.

I RESPOND:

That people trying to find information on "traditional Catholicism" are looking for information on the traditional Catholic movement, not for the thoughts of any old "nostalgic" soul stuck in a parish with some priest in leotards.

And traditional Catholics are the FIRST to agree with you about the unity of the Church which is why they call themselves "traditional Catholics" -- SMALL "T" and no "ist" ending. The "traditional" is an ADJECTIVE," not some branch "of" the Church which is what you, in this article, are trying to make it.

YOU SAY:

In this I was hoping the term could be understood by a reader as a loose collection of Catholic and non-Catholic people.

I RESPOND:

So an article on "traditional Catholics" should include stuff about non-Catholics? Let's have a sub-section on poodles, too!

YOU SAY:

This should not be construed or even imagined to be a branch of Catholicism or worse, a schismatic organization. If one self-identifies as a traditionalist, then they are one, no certificate is needed.

I RESPOND:

Apparently, a certificate is needed by you to determin who is "in full accord with Rome" or not, who is "dissenting" or not. Your labelling just begs the question: what does it MEAN to be "in full accord with Rome" or to "dissent"? How can one "dissent" from "Rome" while believing every single dogma of the Catholic Faith, accepting the primacy of the Pope, attending a Catholic Mass offered by a Catholic priest, etc.? I don't see you talking about those Catholics who are not "in full accord with Rome" or who are "dissenting" in the main entry on "Catholicism," but I assure you that there's plenty of room if you want to have at it. Just visit a typical parish and find out who even believes in the Real Presence.

YOU SAY:

The narrow definion favored by our anonymous friend, is the definition of a group called the SSPX, which holds itself as the champion of traditionalists, and holds any who attend the normal Catholic Mass in error.

I RESPOND:

No, my definition is one used by traditional Catholics who attend "indult" Masses, Masses offered by the S.S.P.X., or who are sedevacantist. The earlier versions of the article made clear the distinctions among these subsets of traditional Catholics.

And I have never set foot in an S.S.P.X. chapel before in my life.

YOU SAY:

This definition is intriscially flawed, in that the Church regards the Trdentine Mass and the Novus Ordo (Normative) Mass are both valid. It is also flawed as it creates a defintion of an informal term a rigid definition based on the Mass one attends, and in common use, this is not true.

I RESPOND:

Well, gee, that's what the S.S.P.X. says, too -- that both the "TLM" and the N.O. are both valid. But you apparently don't know this since you know nothing about traditional Catholicism and have the definite agenda of dissaproving of any Catholic who doesn't fit your particular definition. But if the traditional Catholic movement means ANYTHING, it includes the very BASIC thinking that the Mass, Sacraments, and all the teachings of the Faith must be preserved (and "restored" where they are lost). That is what "tratitional Catholicism" is.

YOU SAY:

Changes were made to improve the article and at first, Lima and I talked and others threw in, the anonymous one objected, and we replied. Since he found himself at a disadvantage, instead of making concrete suggestions or edits, he decided to toss all edits out and go to a previous version that I had hoped we would leave behind for the problems it had.

I RESPOND:

You complain about the comparison between "traditional Catholics" and "conservative Catholics" but the first version I saw here had a comparison between "traditional Catholics" and "liberals." Your agenda is showing.

The fact is that the distinctions between "trads" and "conservatives" is the line that has to be clarified. Both of these groups agree that Catholic dogma (which they understand differently) must be accepted for one to remain a living member of the Church.

The earlier versions made this distinction clear, were much better written, were more clear, and were non-judgmental toward the traditional Catholics that a few people here apparently don't know anything about but don't like anyway. In this version, there are things said about "traditional Catholics" that all traditional Catholics do not believe. The language about Vatican II is sloppy. This "full accord" stuff is nonsense.

YOU SAY:

I hope this helps give you my perspective on this sorry matter. I apologise for any mischaracterizations of edits I considered vandalism, I think that if you just toss peoples work away, that would qualify as vandalism. I will avoid fanning the flames.

I RESPOND:

Then how come you don't consider yourself a vandalizer for throwing out the earlier versions that clarified the differences between "traditional Catholics" and "conservative Catholics"?

--Anonymous User, 29 September

Dominick to Anonymous again

It appears there is an axe being ground here that is beyond the scope of an article on wikipedia helping to explain Catholic traditionalism. Assuming you want to write an NPoV article, lets look at your terms.

And I object to you claiming to know who is "in communion 'with Rome'" and who isn't. But there is a dichotomy between "conservative Catholics" and "traditional Catholics."

I didnt claim that, I went by what is published by Rome, and specifically, the Moto Proprio issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

If there weren't, then there wouldn't be a split in the Catholic universe between "EWTN/Catholic Answers/JPII We Love U" crowd on the one hand, and those who object to all the things listed in the hideously named section "Attitude towards the Second Vatican Council of traditionalist Catholics not in full accord with the Holy See" (a name I absolutely object to because it is vague. This "in full accord with the Holy See" thing is also asinine because it conflates definitive teaching (i.e., solemn definitions, that which has always been taught, etc.) with anything some Cardinal wants to say.)

Viewership of EWTN is not a criteria for being a traditionalist. I can't help you there, but most at Catholic Answers often use the term traditionalist when referring to themselves. When we say full accord in Church documents, it means that it teaches what the See teaches, not what you may think the See taught. This doesn't mean those beliefs changes, but, the explanation has been explored in further detail, which is exactly as the Church is intended to work. Catholicism has a living magestarium, and while the principles do not change, the explanation can be tailored for the times. Your problem with the Church is outside the scope of this article.

As far as the division, the article was flawed in that no defintion exists for either term as the Church knows it. If you can find the defintion of Conservative Catholic, made by a source, preferable a Catholic CHurch source, I would think differently. As the term conservative denotes a political leaning and not a theological one, it is misplaced. Anyone can identify themselves with the concept of traditionalism as you stated, which is the restoration of elements of the Church from before the 1960s, and be considered a traditionalist. The problem is trying to contrast that with a made up term is wrong.

That people trying to find information on "traditional Catholicism" are looking for information on the traditional Catholic movement, not for the thoughts of any old "nostalgic" soul stuck in a parish with some priest in leotards.

