Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 5

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

Comment guidelines

Please keep discussion focused on editorial collaboration. Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and a community, not a battleground or message board; personal attacks of any kind are prohibited. All editors are further strongly encouraged to assume good faith; please don't make any accusations you are not ready to thoroughly defend. When speaking of or responding to other editors, try to set an example in civility and tolerance. Remember that the sole purpose of article talk pages is to collaborate in writing an article. If you wish to address another user, please do so on their talk pages (but remember to remain civil). // Pathoschild 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


External links

OK, I'm being bold here and applying my understanding of WP:EL. It says that external sites should be used as authorities, so all the ones listed as opinion seem to me to be evasions of WP:FORK by other means. Links to periodicals? If they aren't already articles (in which case "see also") then in what way are the not spam? I left the catholic encyclopaedia and the personal site listed as a source.

The whole point is to cover the discussion encyclopaedically in the article, after all. And actually it seems to me to do a pretty fair job of that. Not that I exclude the idea that significant traditionalist organisations should be in External links - obviously they should - but the whole structure of this section is so far against the inclusion guidelines in WP:EL that it doesn't represent a good starting point. For example, how many members does Traditio have? Or OHCA? What is the authority of these poeple? Which are large groups representing substantial numbers of dissenters? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinions

Pro-traditionalist

Websites
Periodicals


Anti-Traditionalist

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some Papal documents that are properly linked, and links to the SSPX, ICK, and FSSP would be proper. The magazines all enjoy wide circulation. Dominick (TALK) 13:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My non-expert opinion is that the usefulness of any of the Internet links is highly doubtful.

  • Links (under "See also") to Wikipedia articles on "SSPX, ICK, and FSSP" would be much more useful here than links to their websites. Links to their websites belong to their articles, not here.
  • Why have a section on "Books"? Especially with no indication that the books are not neutral/objective books, but point-of-view ones, all condemning the changes in the Church. One of them, with no ISBN, has a title that does not even sound like a book's title (Open Letter ...). Isn't a list of such books (for purchase?) spam as much or more than the websites that have been removed?
  • How widely are the periodicals read, in fact? All of them? If their websites, which all campaign for a single side, were to be included, counterbalancing websites that support the opposite view should doubtless be included also. Is that either necessary or useful?
  • How can thirteenth-century Summa Theologica and sixteenth-century Catechism of the Council of Trent be properly classified as "resources" on a movement that began in the 1960s?

(I have presumed Dominick's permission to move his latest comment into chronological order.)

Lima 15:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I think anything to avoid the Spam Event Horizon on an article is a good thing. Dominick (TALK) 15:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not just me. I absolutely agree with Lima, where articles exist we should link to the articles not the websites, that is strongly preferred on WP. I don't discount a smal number of authoritative links, but this lot seems to me to be well over the top. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

fisheaters

User:Malachias111 seems intent on re-inserting a link to serial linkspammers fisheaters; as far as I can tell this site falls well below the level of authority of the other two sites currently linked, but a second opinon would be valued. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry is called TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, not "Traditional Catholic Priestly Societies." That site is the most prominent and informative traditional Catholic site out there. If there is something one needs to know about traditional Catholicism, it is either at that site or on its way. For God's sake, what makes Wikipedia so "authoritative" and "official" when any yokel can add anything at any time (unless he's a traditional Catholic, that is)? Get real here. That site is a source of most of the information in this entry, and everything said is backed up by encyclicals and documents that can be found AT that site. Universities link to it, parishes link to it (at least they did at the old domain) -- what the hell? Does everything have to come rubber-stamped with the papal seal? It doesn't when it comes to Anglican stuff or Lutheran stuff or Scientology links. You can link to the private, layman-run "Catholic Answers" and that's fine -- but you can't link to a private,layman-run trad site. You can even link to commercial sites like St. Anthony's Press since they're "official" somehow, but this site, for some reason, is off-limits? This is getting sickening. Malachias111 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually both Catholic Answers and St. Anthony Press are official. It requires the approval of the local bishop to use Catholic in the name of your organization and St. Anthony Press is run by the Franciscans. But that's besides the point. Part of the problem is that Fisheaters is a polemical site, it looks unbalanced to have that site there. Plus we don't want pages and pages of links, una voce, which links to the FSSP and everyone else and the SSPX, which represents the largest group of irregular traditionalists are a good set of objective links. Perhaps you could get the SSPX to link to you? --Samuel J. Howard 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The SSPX in Britain did link to the site at the old domain. And what do you mean "unbalanced"? It's a pan-trad site on an entry called TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS. Were you expecting some balanced Hindu links there? 64.12.116.202 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be unbelievably humorous if it wasn't so pitiful. Beam me up Scotty. The entire Fisheaters site is about one thing and one thing only - Traditional Catholicism. Someone do me a favor and explain to us apparent morons why a traditional Catholic site is unsuitable for a reference in a traditional Catholic article. Oh I know!! Let's include a much more relevant link! How about a link to those paragons of Catholicism, the Moonies? Even someone as obtuse as myself can't miss the relevancy. Would that work for y'all? Maybe I should invite acquaintances of all different religions to come here with links pertinent to their beliefs and we can all have an editing party! Nothing says "keeping it relevant" like an ecumenical editing soirée! JLeigh