A priest still wears a roman collar. I have never seen one in leotards, except one unattibuted picture that is usually bandied about as examples of Novus Ordo priests by integrists. That being said, wearing of leotards does not make one a traditionalist. As it states in Church law a Priest must wear vestments when saying Mass.

And traditional Catholics are the FIRST to agree with you about the unity of the Church which is why they call themselves "traditional Catholics" -- SMALL "T" and no "ist" ending. The "traditional" is an ADJECTIVE," not some branch "of" the Church which is what you, in this article, are trying to make it.

You have put both sets of words in my mouth. First I say there is unity then I say they are a branch.

So an article on "traditional Catholics" should include stuff about non-Catholics? Let's have a sub-section on poodles, too!

Sedes are no longer Catholic Church members, by their selfidentified excommunication. SSPX Bishops were excommunicated by writ, from the Pope. One who is excommunicated is no longer Catholic.

How can one "dissent" from "Rome" while believing every single dogma of the Catholic Faith, accepting the primacy of the Pope, attending a Catholic Mass offered by a Catholic priest, etc.? I don't see you talking about those Catholics who are not "in full accord with Rome" or who are "dissenting" in the main entry on "Catholicism," but I assure you that there's plenty of room if you want to have at it. Just visit a typical parish and find out who even believes in the Real Presence.

Every Catholic purporting to be union with Rome better believe those as they are dogmatic, if they think we should bring the Mass closer to the Tridentine Mass or not. Catholic tradition has always been taught you attend a licit Mass. Saints have been made from those who refused to take illicit communion from an Arian Priest or Bishop and were martyred. One can't toss out the status of the Priest or his fidelity to his Bishop.

No, my definition is one used by traditional Catholics who attend "indult" Masses, Masses offered by the S.S.P.X., or who are sedevacantist. The earlier versions of the article made clear the distinctions among these subsets of traditional Catholics.

And I have never set foot in an S.S.P.X. chapel before in my life.

None the less your narrow definition of this undefined term by the Church, mirrors those of the SSPX. People who attend Indult Mass often attend a Novus Ordo if they have to, since preference to the Rite of Mass is not a valid reason for missing the SUnday Obligation. If one were to attend ONE Novus Ordo Mass they would not be a traditionalist.

Well, gee, that's what the S.S.P.X. says, too -- that both the "TLM" and the N.O. are both valid. But you apparently don't know this since you know nothing about traditional Catholicism and have the definite agenda of dissaproving of any Catholic who doesn't fit your particular definition. But if the traditional Catholic movement means ANYTHING, it includes the very BASIC thinking that the Mass, Sacraments, and all the teachings of the Faith must be preserved (and "restored" where they are lost). That is what "tratitional Catholicism" is.

Your personal attack aside, The SSPX may say that but they instruct the faithful to not attend Indult nor Novus Ordo Mass.

The basic thinking is the crux of this arguement I made, this is a self-identified term, a club anyone can join by expressing a desire to be a traditionalist.

You complain about the comparison between "traditional Catholics" and "conservative Catholics" but the first version I saw here had a comparison between "traditional Catholics" and "liberals." Your agenda is showing.

The fact is that the distinctions between "trads" and "conservatives" is the line that has to be clarified. Both of these groups agree that Catholic dogma (which they understand differently) must be accepted for one to remain a living member of the Church.

The earlier versions made this distinction clear, were much better written, were more clear, and were non-judgmental toward the traditional Catholics that a few people here apparently don't know anything about but don't like anyway. In this version, there are things said about "traditional Catholics" that all traditional Catholics do not believe. The language about Vatican II is sloppy. This "full accord" stuff is nonsense.

The Church is the arbiter of accord. Your comments are valid but reverting and not editing articles doest serve you well at wikipedia. As for my agenda, I am hardly a liberal, and even if I were, it does not stop me from forming an NPoV article, and working with others as I have done.

Then how come you don't consider yourself a vandalizer for throwing out the earlier versions that clarified the differences between "traditional Catholics" and "conservative Catholics"?

After edits and changes you tossed the entirety of the work away, and reverted to a old verison. That is POV vandalism. I didn not remove the section to start with, another user did.

I do not not think talking with you on Church topics helps reach a consensus. So in the future, direct your comments to the specifics of this article.
We agree that traditionalism includes the belief that one should restore Church elements from before the reforms of the 1960s, even if they do not attend any Tridentine Mass. We agree that leotards are a bad choice for vestments.

We disagree on the term conservative, and disagree that the terms in accord denotes that someone is in union with Rome. Perhaps using the term "good standing" would be an improvement, even while I think that is too weak of a term. We disagree on the understanding of Church dogma by Catholics and traditional Catholics, there is no difference IMHO, and you think they understand it differently. I would love USER:Lima to pop in here. Dominick 12:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Lima gets a word in edgeways

If I may get a word in edgeways, may I get two in, please?

1. The Holy See says it is not in accord with SSPX. It takes two to make an accord. Whatever the other side may say, full accord is lacking between the Holy See and certain traditional(ist) Catholics. So, if the article were not blocked, I would, to please Anonymous, change "not in full accord with the Holy See" to "between whom and the Holy See full accord is lacking", or I would return the text to "of the second and third categories", which is shorter.

2. I beg pardon of Anonymous for not grasping what really is his definition of "traditional Catholic". He seems to exclude some of those who are covered by the definition "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council" - those, perhaps, who, though they prefer the old style, accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as true, and the subsequent decrees of the Holy See as valid. Yet he seems to include within traditional Catholicism the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter.

Lima 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous and Dominick

YOU SAY:

I didnt claim that, I went by what is published by Rome, and specifically, the Moto Proprio issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

I RESPOND:

"Rome" is a city and doesn't publish anything. If you want to talk about the Motu Proprio, then discuss it. But don't call it the voice of "Rome." It is THAT kind of language that is killing this article.

YOU SAY:

Viewership of EWTN is not a criteria for being a traditionalist. I can't help you there, but most at Catholic Answers often use the term traditionalist when referring to themselves.

I RESPOND: Here is how the term "traditionalist" is used at Catholic Answers:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3Awww.catholic.com+traditionalist&btnG=Search

YOU SAY: When we say full accord in Church documents, it means that it teaches what the See teaches, not what you may think the See taught. This doesn't mean those beliefs changes, but, the explanation has been explored in further detail, which is exactly as the Church is intended to work. Catholicism has a living magestarium, and while the principles do not change, the explanation can be tailored for the times. Your problem with the Church is outside the scope of this article.

I RESPOND: Yeah, I've read Newman. I know about the development of Catholic doctrine. OK? But until you can point out to me what it is that "traditionalists" don't believe but that you think they have to believe in order to be "in full accord with Rome," then I will have to assume you have no idea what you are talking about. And saying "they have to believe in Vatican II" won't cut it. WHAT ABOUT VATICAN II? What teaching, what solemn definition, what infallible dogma did Vatican II's 16 documents produce that must be accepted de fide? What is it about "Vatican II" that "traditional Catholics" don't accept?

YOU SAY: As far as the division, the article was flawed in that no defintion exists for either term as the Church knows it. If you can find the defintion of Conservative Catholic, made by a source, preferable a Catholic CHurch source, I would think differently. As the term conservative denotes a political leaning and not a theological one, it is misplaced.

I RESPOND: "Conservative" (small "C"; it's also an adjective) means this (Webster's): "of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism." "Conservatism" means "the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change."

Now, tell me again why the name of a Wikipedia entry has to be found in some encyclical somewhere.

YOU SAY:

Anyone can identify themselves with the concept of traditionalism as you stated, which is the restoration of elements of the Church from before the 1960s, and be considered a traditionalist. The problem is trying to contrast that with a made up term is wrong.

I SAY:

No, that's not the concept of traditionalist as I stated. That's the concept someone else stated. What I said is that traditional Catholicism includes the desire to preserve the Mass, Sacraments, and ALL the teachings of the Church (and to restore them where they have been lost). What those teachings -- as compared to how "Catholic teaching" is typically presented today -- are can be found in that section of the article now ridiculously named "Attitude towards the Second Vatican Council of traditionalist Catholics not in full accord with the Holy See."

YOU SAY:

A priest still wears a roman collar. I have never seen one in leotards, except one unattibuted picture that is usually bandied about as examples of Novus Ordo priests by integrists. That being said, wearing of leotards does not make one a traditionalist. As it states in Church law a Priest must wear vestments when saying Mass.

I SAY:

Who the HECK is saying that a priest wearing leotards would make one a traditionalist? It doesn't even make any sense.

YOU SAY:

You have put both sets of words in my mouth. First I say there is unity then I say they are a branch.

I SAY: But they are not a "branch"; that is the point.

YOU SAY:

Sedes are no longer Catholic Church members, by their selfidentified excommunication. SSPX Bishops were excommunicated by writ, from the Pope. One who is excommunicated is no longer Catholic.

I SAY: Whether sedes are "excommunicated" is a question of fact which assumes that the one acclaimed as Pope is the Pope. I happen to accept Benedict XVI as the Holy Father, but that is neither here nor there except that my personal orthodoxy seems to be some sort of an issue here. As to the SSPX, the 4 Bishops were said to have been excommunicated (without trial), not those who attend their Masses. But the article is now written to lead people to believe otherwise.

YOU SAY:

Every Catholic purporting to be union with Rome better believe those as they are dogmatic, if they think we should bring the Mass closer to the Tridentine Mass or not. Catholic tradition has always been taught you attend a licit Mass. Saints have been made from those who refused to take illicit communion from an Arian Priest or Bishop and were martyred. One can't toss out the status of the Priest or his fidelity to his Bishop.

I RESPOND:

Yeah, and one of those Saints -- Athanasius -- was excommunicated by Pope Liberius, expelled from his see, and forced into exile. He was later canonized. Get the point? You are begging the questions here of what is and isn't truly allowed and good, which is the very crux of the "trad" vs. "conservative" debate. St. Joan of Arc was "excommunicated," too. There is a time to disobey, and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about it. Disobedience, per se, is not a schismatic act; there must be schismatic intent. Look up schism in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

YOU SAY:

None the less your narrow definition of this undefined term by the Church, mirrors those of the SSPX. People who attend Indult Mass often attend a Novus Ordo if they have to, since preference to the Rite of Mass is not a valid reason for missing the SUnday Obligation. If one were to attend ONE Novus Ordo Mass they would not be a traditionalist.

I SAY: Not every Wikipedia entry has to be defined by the Church, and as I said, my definition includes those who attend "indult" Masses, Masses offered by the SSPX and other priestly fraternities, and sedevacantists. How the inclusion of sedes fits the "SSPX defintion" is beyond me. And under "traditional Catholic views" it reads: "They attend Mass by preference or exclusively in the Tridentine form." How does that exclude those who attends a N.O. Mass because of lack of access to the traditional Mass? And why do you think that all traditional Catholics think that attending even ONE N.O. Mass would make one not a traditionalist? ("Even" the SSPX says that one can attend PROTESTANT services, such as funerals and weddings, as an act of charity -- which is what the Church taught before the "revolution" took place).

YOU SAY:

Your personal attack aside, The SSPX may say that but they instruct the faithful to not attend Indult nor Novus Ordo Mass.

I SAY: Yes, they do. But not because they don't think they're not valid (if offered using valid matter and intent, etc.), but because they think they are Protestantized and dangerous to the Faith. But what that has to do with this article is, again, beyond me. This is not an article about the SSPX.

YOU SAY:

The basic thinking is the crux of this arguement I made, this is a self-identified term, a club anyone can join by expressing a desire to be a traditionalist.

I SAY:

Yeah, in the same way anyone who wants to be a "Marxist" can "be" one by saying he is. But one either is or isn't, in fact, a Marxist, or a traditionalist, or an anything. Does the entry's name have any meaning at all in the objective order or not?

YOU SAY:

The Church is the arbiter of accord. Your comments are valid but reverting and not editing articles doest serve you well at wikipedia. As for my agenda, I am hardly a liberal, and even if I were, it does not stop me from forming an NPoV article, and working with others as I have done.

I SAY:

And I am quite capable of forming a NPOV article, too, and did so. But then I'm not the one writing about how "traditionalist" Catholics don't "accept Vatican II" (whatever that means) and throwing sloppy language around that does nothing but obfuscate things (and, as a personal aside, make relations between "trads" and "conservatives" much uglier than they have to be).