Well that seems to suggest that you really don't understand the idea here. An ecumenical editing party would be great! That way we'd be sure that the page was written in a way that explained traditional catholicsm to all comers. --Samuel J. Howard 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is this: well over a hundred links to the fisheaters site were added, mainly, we are told, by the site's operator. Many of these links were on articles that had no other catholic site at all, even where there was a relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Sometimes there were two or more links per article. Many of the articles had only the most tenuous relationship to "traditionalist catholicism".
It also transpires that Wikipedia was the principal source linking into fisheaters according to Alexa (on both its old and its new domains), and the site owner and a series of anonymous IPs engaged in a brief but violent edit war when the links were removed. This prolific linkspamming has led to the site being viewed with considerable scepticism by a number of people, including me.
So now I find myself wondering, what authority does this site have, with its Alexa ranking of around 300,000, and with a third of the inbound links at 30 Dec being from Wikipedia, and only 300 people on its forum? I note that they have been successful in increasing the number of inbound links, in blogs and add-it-yourself sites among others, but there are still fewer than a quarter of the number of links I get to my own vanity site, which I do not go out of my way to promote, don't claim as an authority on anything other than what I think about anything, don't pretend to be anything other than a monograph, and can't recall adding to any Wikipedia articles. So, the question is precisely as stated: what is their authority? What other groups exist which may have better authority? Having seen fisheaters linked when very obviously better authorities exist, I now want to know how much effort has gone into showing that the link in any article is appropriate, and what weight should be assigned to it.
As far as I can tell these articles are monographs by one person at one extreme of a continuum of belief. And holding, it must be said, some extremely strong opinions. Beware of the tigers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really. Then maybe you can read this page [link removed] and this page [link removed] and let us know what those "extremely strong opinions" are and what editorial slant in the traditionalist Catholic world that the person who runs the site takes. Is she a sedevacantist? An "indulter"? An SSPXer? What sort of "authority" or level of "officialness" should a site about a lay Catholic movement have? You have said you don't know anything about the traditional Catholic movement, so how can you possibly judge what is "official" or "authoritative" or true or false? And how high should Alexa rank a site that has only been in a domain for about 4 or 5 weeks? And wasn't the site ranked by them at 400,000 something after the domain change -- and is now at 290,000 AFTER the purge? Obviously people are going to that site from someplace other than Wikipedia (and how come other sites that have Wikipedia as a second or third referrer according to Alexa get to stay? What kind of bullshit is that?)

As to the so-called "linkspam," the editor quite obviously did not know she was breaking any rules or else there would have been no RfC against Dominick. NONE of the links that I saw were only "tenuously" related to traditional Catholicism except for the disambiguation page which she said was an error. A link to the traditional Catholic customs of St. John's Day on a page about St. John isn't "tenuous," especially when other denominations get to have thier links in place. A page on Christmas can have links to really cool light displays, but no links to a section of a site with readings from Dom Gueranger and the customs of Christmas as celebrated in the West for 2000 years. It's stupid.

It is also not true that a third of the links to that site came from Wikipedia and U2BA said she would give a trustworthy administrator the passwords to the statistics to prove where the visitors came from. But apparently people around here don't want to LISTEN to anything or anyone. They just want to jump on this site and remove all references because it got the "linkspam" label. You guys have gone so far as to strip out links that were worked out in a DEAL (from the "Catholic" and "Dispensationalism" pages and now THIS one -- of all pages!).

A quote from that contact page: "Though traditional Catholicism is less a "movement" than a "staying where you are," I strive to make this site what "The Revealer," a publication of the New York University Department of Journalism and New York University's Center for Religion and Media, says it is: "an excellent introduction to the 'traditionalist' Catholic movement."

I guess what's good enough for New York University isn't good enough for Wikipedia.

And here's a priest calling the pages on Twelfthnight and Epiphany "great, all-inclusive" "[1]. Or maybe some priests are more "authoritative" and "official" than others.

The site JUST MOVED and you won't learn a thing about it from Alexa. The girl didn't know she was "linkspamming." The site is THE single best resource on traditional Catholicism on the net. I think it's time for people to BACK OFF from beating this site up all the time. Malachias111 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"I guess what's good enough for New York University isn't good enough for Wikipedia." Correct. This isn't NYUWiki I've been looking at the pages on fisheaters and while there's a lot of good stuff there're also a lot of errors.--Samuel J. Howard 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Says you. And any Catholic going to a Protestant side would find a lot of "errors," and any Protestant going to a Muslim site would find a lot of "errors." That site is a pan-traditionalist site that presents the traditionalist view. Malachias111 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm a traditional Catholic. The errors are things like saying that the Cardinal Deacon's are not Cardinals, that a last-name is not a baptizmal name, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and so's Dominick a "traditional Catholic." But anyway, be specific in your complaints. What are you talking about? What's your evidence? And if there were a mistake at that site, why not write to the editor and correct it rather than sit in the corner like a rat and snipe? Do all sites have to be absolutely perfect and never err in order to be referenced here at the Wonderful World of Wiki? (I bet there'd be no bawling and nit-nit-nit-picking if Catholic Exchange were linked to even though they mangle the Catholic theology of the atonement). Didn't Nature just do a study to compare all the errors found in Wiki as compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica? Yeah, "A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team. Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively." Better never let anyone see you linking to the Encyclopedia Britannica for any reason if your standard is perfection (and if it is, why are you wasting your time here?). Looks like Fish Eaters has them both beat if the alleged "Cardinal Deacons aren't part of the college of Cardinals" and "last names aren't Christian names" (about which you're wrong) is your evidence of "a lot of errors."