YOU SAY: I do not not think talking with you on Church topics helps reach a consensus. So in the future, direct your comments to the specifics of this article.

I SAY: I'll direct my comments where I like, thank you.

YOU SAY: We disagree on the term conservative, and disagree that the terms in accord denotes that someone is in union with Rome. Perhaps using the term "good standing" would be an improvement, even while I think that is too weak of a term. We disagree on the understanding of Church dogma by Catholics and traditional Catholics, there is no difference IMHO, and you think they understand it differently. I would love USER:Lima to pop in here.

I SAY: The differences in the understanding of Catholic doctrine by mainstream conservative Catholics and traditional Catholics are outlined in that aforementioned hideously-named section.

As to the "conservative" vs. "traditional" thing, it boils down to this: EWTN/Catholic Answers/Mark Shea/Deal Hudson/PhatMass/et al vs. those who attend "indult" Masses out of a deep conviction of its superiority to the N.O rite and with a deep wariness about post-conciliar changes and the watering-down of doctrine; those who attend SSPX Masses or other Masses offered by priestly fraternities or independent priests who accept the authority of the acclaimed Pope; and sedevacantists (who accept the papacy itself, but do not believe we have a true Pope). In common parlance, the former are called "conservative Catholics" and the latter "traditional Catholics."

Anonymous to Lima Redux

YOU SAY:

If I may get a word in edgeways, may I get two in, please?

1. The Holy See says it is not in accord with SSPX. It takes two to make an accord. Whatever the other side may say, full accord is lacking between the Holy See and certain traditional(ist) Catholics. So, if the article were not blocked, I would, to please Anonymous, change "not in full accord with the Holy See" to "between whom and the Holy See full accord is lacking", or I would return the text to "of the second and third categories", which is shorter.

I SAY: The "Holy See" (i.e., Vatican hierarchs) says that dealings with the SSPX are an INTERNAL MATTER, so there's your "full accord." Are there issues between the SSPX and Vatican hierarchs? Of course. But no more --- no, much LESS -- than there are between Vatican hierarchs and the Fr. McBriens and Cardinal Mahonys of the world. The difference is that the SSPX is freakin' Catholic and believes every single last tiny drop of Catholic teaching.

YOU SAY:

2. I beg pardon of Anonymous for not grasping what really is his definition of "traditional Catholic". He seems to exclude some of those who are covered by the definition "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council" - those, perhaps, who, though they prefer the old style, accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as true, and the subsequent decrees of the Holy See as valid. Yet he seems to include within traditional Catholicism the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter.

I SAY: What teachings are you talking about? Be specific. We're trying to write an encyclopedia entry. Seriously: what "teachings of the Second Vatican Council" must be accepted as articles of the Faith? List them. Where's the dogma? (Can a pastoral Council produce dogma? Hmmm...)

And I don't like the definition, "Catholics who want the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as before the Second Vatican Council." It is sloppy as Hell linguistically and makes Vatican II out to be "the issue." Traditional Catholics have different opinions about Vatican II, as the original article made clear. Some think it wasn't a valid Council at all (sedes). Some think the documents were just ambiguous, badly written, and badly interpreted, but not otherwise problematic or heretical (e.g., Sungenis). Some think they teach heresy but just aren't infallible documents so, whatever. So to talk about "traditional Catholics and Vatican II" is not clear enough.

Secondly, most of the problems FOLLOWED the Council. The New Mass wasn't invented at Vatican II; it came a few years later after a Freemason, a few Catholics, and 6 Protestants got together and invented it. Same with changes in the other liturgies and rites: they came AFTER the Council. Same with the "Jews don't need Jesus" stuff, etc. Catholics on all sides have to stop saying "Vatican II this" and "Vatican II" that in such a sloppy manner.

--- End of further insertion by Anonymous

Lima writes

Sorry, I can only repeat:

1. Full accord between SSPX and the Holy See is lacking. To put it more positively, there is a dispute. When presenting in 1993 the revised Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, and so of relations with other Christian denominations, Cardinal Edward Cassidy said what is obvious, namely that the dispute with SSPX, as with other Catholics of whatever tendency, is an internal matter of the Catholic Church, not a matter of ecumenical relations. He did not say there was no dispute. Surely nobody seriously believes there is no dispute, no lack of full accord.

2. I wrote of "the teachings" of the Second Vatican Council, not "some of the teachings". Nor did I write: "infallible teachings". I also wrote of "the subsequent decrees of the Holy See. ("Subsequent" means "that FOLLOWED".) I am still waiting for a clear understandable definition by Anonymous of what he understands by "traditional Catholic".

Lima 04:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anoymous responds to Dominick

YOU SAY:

1. Full accord between SSPX and the Holy See is lacking. To put it more positively, there is a dispute. When presenting in 1993 the revised Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, and so of relations with other Christian denominations, Cardinal Edward Cassidy said what is obvious, namely that the dispute with SSPX, as with other Catholics of whatever tendency, is an internal matter of the Catholic Church, not a matter of ecumenical relations. He did not say there was no dispute. Surely nobody seriously believes there is no dispute, no lack of full accord.

I RESPOND:

No one says there is no dispute between the SSPX/other traditional Catholics and some Vatican hierarchs. But "accord" is much too vague to use here, as is "Holy See." Is Cardinal Mahony "in full accord" with "the Holy See"? What about Bishop Malone of Liverpool -- made Bishop by "John Paul the Great" in 1989 -- who wants women (who, by definition, cannot become priests, see JPII's Mulieris Dignitatem and look at what the Church has always taught) to hear Confessions and grant absolution (which, according to Catholic dogma, only priests can do? (see http://www.cathnews.com/news/308/164.php )

What about Cardinal O'Brien who used a Mass of thanksgiving as an occasion to question Church teaching and discipline regarding contraception, homosexuality, and clerical celibacy? (see http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=25029)

What about Cardinal Kasper, who denies that Jews need Jesus to be saved and who denies the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession? (see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742 )

Then there's Bishop Lucas of Springfield, who held his ordination party in a Masonic Lodge. JPII made him Bishop in 1999, when someone had to replace Bishop Ryan, who was caught with his cassock down around priests and male prostitutes (JPII made him Bishop in 1981).

What about Bishops Zipfel and Aquila of North Dakota, both appointed to their Sees by JPII, who refused to endorse a bill to criminalize abortion?

Now, what does it mean for a Catholic to be "in full accord" with this sort of thing?

YOU SAY:

2. I wrote of "the teachings" of the Second Vatican Council, not "some of the teachings". Nor did I write: "infallible teachings".

I RESPOND: But what teachings -- fallible or infallible -- "of the Second Vatican Council" do "traditional Catholics" have to accept lest they put themselves "outside the Church" or "not in full accord" with "Rome"? (and wouldn't it be much better for the Church if "conservative Catholics" stopped picking on "trads" and focused on those who deny Catholic dogma? Why go after "trads" when Sr. Chittisters are running around promoting homosexuality, and the typical Catholic you run into has no problem with the "ordination" of women? If all the energy spent going after "trads" were focused on 1) learning what "traditional Catholics" ACTUALLY think, and 2) evangelizing, and 3) fighting Modernism -- well, what a better world it would be.) (as to Modernism, see the oath against it here: [link removed] )

YOU SAY:

I also wrote of "the subsequent decrees of the Holy See. ("Subsequent" means "that FOLLOWED".) I am still waiting for a clear understandable definition by Anonymous of what he understands by "traditional Catholic".

I RESPOND:

I think I've explained it very clearly. A "traditional Catholic" is a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church. What are the differences in how mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics understand those eternal teachings of the Church? See the hideously-named section four of the article as it stands now at 1 October 2005, 1:15 AM EST. It is quite clear. It is laid out. The encyclicals are explicitly named (As a fellow Catholic, I beg you to read them). The issues are described. The section could be beefed up, but there it is. Those are the issues.

The term "traditional Catholic" doesn't indicate a mere preference for the traditional Mass or else you'd have to count as a "traditional Catholic" people like Andrew Sullivan and anyone who just likes Latin or Palestrina or incense and has any aesthetic taste at all.

It doesn't mean one must, in fact, attend a traditional Mass or else you'd have to exclude anyone who believes what was just outlined, but who doesn't have access to a traditional Mass (whether this person attends a N.O. -- which a "traditional Catholic" may or may not consider valid -- in the meantime or not).

It doesn't include the "Catholic Answers" crowd, which you can see from their own website (and also the likes of EWTN and such, who constantly differentiate between mainstream Catholics and "traditional Catholics.") Do a Google search to prove this to yourself if you don't believe me. Again, see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3Awww.catholic.com+traditionalist&btnG=Search

It doesn't include liberal Catholics, who deny Church dogma.

It doesn't include mainstream Catholics who think Pope Pius X could walk into the typical parish, recognize it as Catholic, and have no problems with it at all.

It doesn't include those who yelled "Santo subito!" after His Holiness John Paul II died, no matter how much they wish their N.O. Masses were "more reverent" and less tainted by those ever-present "liturgical abuses" that EWTN is always getting letters about, and no matter how personally holy and sincere they might be, and no matter their invincible ignorance and their chances at salvation.

It is simply those Catholics who hold fast to the traditions and who believe everything the Church has taught IN THE SAME WAY the Church has always understood things, and who want to preserve (and restore where lacking) the traditional Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites. Some are sedevacantist, some are not (and things between those two groups can get extremely heated). But all believe the same dogmas, and all have the same goal. Some might disagree over "Feeneyism," some might be more "Jansenist" than others (SIGH). Some are warm, some are cold. But there is, in fact, very little disagreement over the goals (to preserve and restore all the aforementioned things) and the means (to carry on as Catholics always have, as best as they can given their understanding of things and their personal situations).

What do "traditional Catholics" want and believe? What did Popes Gregory the Great, Pius V, and Pius X want and believe? This isn't that hard...

I beg pardon for being insistent and "grouchy" about this, but this is far too important to me personally to take lightly (teaching about the Roman Catholic Church and bringing souls to Her is my passion). Nonetheless, I agree that the article should be written in an objective manner, which I think the article had been.

--- End of further insertion by Anonymous

Dominick defends himself

What about Bishop Malone of Liverpool (SNIP) who wants women (who, by definition, cannot become priests

Off topic he isn’t a traditionalist, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics.

What about Cardinal O'Brien who used a Mass of thanksgiving as an occasion to question Church teaching and discipline regarding contraception, homosexuality, and clerical celibacy?

Off topic he isn’t a traditionalist, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics.

What about Cardinal Kasper, who denies that Jews need Jesus to be saved and who denies the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession?

Off topic he isn’t a traditionalist, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics. Cardinal Kaspar also didn’t say that.

Then there's Bishop Lucas of Springfield, who held his ordination party in a Masonic Lodge. JPII made him Bishop in 1999, when someone had to replace Bishop Ryan, who was caught with his cassock down around priests and male prostitutes

Off topic he isn’t a traditionalist, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics.

What about Bishops Zipfel and Aquila of North Dakota, both appointed to their Sees by JPII, who refused to endorse a bill to criminalize abortion?

Off topic they are not traditionalists, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics.

Now, what does it mean for a Catholic to be "in full accord" with this sort of thing?

It means you are in Union with the teaching of the Church. You are not making any point, to the content of this article and are not even TRYING to reach consensus. This is not a debating society.

But what teachings -- fallible or infallible -- "of the Second Vatican Council" do "traditional Catholics" have to accept lest they put themselves "outside the Church" or "not in full accord" with "Rome"?

For one the Council was validly convened, so all of it, asa valid concil of the Church.

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

We already have consensus on this.

What are the differences in how mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics understand those eternal teachings of the Church? See the hideously-named section four of the article as it stands now at 1 October 2005, 1:15 AM EST. It is quite clear.

That wasn’t clear, Catholics are held to the same Dogma, and the understanding shall be that of the See. Your opinion is incorrect.

The term "traditional Catholic" doesn't indicate a mere preference for the traditional Mass or else you'd have to count as a "traditional Catholic" people like Andrew Sullivan and anyone who just likes Latin or Palestrina or incense and has any aesthetic taste at all.

This is your opinion that they could not be included, are you now going to complain that we are the arbiters of Union with the Holy See and you are the arbiter of traditionalism?