Finally, what do you think a "baptismal name" is? Or if that's too old for you, try here. Or maybe this glorious page here, a part of the ultimate reference that never, ever errs. Or at least not for long, because Dominick is always out there somewhere, ready to remove anything from anyone who doesn't literally worship the Pope, and to eliminate "linkspam" on sight! Malachias111 08:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, there is an example of the biggest problem of all with Fisheaters. They have a narrow selfserving definition of Catholicism, and of traditionalist. If you are not banging a gong everytime a Bishop falters with sufficient glee and schadenfruende, if you dislike sedavancantist adventures, and will not attend a SSPX chapel then you are not welcome on thier forum, and you shall find the site problematic. No person there is an authority, and for Wikipedia, we need verifiable sources. Traditionalists like me ar even stripped of the name. Note that Malchias claims YOU are at fault, and are a rat, just like I "hate" all traditionalists, a fink, and am a traitor to their little cause. They can't make a case without sniping and taking anonymous pot shots. Malahias at least logs in. In my opinion they are the ones who are putting their Catholic faith in jeapordy, in flirting with non-Catholic groups, despising Epicopal authority and defying the authority of the Holy see. Resistance is not what Christ told us to do, "Resist those in authority over you" is not Christ speaking. Dominick (TALK) 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The forum has PROTESTANTS and even ATHEISTS along with people who are not comfortable going to SSPX chapels. You are not a traditionalist and it has nothing to do with whether you go to an SSPX chapel or not; it has to do with the fact that you do not hold the same Faith that was acceped as "Catholicism" before Vatican II. You are a neo-con who likes the traditional Mass. 64.12.116.202 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful not to beg the question when it comes to authority. For example, all the people agreeing with St. Athanasius no longer recognized the authority of the Arian bishops due to the fact that they fell into heresy. Who, then, would argue that the followers of St. Athanasius were resisting authority over them? Those who may have argued that line would be falling into the logical fallacy of "begging the question". Speaking of recognizable authority, I can quote to you from three imprimatured sources prior to Vatican II that say that you cannot consider someone schismatic for questioning the legitimacy of a Roman Pontiff. You can say they are mistaken and proceed to show how, but you cannot say they are resisting authority without begging the question. Nor can you say they are non-Catholics. The sedevacantists, by the way, are consistent in belief and action, while they believe there is no authority due to heresy, they act upon it. The SSPX, on the other hand, profess to recognize authority WITH the heresy, and inconsistently resist what would be legitimate and non-sinful commands. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that even when excommunications are believed to be unjust by the person getting excommunicated, one has an obligation to comply with the excommunication if the authority of the excommunicator is recognized. The SSPX is severely messed up in their thinking, but I can still consider them Traditionalist Catholics because I think they are being mislead into serious error from the very top.

Diligens 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for thinking it through. Yes I agree the SSPX is being led into error, and your other comments sound about right. The accusation "resisting the Pope" is the words of many on those forums. How does one resist a person and at the same time recognize the ligitamacy of the Office. I this the issue of schism is not a charge I made. What I commented on is that they have a narrow view of traditionalist. By removing themselves from the Episcopacy, and automatically incurring excommunication, sedevacantist Bishops can't lead licit Priests. By leading others into error, they eventually lead themselves away from, not toward, Tradition (the Tradition all Catholics hold true) and away from the Church. Now indult Masses are the way to go, IMHO, but not if you are one of those who supportive of the "resistance" that the SSPX esposes, and you mention. Error is error if you attend a licit or illicit Mass. We are way off topic. Dominick (TALK) 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPADominick (TALK) 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the term "resisting the Pope" begs the question. There have been over 25 antipopes in history, and those men could be resisted without denigrating the office which they claim to hold. Again, it would beg the question for you to say that sedevacantist bishops have incurred excommunication, because IF it is true that the popes are not legitimate, then they would not incurr it. And IF the popes are not legitimate, then in fact the sedevacantists are the only true traditionalists. You see? You have to be careful not to beg the question. The Indulters are certainly more consistent than the SSPX, but only in regard to obeying who they claim has authority. Nevertheless, IF the Novus Ordo Mass was truly "from the Catholic Church", it could only be good & holy (as any historical liturgy), and in that repect, many Indulters do wrong to state that the Novus Ordo is faulty or even promulgated in vain. If Paul VI & Company were true popes, then the Novus Ordo Missae would be "from" the Church of Christ, and therefore only good and holy, and to say it were defective and dangerous would be objectively blasphemous against the divine Church, again, IF it were from the Church.
To the subject, (though I have not read everything) the article should not be linking to web sites and books because once you allow that, you will eventually have a HUGE page of links to people's favorite traditional Catholics web sites and books. It is an abuse.
Diligens 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The conclusion is on topic. There is no "if" on Paul and other Popes being true Popes, they were elected by the conclave of Bishops. It should be a matter of preference, and that one thinks that the traditional liturgy would be preferable for the Church as a whole. Dominick (TALK) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it is clearly a possibility in Catholicism for there to be illegitimate popes, the IF is consequently a given possibility. Elections can be invalid for canonical reasons, or for doctrinal reasons.
As to things truly coming from the Church, when comparing any two of them, one cannot say a personally less preferable one is objectively defective, harmful or useless. Preferences are personal and stem from subjective personal devotion, as when one chooses to wear a scapular rather than a miraculous medal. Diligens 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPADominick (TALK) 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this issue from afar, ever since my first post back in October got me called a meat puppet or whatever the choice wiki term is for trying to express one's opinion here. I found the (apologia, now FishEater) website without any help at all over a year ago by simply clicking on an apologetics link from another Traditional Catholic site. At this point I would like to interject that if FishEaters had not linked to wikipedia articles I would never have bothered to come to this site and boost your Alexa numbers.