It doesn't include the "Catholic Answers" crowd, which you can see from their own website (and also the likes of EWTN and such, who constantly differentiate between mainstream Catholics and "traditional Catholics.") Do a Google search to prove this to yourself if you don't believe me. Again, see

I hearing Karl Keating speak he has referred to himself as a traditionalist. I looked to the forums, the term has fallen off, but this is because of the rhetorical idiosyncracies of CA Forums. Your personal PoV on Catholic Answers is not germaine to this article. You can’t be the arbiter of who is and who is not a traditionalist. I know they use the term with a capital T and use arch-Traditionalist who hold to the heresy the Novis Ordo is invalid, but they also use the term in the classical sense. Your problem with Catholic Answer is not going to be part of this article, as personal PoV doesn’t belong here.

It doesn't include those who yelled "Santo subito!" after His Holiness John Paul II died,

You think that if a person thinks John Paul was a saint they can’t be a traditionalist? That is just presumptuous. Your PoV again, and your problems with the John-Paul II Papacy, is irrelevant. Are we to stick that in there too? If you think John Paul was a Saint, you are not a Traditionalist, so says Anonymous.

It is simply those Catholics who hold fast to the traditions and who believe everything the Church has taught IN THE SAME WAY the Church has always understood things, and who want to preserve (and restore where lacking) the traditional Mass and all of the traditional Sacramental rites.

Well you are inconsistent in your writing. This is what we have consesus on now. We do not agree on excluding others who do not meet your personal view of traditional purity. This has always been the crux of this disagreement. So far you have excluded and included people in this definition at your whim, supported by horror stories of Bishops gone wild and priests in leotards. Well, your definiton of traditionalist is flawed and byzantine. (a pun!) Sticking with the one we agree on, without all your caveats and litmus tests makes things much more accurate.

I beg pardon for being insistent and "grouchy" about this, but this is far too important to me personally to take lightly (teaching about the Roman Catholic Church and bringing souls to Her is my passion). Nonetheless, I agree that the article should be written in an objective manner, which I think the article had been.

No It was changed to be objection, however you didn’t like the definition as used by the vast majority of Catholics, you can’t change reality by changing a Wikipedia article. There is a point where insistance fails to serve your cause. Dominick 12:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

-- end of further insertion by Anonymous

1a. Perhaps we can now thankfully end discussion on "in full accord". I, perhaps wrongly, understood Anonymous to object to a distinction being drawn between traditional(ist) Catholics in full accord with the Holy See and traditional(ist) Catholics who are not. If he now accepts that this is a valid distinction, there is no disagreement. Whether or not the others whom he attacks are in full accord or in dispute with the Holy See is irrelevant: they are not traditional(ist) Catholics.

1b. "Holy See" is not, as Anonymous says, a vague expression. It is very precise: canon 361 of the Code of Canon Law gives a clear definition. If Anonymous dislikes the present Code of Canon Law, since it was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983, several years after the Second Vatican Council, he can refer instead to canon 7 of the 1917 Code.

2a. I never said that traditional(ist) Catholics "put themselves outside the Church". I said the opposite. People baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism remain members of the Catholic Church, in spite of the disputes they may have with the Holy See, unless they defect from the Catholic Church by a formal act (cf. canon 1124 of the Code of Canon Law). But there remains a distinction between those traditional(ist) Catholics who accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (and the subsequent decrees of the Holy See), and those other traditional(ist) Catholics who only accept some or perhaps even none of those teachings (and of the subsequent decrees).

2b. Defining "traditional Catholic" as "a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church" is like defining "yellow ribbon" as "a ribbon that is yellow". The term to be defined is itself found within the so-called definition. Even the phrase "as they have always been understood by the Church" is a very subjective expression. The general body of Catholics would not be classified as traditional(ist) Catholics, but they certainly want, in their understanding of the matter, "to preserve ALL the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church". So here again the term to be defined is, implicitly, found within the so-called definition, which only comes to "traditional means traditional".

Lima 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus?

Traditionalism is the belief that one should restore Church elements from before the reforms of the 1960s.
The groups include those attending Indult Mass, Non-approved Mass, and Sede Masses.

This doesn't use any other peripherial items. This doesn not exclude those who attend Novus Ordo Masses as well. I don't like the terms used that implied a purity test.

Is this a working definition? Dominick 14:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette and comment formatting

Aside from the main issues being discussed, I want to point out that a couple things make this Talk page very difficult to read and follow. The first is that apparently one or more people prefer not to sign their posts, which violates basic Wikiquette and makes the page very confusing to read. The 'YOU SAY / I SAY' format is confusing, because it's not at all clear who is saying what. I tried to follow the conversation for a while, but it eventually became clear that the 'YOU' in 'YOU SAY' wasn't always the same person. On top of that, some editors denied having said things attributed to them, which makes me think that something got lost or at the very least taken out of context when it was copy-pasted into a 'YOU SAY' section. Editing or altering someone else's comments, even to correct a typo they made, is considered very bad form incidentally, at least by most wikipedians. The later plain type / italic type distinction isn't much better. The way we tell who is saying what on wikipedia is for each person to sign their posts with four tilde's, as explained at the top of this very page. Colons can be used to indent. This is what has worked well for years on wikipedia. If you don't want to even register a username, that's ok, the four tilde's will result in an IP address signature. Personally I think there's more anonymity in a registered username than there is in an IP address, and registering is not at all invasive nor do you have to give up any personal information; sharing an email address is strictly optional. Wesley \

The other thing that would help is to keep the discussion focused on the substance of the article, on how to improve the article, make it more complete, accurate, NPOV, clear to a reader unfamiliar with the subject, etc. Comments on individual editors' beliefs, knowledge or ignorance, etc. are generally unhelpful. Attempts to convince fellow editors that you're right and they're wrong are generally unhelpful with regard to beliefs. (Believe me I know, as I've made these mistakes myself and seen others make them.) Sometimes you have to do this with factual information, in which case some kind of reference or citation is usually immensely helpful; otherwise it just boils down to a shouting match. (And no, using all caps doesn't help you win a shouting match; quite the contrary.) Wesley \