WP:RPADominick (TALK) 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the defining issue that distinguishes a Traditional Catholic from all others is our rejection of modernism which is a defined and condemned heresy. I think that the opponents of Tradition are using wikipedia to try to hijack the truth and hide it as far from the light of day as possible- a typical modernist ploy. Just because someone attends an indult mass does not make him or her a Traditionalist. Many so-called indults are nothing of the sort; the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel are noticeably missing while the homilists are still preaching modernism in their homilies. [You are so right ATC. The Latin Liturgy alone does not a traditional Catholic make! Diligens 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)] The catechetics at indults are woefully inadequate except in very rare cases, and many parents seek out better information on their own, as they should.

This has been a very enlightening experience for me. I had no idea how bitterly opposed some people are to Tradition while calling themselves Traditionalists. Conversely, I am completely bewildered by the fact that a relevant and across the board traditional site like FishEaters is being relegated as insignificant by wikipedia because of these pseudo-traditional Catholics who are unrelenting in their attacks. What is the point of having a Traditional Catholic section then excluding a website that covers every topic I have ever tried to find through any search engine? AdoramusTeChriste 05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Nothing I made in criticism of the Fisheaters site, which is staffed by laymen, could be construed as a personal attack. The "resistance" type traditionalist have often made those charges about indult Masses, and debating this is off topic. Dominick (TALK) 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Answers is staffed by laymen, too. Get over your idea that trads even WANT the approval of the Mahonys of the world, will you? The article is about TRADS, as they are, not as you wish they were or about priestly societies. And as far as not making personal attacks against Fish Eaters? That's what you've been doing for the past few months! Hell, you even called it a BLOG. You lie about who is welcome at that forum, you lie about the purpose of the site, you lie whenever it suits your purposes apparently. Your nonsense about noone being welcome unless they "bang gongs" or "make faces" any time the Pope is mentioned or whatever -- what lying trash. It's libel where I come from and it's calumny anywhere. By the way, did you ever apologize to EWTN for lying about their "denying" editing that post by Father Levis? (And, for the record, the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel are omitted from my local indult, too.) Malachias111 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are not welcome here." But attacks against an entire website and forum are? Your "criticisms" are over the top in inaccuracy and this specific thread is a perfect example. In your post above to Samuel, you dig right into generalizations, impugning to me as a Traditional Catholic a conclusion that you have formed with no regard for the fact that my beliefs are in no way, "a narrow selfserving definition of Catholicism," as you stated. I do not fit that description at all, neither do the other people who contribute at Fisheaters; our opinions vary widely. Furthermore, it appears that you have gained quite a reputation for yourself as one who relishes condemning Tradition in other Internet venues, such as free republic. I have recently seen your name in connection with that forum. I honestly wonder why a person who is openly antagonistic toward Tradition is given due consideration when it comes to defining it.

As for the "staffed by laymen," I'm afraid that is another case of begging the question. One of the hallmarks of the new order is lay participation. Indeed, the catechetical instruction in the U.S., RCIA, is left up to the laity in most parishes. Many of them are new converts themselves. How do I know this? Because I have been through RCIA, 20 years ago. Because I have seen it first hand since my own experience. And very importantly, because there are more than one instructors who are members on FishEaters, thus putting to rest another generalization about the individuals who contribute there. But I digress. My point is that if lay participation is acceptable in the new order, it cannot be considered unacceptable in Tradition without creating a double standard.

There is no need to debate the fact that many indult masses omit the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel. It is the norm in my diocese, courtesy of the local ordinary, and as such is not a true Tridentine Mass to which all faithful have the right to attend. I am aware that there are indults in other areas that are excellent, thanks be to God for the priests who celebrate them and the bishops who encourage them.

I thought I was signed in when I submitted the above post. It is mine. AdoramusTeChriste 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(added) Dominick (TALK) 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't fair to alot of people that Dominick is shredding this topic by moving posts. Exactly how many bookmarks do I need to fully follow this issue? AdoramusTeChriste 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In american english I wrote above that the discussion was moved, for the benefit of those wanting to actually work on THIS article. If you want to continue the sniping, I clearly indicated that you can go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick. The entire sad and pointless discussion is there. If you have nothing to say about THIS article, then go there. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It was a simple question, no need to get snippy about it. Their are several problems with the article, not the least of which is outdated information, and I want to make sure that I am posting in the right place.
This particular subtopic is called "fisheaters" and my posts were relevant to it. While you might not like being called out on your inappropriate generalizations about the Traditional Catholics who are members there, this does seem to be the right place to approach the issue. AdoramusTeChriste 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


It isn't fair to the actual editors to listen to some person come here and snipe at me. If I wanted that then I would register at some "unique" forum. Further comments and smart remarks should go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick where I can ignore them there. Dominick (TALK) 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't fair to alot of people that Dominick is shredding this topic by moving posts. Exactly how many bookmarks do I need to fully follow this issue? AdoramusTeChriste 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Leave it here for now. However, stick to the issue under discussion and WP:NPA please. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Whats the point? I would like a application of WP:RPA and remove the personal attacks. There is this delusion that everything that happens here is orchestrated by me, and complain about it using my name as a adjective. Dominick (TALK) 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed those apparent attacks and articfacts from the battle which remain. Anybody who has a problem with that, please take it up with me on my Talk page - in my view this has become excessively personalised. And I suggest that Dominick and Malachias in particular stick to factual information regarding the case at issue, as below since it seems to me that the debate above is largely a rehash of the "traditionalist" v establishment argument, and largely evading the point. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 22:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fisheaters (again)

I did a lot of work investigating the fisheaters site and found that it falls below the level of significance indicated by [{WP:WEB]], and it appears also to fail the tests of WP:RS. The site has in the past been prolifically linkspammed, and whether this was through innocent enthusiasm or deliberate design is largely immaterial since the site operator went into an edit war and violated various hard and fast rules in re-inserting the links, despite good, clear and unambiguous reasons being stated for this in pages she was actively watching and contributing to. So, fisheaters (which is, after all, an external website and not a Wikipedian) has forfeited their right to assumption of good faith. I think it is fair to say that this is the view of almost all those who have contributed to the two RfCs and the various debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I've summarised it here, you will see that I have taken account of the change of domain name. As far as I am concerned that book is closed, but if you want to re-open it, I suggest we take that debate to a separate RfC because it applies to over 100 articles. And I mean that: if anybody wants to debate whether the addition of fisheaters to the large number of articles was lnkspamming,and therefore whether I was right to remove them (and it was mainly me but with help from several others) then I will excise it from here and open an RfC myself. OK?

So, I return to the original question: speaking as an Anglican ecumenist with slightly less than zero interest and even lower tolerance for church politics and factionalism I need to know, with specific relation to a site which I have previously determined is a serial linkspammer, whether that site is sufficiently authoritative to make me comfortable with its use as a source linked from this article on traditionalist Catholicism despite past (exceptionally) bad behaviour. A forum of 300 members and an Alexa rank in six figures does not speak to me of a widely-cited authority, but my problem here is that I do not know who constitutes the most widely recognised authority on this issue, so I cannot make a measured comparison. The article is not especially helpful in this matter.

If any editors with more specialist knowledge would like to help, for example by identifying the leading authorities on the traditionalist Catholic movement I would appreciate it. If anyone wants to snipe at me or at Dominick or at Malachias or each other or anyone for that matter, I suggest that you take a deep breath, read this and this, and then if you still want to snipe, shut up because it does not help. Not in the smallest degree. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 22:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If any site in the universe belongs linked to in this entry, it is the Fish Eaters site. It is comprehensive, well-written, easy on the eye, and takes no sides within the traditionalist community. TigerLille 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AT a glance I think that the content of the Fisheaters site is fair enough to be pointed to in the external link section, I just have a problem with the name of that site. It is confusing because it is a word that an anti-Traditionalist would use to describe a Traditionalist. I think it hurts its own credibility with such moniker when its content does not have the same levity. ->Diligens 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I really do agree with TigerLille, and I see Diligens point about the name of the site, but it is not hopeless.

I think that an area that is noticeably lacking in the Traditionalist Catholic article is a description of the customs we observe, such as abstaining from meat on Fridays, etc. The Fisheaters site is the absolute best on the Internet when it comes to describing Traditional Catholic customs. Perhaps adding a paragraph about customs would provide a good place for a link as well as edify readers. AdoramusTeChriste 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically how many non-contributors will weigh in on this? The site was using wikipedia to drive it's traffic. Dominick (TALK) 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments by TigerLille and AdoramusTeDomine are what is known in the business as proof by assertion: no source is provided which allows me to verify this claim. They fail to address the actual question: what authority does this site have. And who are the best recognised authorities. Those are the two questions I want answered please. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 09:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to offer another assertion, authority in this matter, ultimatly is the pronouncements by the Vatican. Those are linked. The SSPX is another, even in the state it is in now. They can be linked from there. There are also other respected authorities, EWTN published a lot of work by a wide variety of Priests, Catholic Answers has written a good anount dealing with the topic, written by several authors, and reviewed. I think we should look more to the periodical work of permanance and respect in these circles that have provanence like the Remnant, and the the Wanderer.
The biggest contention is related to you question JZG, I have a problem with the ultra-traditionalist group here because they are pushing themselves as the arbiter of who may claim and and who may not claim to be a traditionalist. This is also deals with who is an authority. They will claim this or that organization is not-traditional or they have a hidden agenda. Authorities in this matter do not have to be traditional but should include traditionalists. EWTN, Catholic Answers, and others are not traditional but Catholic but reference traditionalist topics. I think this would help the article get cleaned up properly. Dominick (TALK) 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know your views and what you say goes to the core of the problem I have here; it is said by some that fisheaters overall represents an extreme pole of opinion, and that the mainstream of that dissenting body of Catholics is better rperesented by other organisations, but I simply don't have enough data yet to form a balanced judgment. And until I do, past actions by fisheaters and supporters is enough for me to consider any link possible spam. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't said by "some"; it is said by Dominick. Malachias111 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you misunderstand me? I was trying to provide a list. 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The customs that Catholics practice are not always matters that are defined by doctrine or dogma. Jesse trees and May crownings, for example, are not issues that require permission from the local ordinary. I leave my creche up until Candlemas, my n.o. and protestant friends do not. A link to the Fisheaters customs page on the Traditionalist Catholic entry as a customs page is not an "authority" issue. Here is the page: [link removed]

I take exception to the stereo-type "ultra-traditionalist." As for being a non-contributor, I am trying to get the hang of it before I start changing what I must presume is the hard work of decent people. AdoramusTeChriste 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Traditional Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, made of priests and layfolk, recommend Fish Eaters: http://www.latin-mass-society.org/links.htm (and the British SSPX linked to it at the old domain).