Obviously there are strong and opposing opinions about what a traditionalist Catholic is. There are at least a couple of approaches you can take. You can try to reduce the definition to a 'Least Common Denominator' description, which is what I think the above call for consensus seems to be doing; or you can try to neutrally present the competing definitions, comparing and contrasting them with each other. I've seen this result in articles that are in some ways more informative, but in other ways more confusing, with often choppy writing. ("A thinks this but B believes that" often is accurate but doesn't read well.) Wesley 16:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, with regard to Bishops or Cardinals Malone, O'Brien, Zipfel, Aquila, Kasper (who did "say that"), et. al., about whom you say, "Off topic he isn’t a traditionalist, and this is also condemned by Church teaching to be held by all Catholics," you are missing the point. These men are considered to be "in full accord" with "the Holy See" -- so much so, in fact, that John Paul II gave them their Sees and Cardinalates. They are the purveyors of what is passed off as "Church teaching." They are "the Holy See." When asked what it means for a Catholic to be "in full accord" with "the Holy See" in light of this sort of thing, you say "It means you are in Union with the teaching of the Church" and had said earlier that "When we say full accord in Church documents, it means that it teaches what the See teaches, not what you may think the See taught." Either the Catholic Faith can be known objectively through solemn definitions and looking at what has always, everywhere been taught, and determining developments that are logically consistent -- or it is not.

Now, Kasper is a member of the Curia. Ratzinger is Pope, and was a Cardinal when he wrote Dominus Iesus. Which one are we to believe when it comes to Jews being in a saving covenant? Both are part of "the Holy See." (SS. Gregory and Pius X were a Popes, too, BTW. Are you "in full accord" with them or are we "pope-picking" now?)

I asked you which "teachings" -- fallible or infallible -- "of the Second Vatican Council" do Catholics have to accept de fide. You said "For one the Council was validly convened, so all of it, asa valid concil of the Church" -- which doesn't answer my question at all (and which would exclude sedevacantist Catholics. And here I thought you didn't want to be exlusive...). The question, rephrased, is: What did the Council teach that you think Catholics have to accept de fide in order to be "in full accord" with "the Holy See"? List the things that traditional Catholics have to put a checkmark next to in order to be "in full accord" with "the Holy See."

(BTW, to correct a mistake you made earlier: you said that sedes are "excommunicated" and that an excommunicated person is "no longer Catholic." This is not true. Excommunication doesn't negate Baptism; it deprives one of the rights of Christians. When St. Athanasius was "excommunicated" (unjustly) by Pope Liberius and exiled from his see, he remained a Catholic.)

When talking about the differences in how mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics understand those eternal teachings of the Church, you said that section four of the article as it stands now isn't good enough, and that "Catholics are held to the same Dogma, and the understanding shall be that of the See. Your opinion is incorrect." Until and unless you can show me solemn definitions of "ecumenism" and "religious liberty" and such, that my opinion is incorrect is simply your opinion. If you want to go on about the merely authentic Magisterium, then you'd best let traditional Catholics know which Cardinals they're supposed to obey, because there are a lot of different opinions among them. Have you read the encyclicals and other documents listed in section 4? Can you make them line up with what is passed off as the Catholic religion today?

After saying that we've reached a consensus on what traditional Catholicism entails (i.e., "a Catholic who wants to preserve -- or restore where wanting -- the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church"), you then go on to say that it is my "opinion" that people like Andrew Sullivan is not included in the defintion. Do you know whether you are coming or going? How does Andrew Sullivan fit the definition you just said you agree with?

You talk about my opinion about Catholic Answers vis a vis the term "traditionalist Catholic," and about those who yelled "Santo subito" after the demise of John Paul the Great Disappointment, and then tell me that I can't be the "arbiter" of who is and who is not a traditionalist. Why do you get to be the arbiter? Who would know more about "traditional Catholicism" -- a traditional Catholic or you? The Google search returns for the term "traditionalist" at Catholic Answers shows clearly that Catholic Answers uses the phrase in a way that had been consistent with this article until it was mangled.

And finally, you accuse me of "inconsistency" when I have stuck to the same definition of "traditional Catholicism" throughout -- while you want to include in that definition everyone from Andrew Sullivan to Karl Keating to anyone who yelled "Santo subito" and considers himself conservative. And this after saying we've reached a consensus on what "traditional Catholicism" means. Come on.

152.163.100.202 10:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima,

I object to the phrase "in full accord with the Holy See" because it is vague in this context. Your pointing to the definition of "Holy See" in Canon Law doesn't help. As stated earlier, Kasper is a member of the Curia, and so are Arinze and Trujillo. Which ones do we have to agree with in order to be "in full accord with the Holy See"? The word "accord" is simply too vague as is the term "Holy See," and it's vague in the same sense that hearing "pizza!" after asking someone what he wants for dinner isn't vague, but walking into a pizza shop and saying you want "pizza" with no qualifications IS vague. In the second situation, one must be very specific, and so it is here. Telling someone you are going to visit "the Vatican" is one thing and not vague; saying someone doesn't "agree with the Vatican" is vague. In order to be clear (and to not offend), this article has to use clear and exact language. The neo-cat PhatMass language like "they don't like Vatican II!" or "they're schismatics!" won't be accurate, won't be healing, and won't fly. The language can't be sloppy (and on a personal note, if you are Catholic and want Christian unity, you should be committed to this. As a side note, I always wonder how conservative Catholics will feel about the SSPX when/if the Pope and they sign something or other, and the former praises them and says everything's kosher now. After having reamed them for so many years, I wonder if the conservatives will suddenly change their minds.). Anyway, talking about the Motu Proprio or how the situation with the SSPX is "irregular" is one thing; talking about how the S.S.P.X. is "dissenting from 'Rome'" or is "schismatic" is another (as if a discussion of that even belongs in this article at all).

Your saying "But there remains a distinction between those traditional(ist) Catholics who accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council (and the subsequent decrees of the Holy See), and those other traditional(ist) Catholics who only accept some or perhaps even none of those teachings (and of the subsequent decrees)" begs the question -- once again: what are those "teachings of the Vatican Council" that one must "accept" de fide in order to be "in full accord" with "the Holy See"? List the teachings. We really want to know. If you want to talk about "disputes" between traditional Catholics and mainstream Catholicism, then fine by me, but this "in full accord" and "Holy See" and "teachings of Vatican II" stuff is extremely aggravating because it is vague and sloppy.