Contrary to the "radical" nonsense being hurled at it, the very neo-con CatholicCulture.org (formerly PetersNet.net) gives it a "cautious" rather than their "danger" label http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1915

Jacob Michael of "Lumen Gentleman" calls it "One of the best Traditional Catholic resource sites on the Internet, period. Tons of information and research on Traditional Catholic teachings, customs, habits, prayers, and anything else you could possibly imagine." http://lumengentleman.com/index.asp

Tradition In Action links to it: http://www.traditioninaction.org/links.htm

Fr. Jim Tucker of "Dappled Things" has linked to it a number of times, Religious Tolerance.org links to it (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc.htm), New York University's "The Revealer" links to it and calls it "an excellent introduction to the "traditionalist" Catholic movement" (http://www.therevealer.org/archives/links_000260.php), Charles A. Coulombe likes Fish Eaters, Amy Wellborn has linked to it and even financially supported it, parishes have linked to it, Seattle Catholic has linked to it -- what are you wanting? A papal bull?

When you say SSPX "recommend" them, that's not strictly true is it? The link is in the same category as "Catholics unplug your television sets" and "The Rudgate Singers". Its not listed as an organisation, for example.
CatholicCulture.org says "Fish Eaters is a personal apologetical site which targets non-Catholic Christians, converts and Catholics. Its stated purpose is to bring people to Christ and His Church. Though there are many good resources to be found here, they are seriously marred by the webmaster's ultra-tradionalist views. Throughout the site, the language consistently implicitly and explicitly rejects the New Mass as well as the authority of Second Vatican Council." - in other words, it agrees with the views expressed here, that fisheaters is (a) a monograph and (b) representative of a fringe position.
I am still not persuaded that there is enough evidence of authority to overcome past linkspamming and edit/revert warring. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dominick's attempts to redefine the term aside (which had been, for Dominick, Lima, and U2BA, the topic of debate for this entry since September, so so much for U2BA's not being a contributor but just a "linkspammer"), traditionalist Catholics are considered to be on "the fringe" by mainstream Catholics, so what do you expect? What you are doing is the equivalent of denying "Catholics for Free Choice" a link to some "Progressive Catholic" website because that site espouses a "fringe position." Well, no duh. Groups considered to be "fringe groups" by those who don't agree with them are going to relate ideas that are considered "fringe" and aren't going to get linked to by big mainstream sites (unless it is to mock or, more typically, mischaracterize, as that CatholicCulture review does by saying the Fish Eaters's webmistress "rejects the authority" of Vatican II). Isn't this obvious? But even being "fringy" by virtue of being traditionalist, CatholicCulture nonetheless gives the site a yellow "Caution" and not it's overused red "Warning." That should tell you something, what with CatholicCulture.org being so "official" and all.

The site you refer to as an S.S.P.X. site isn't an S.S.P.X. site; it is the Latin Mass Society which works with Ecclesia Dei and Una Voce. And, no, the Fish Eaters site isn't listed as "an organization" because the purpose of the site isn't to organize and advocate; it is to teach -- and it isn't based in the U.K. The Latin Mass Society's links are organized into the following categories: Traditional Orders; Una Voce Chapters and Friends; Organisations and Periodicals based in the U.K.; Publishers and Book outlets; and Other. Why would Fish Eaters be placed somewhere other than where it is? First it's "no one 'official' enough links to the Fish Eaters site (which just moved to a new domain just before the biggest Catholic holidays of the year), and now it's "No one 'official' links to them in a way that is considered by you to be 'official' enough." And all this after an arrangement had been made such that links to that site at this entry and the entries for "Catholicism" and "Dispensationalism" would be left unmolested by the anti-spam brigade.

And has been said, and what is also obvious given the RfC against Dominick [2] (which U2BA was advised by an admin to file, said advice being something Dominick got wind of so he could file his first and gloat about how U2BA's RfC was "in response" to his [3]), is that the Fish Eaters's webmistress didn't know that linking to the site more than -- how many times is considered "spam"? what's the magic number? -- was "linkspamming," so to go on about that site's owner as some sort of malevolent "spammer" is sheer pettiness and vindictiveness.

Don't bore other editors with petty personal attacks, please use Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dominick for your beef. The term is not redeinfed, the definition that was self-serving to fisheaters was rejected. Now, unless you have something on topic, please use the RfC.Dominick (TALK) 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I find fisheaters and traditio to be a piss-poor source for information on traditional Catholicism. Why? Because I find them to be sources for imbittered dialogue (particularly the frothing-at-the-mouth "Fr. Moderator" from Traditio). Their forums are filled to the brim with "Suzie Q. Better-Than-You Catholics" who think they know what's best for other people's souls. This spoken from an Orthodox Christian and former Trad Catholic who came to their site to talk about his Catholic roots - only to have "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!" shouted into his face. I left Traditional Catholicism because to me it seemed futile. In fact, discoursing and attempting to revive Catholicism back to its former position is pointless. As a former Traditional Catholic, I've been there and done that. The only solution for Trads is for the Big Guy in the Vatican to admit his fault - but considering that Catholics think they have a monopoly on truth (whether they are the "God-Saved" Trad Catholics or the conservative Novus Ordinarians), I don't think that will occur anytime soon. Wake up and smell the lack of thuribles fellas. The Roman Catholic Church has sunk themselves into this debacle of modernism since The Great Schism. All the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.ICXCNIKA21:19, 08 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there is always hope -- Marcusscotus1 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Marcus, saying that Catholicism is traditional or shall be is what I like to call "a liar liar pants on fire" situation. Hope left with Vatican II. "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." ~ Hosea 8:7 --ICXCNIKA 06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Catholic traditionalism and traditionalist Catholicism

Catholic traditionalism links here. This page seems concerned chiefly with the groups that reject various reforms and movements that come out of Vatican II. Should it be expanded with information regarding the traditionalist theological and political thought of Joseph de Maistre and other nineteenth century strains of Catholic monarchism and traditionalism? Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. In the Anglican communion, it seems to me that Anglican traditionalism is pretty much the complete opposite of traditionalist anglicanism (as in Continuing Anglican Movement). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Move Article Proposal

I'm working on correctly categorizing the articles in Category:Catholic traditionalism. I think that the name of the article should match that useful category.--Samuel J. Howard 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a support! Good catch! Dominick (TALK) 16:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If Catholic Traditionalism is what Joseph de Maistre believed in, it does not at all correspond to what traditionalist Catholics believe in. Politics were central to Maistre's theories; religion is central to the ideas of traditionalist Catholics. Maistre argued that even in temporal matters the decisions of the Pope are subject to no appeal; those traditionalist Catholics who make most noise take it that the Pope does not necessarily have to be heeded even in religious matters, except in his very rare ex cathedra declarations. If Maistre taught the author of Les fleurs du mal, to think, as the latter said, his ideas were certainly very unlike those of traditionalist Catholics. In view of these and other contrasts, I fail to see how traditionalist Catholics can be put in the same immediate category as Maistre. Both could, however, be put in a category of conservatism, in a wide sense of this word. Lima 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's "Catholic traditionalism", and it's not a system of thought, it's a broad movement (and not a Movement either). Either way what's really needed is disambiguation, since there could easily be confusion anyways. The people using the categories seem to have voted with their feet for Category:Catholic Traditionalism.--Samuel J. Howard 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And besides, given the way english works, largely if they're traditionalist Catholics then they're also Catholic traditionalists, and the thing they believe in is Catholic traditionalism. And that is generally how the articles are named, Jansenist redirects to Jansenism, Marxist redirects to Marxism, Lutheran redirects to Lutheranism and Protestant to Protestantism.--Samuel J. Howard 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Catholicism? We are all adherents to Catholicism first, and traditionalism last. Am I obfuscating this?Dominick (TALK) 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Traditionalism and Traditional Catholicism are not the same thing. To rename this article Catholic Traditionalism would certainly not be accurate. pat8722 06:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kindly explain how they can be used to mean different things. And also please write a stub article for Catholic traditionalism so that it no longer redirects here.--Samuel J. Howard 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is Samuel J. Howard who should do the explaining. The ideas of "traditionalist Catholics" are outlined in this article and are related specifically to the changes in the Church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The ideas of "Catholic traditionalists", if Joseph de Maistre is an example, seem to me to be quite different. If Samuel J. Howard can show that the ideas of traditionalist Catholics and of Catholic traditionalists are the same, I would then ask him to be so good as to explain why "Catholic traditionalist", which places the accent on being a traditionalist, is a better term than "traditionalist Catholic". For me, "traditionalist Catholic" means someone who is essentially a Catholic, and happens to be a traditionalist one; and "Catholic traditionalist" means someone who is essentially a traditionalist and happens to be a Catholic one, rather than, say, a Protestant traditionalist. Sorry for being unable to understand things that seem to be obvious to others. Lima 20:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So would Traditionalist Catholicism be acceptable? We need something broad for the category so that it includes both people and institutions/beliefs/events etc. And the article should match the category so that it's easy to navigate back and forth and understand. Plus articles about belief systems usually make the belief system primary and the name of the people who believe it the redirects.--Samuel J. Howard 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the only Catholicism is traditional Catholicism. Traditionalist Catholics merely make an insistence on it, alleging that the Church has strayed from the necessary tradition. The term Traditional Catholicism should not replace the title of Traditionalist Catholic, because that term does not capture the essence of the movement within Catholicism, being overly broad. I see no word which more clearly describes the subject of this article than the title of Traditionalist Catholic. That is the common term which everyone knows the meaning of and uses. Your proposed title changes would only create confusion as to what the article is about, and will open up new disputes that the new title is inaccurate (Catholic Traditionalism) or overly broad (Traditional Catholicism), which it will be. The term Traditionalist Catholicism doesn't work because its your own personal invention, not the known name of any movement or group of people. (Traditionalist Catholics don't claim to belong to traditionalist Catholicism, they claim to belong to traditional Catholicism.)pat8722 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggested TraditionalIST Catholicism, which just generalizes from the title now.