As to your yellow ribbon analogy, the disputes between traditional Catholics and mainstream Catholics are outlined very clearly in section 4 of the article as it now stands. The fact is that mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics have different understanding of what the Church has always taught, and that is the entire crux of the matter (who is right is a matter of study. Read the encyclicals mentioned in section 4. If you can reconcile "Mortalium Animos" with the Assisi meetings, then I'd love to see it). The word "tradition" itself refers to established, customary beliefs and practices which have been handed down.

152.163.100.202 10:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, with re: to "Consensus?": the article had included those who attend "indult" Masses, Masses offered by the SSPX and other such priestly fraternities, and sedevacantist priests.

152.163.100.202 10:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, re: your desire to see an article that is NPOV and "clear to a reader unfamiliar with the subject": I don't know if you've been following the recent edits and reverts, but imagine you are some guy Googling to find out what those "traditionalist Catholics" you've heard about think. Now go read the opening paragraphs to this article. It starts off with this line, ""Traditionalist Catholic" is the term generally used, for example by the media." That's the opening sentence. Then it goes into a big argument. And what encyclopedia includes language such as "without making any judgment on the correctness of the term..."?

As to finding a "least common denominator" description, I think the only thing that will work with Dominick is either "anyone who likes pretty Masses" or "anyone who thinks he's a traditional Catholic." If he wants to argue that mainstream Catholics are traditional Catholics, too (why the two phrases exist for these groups I don't know), then that should go in a separate section at the BOTTOM of the page. The page should be reverted to about 6 months ago, the Chinese Catholicism bit should be removed (what it's doing in there is way beyond me), and then it should be tidied up, with links added to the encyclicals mentioned in section 4. Right now, the entire thing is a big, disorganized, badly-written mess.

152.163.100.202 10:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Without responding to your off topic points, because Union with Rome is one of the hallmarks of tradition, You simply don't read what I said for the working definition. Like I said I made a consensus thesis, taken from your text, and you failed to recognize or comprehend it. Nothing that you said I had said was in there, and I guess this will stay protected until we get more eyes on this problem. I think the consensus is the article shall include all Catholics with a belief about the Church returning elements from Catholicism pre-1960s. I think we can leave out the part about disqualification as a traditionalist if you think JP is a saint out of the article. Dominick 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want that in the article and never said I did. I was talking to you personally. You said you agreed with the definition; "we've reached a consensus" is a quote or a really good paraphrase, and was said in response to this definition: "a Catholic who wants to preserve -- or restore where wanting -- the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church" -- and now you change your mind and come up with "Traditionalism is the belief that one should restore Church elements from before the reforms of the 1960s." This definition is badly written. What is a "Church element"? And how will you get an A+ on this essay if you write "restore 'Church elements' FROM BEFORE the reforms"? It makes no sense, man. Seriously. I mean no offense, but it makes no sense.

152.163.100.202 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous to Dominick

YOU SAY: 1. Full accord between SSPX and the Holy See is lacking. To put it more positively, there is a dispute. When presenting in 1993 the revised Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, and so of relations with other Christian denominations, Cardinal Edward Cassidy said what is obvious, namely that the dispute with SSPX, as with other Catholics of whatever tendency, is an internal matter of the Catholic Church, not a matter of ecumenical relations. He did not say there was no dispute. Surely nobody seriously believes there is no dispute, no lack of full accord.

I RESPOND: No one says there is no dispute between the SSPX/other traditional Catholics and some Vatican hierarchs. But "accord" is much too vague to use here, as is "Holy See." Is Cardinal Mahony "in full accord" with "the Holy See"? What about Bishop Malone of Liverpool -- made Bishop by "John Paul the Great" in 1989 -- who wants women (who, by definition, cannot become priests, see JPII's Mulieris Dignitatem and look at what the Church has always taught) to hear Confessions and grant absolution (which, according to Catholic dogma, only priests can do? (see http://www.cathnews.com/news/308/164.php )

What about Cardinal O'Brien who used a Mass of thanksgiving as an occasion to question Church teaching and discipline regarding contraception, homosexuality, and clerical celibacy? (see http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=25029)

What about Cardinal Kasper, who denies that Jews need Jesus to be saved and who denies the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession? (see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742 )

Then there's Bishop Lucas of Springfield, who held his ordination party in a Masonic Lodge. JPII made him Bishop in 1999, when someone had to replace Bishop Ryan, who was caught with his cassock down around priests and male prostitutes (JPII made him Bishop in 1981).

What about Bishops Zipfel and Aquila of North Dakota, both appointed to their Sees by JPII, who refused to endorse a bill to criminalize abortion?

Now, what does it mean for a Catholic to be "in full accord" with this sort of thing?

YOU SAY: 2. I wrote of "the teachings" of the Second Vatican Council, not "some of the teachings". Nor did I write: "infallible teachings".

I RESPOND: But what teachings -- fallible or infallible -- "of the Second Vatican Council" do "traditional Catholics" have to accept lest they put themselves "outside the Church" or "not in full accord" with "Rome"? (and wouldn't it be much better for the Church if "conservative Catholics" stopped picking on "trads" and focused on those who deny Catholic dogma? Why go after "trads" when Sr. Chittisters are running around promoting homosexuality, and the typical Catholic you run into has no problem with the "ordination" of women? If all the energy spent going after "trads" were focused on 1) learning what "traditional Catholics" ACTUALLY think, and 2) evangelizing, and 3) fighting Modernism -- well, what a better world it would be.) (as to Modernism, see the oath against it here: [link removed] )

YOU SAY: I also wrote of "the subsequent decrees of the Holy See. ("Subsequent" means "that FOLLOWED".) I am still waiting for a clear understandable definition by Anonymous of what he understands by "traditional Catholic".

I RESPOND: I think I've explained it very clearly. A "traditional Catholic" is a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church. What are the differences in how mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics understand those eternal teachings of the Church? See the hideously-named section four of the article as it stands now at 1 October 2005, 1:15 AM EST. It is quite clear. It is laid out. The encyclicals are explicitly named (As a fellow Catholic, I beg you to read them). The issues are described. The section could be beefed up, but there it is. Those are the issues.