But maybe Catholic traditionalism is still the right name, I find citations for both traditionalists and scholars and journalists using it.

  • Father James McLucas editor of Latin Mass magazine uses it [4].
  • Christopher Ferrara uses it. [5]
  • Pete Vere uses it [6]
  • William Dinges uses it[7].
  • Michael Rose uses it[8].

and it's all over the category Category:Catholic Traditionalism--Samuel J. Howard 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


A short time ago I wrote here: "For lack of consensus on changing the title of this article, we should let it be." I am no longer so sure. Perhaps, as Samuel J. Howard proposes, "Traditionalist Catholicism" is quite acceptable. I need more time to think it over. Lima 05:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article at present admits the occasional use of "traditional Catholic" in the sense of "traditionalist Catholic" A change in the title of the article would necessitate a change in the opening phrase, and there would certainly be far stronger disputes about whether "traditional Catholicism" is acceptable as an (even occasional) equivalent of "traditionalist Catholicism". So I return to: "For lack of consensus on changing the title of this article, we should let it be." Lima 05:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I have googled both Traditionalist Catholicism and Catholic Traditionalism and see that both terms have their limited proponents. Although Traditionalist Catholicism is less misleading than Catholic Traditionalism, Traditionalist Catholic best describes this wiki page and leads to the least amount of confusion. It is the term the common man in the movement uses to describe himself, and it is a movement of the common man, not a cohesive organized movement (there is great fragmentation and disagreement among those who try to represent it as an organization). The "Catagory: Catholic Traditionalism" is a broad, and permits entries which are not associated with "Traditionalist Catholics". It might be reasonable to propose a title change to the "Category: Catholic Traditionalism" wiki page or to add a new Category later, if things there become too confused as the "Category" wikipages develop further. But I agree that we should leave the "Tradionalist Catholic" wikipage name alone, not having reached a consensus to change it. pat8722 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But the opening sentence isn't very accurate. "Traditionalist Catholic and traditional Catholic are terms used to refer to Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s." But the article isn't about the terms...--Samuel J. Howard 16:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


How about Traditionalist Catholics? That keeps the term that people seem comforable with, but it allows for the proper generalization. It would let us also rewrite the opening sentence to something like: "Traditionalist Catholics (sometime called traditional Catholics) are Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s."--Samuel J. Howard 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also withdrawn the Category merging nomination in case we rename, to maybe merge Category:Catholic Traditionalism into Category:Traditionalist Catholics instead of the reverse I had suggested--Samuel J. Howard 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Help! I have added comment to the "Editing Wikipedia:Categories for deletion" "Category:Traditionalist Catholics to Category:Catholic Traditionalism" section, and when I click "show preview" or "edit", I see my edits, but when I browse the page "Editing Wikipedia:Categories for deletion" "Category:Traditionalist Catholics to Category:Catholic Traditionalism" for my edits, I do not see them. pat8722 18:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article captures perfectly the essence of the article and should, therefore, not be changed. The article name also captures perfectly the essence of the article and should, therefore, not be changed. I have removed your "new idea" header, as this is basically a continuation of discussion on moving this page. pat8722 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly eh? It can be in no way improved? Ever? Even though it talks about the term and not about the topic? I've restored the header, it's a subheader it's made for continuing the same discussion.--Samuel J. Howard 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Patt8722 wrote on the Category merge page (previously withdrawn):

"Category:Traditionalist Catholics and Category:Catholic Traditionalism are not the same thing. See Talk:Traditionalist Catholics "move article proposal". Why try to obfuscate and confuse things by trying to merge two distinct categories? pat8722 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)"

Note the redlinked text, where should the article be? (traditionalist catholics already redirects here, there's no talk there though)--Samuel J. Howard 11:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say see "Talk:Traditionalist Catholic", as this is where our discussions on the matter have been. Encyclopedias define things in the singular, not the plural, such as "tree", not "trees", therefore, there should be no article entitled "Traditionalist Catholics" (instead there should be a catagory with that name, which there is); the correct title of this article is as it's already been named, "Traditionalist Catholic". Debate on changing the name of Category:Traditionalist Catholics or Category:Catholic Traditionalism, belongs on their corresponding "discussion" pages, which is probably where you should have begun, as your desire to merge those categories seems to have been what first lead you to this article. As I stated, I don't think you have stated any grounds for merging those two categories, as they are different in meaning, and to merge them will only obfuscate and confuse things. I agree that the catagory name of Category:Catholic Traditionalism (or its contents) will need changing at some point, as the title is not accurate as has already been discussed here. Many of the topics presently on that page belong under the topic of Category: Traditional Catholicism instead, but since wiki is yet young, I don't see any problem with letting disputes arise naturally in the discussion section of the categories, and then changing/moving things as the disputes among competently educated editors arise, rather than tyring to change things now. If you want to create a third category entitled Category: Traditional Catholicism, and move items from Category:Catholic Traditionalism there, instead, I would not object. Category:Traditionalist Catholics deserves its own page, just as things are, and links nicely with this one, as this present article is not a category, it is an encyclopedia definition of a term. pat8722 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be a "definition of a term". That's a dictionary not an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with Traditionalist Catholicism both for the article and for the category.--Samuel J. Howard 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "Roman Catholics who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s", whatever you want to call them. It is not about a term. It is about persons. Encyclopedias are not only about "isms", but also about persons. Lima 19:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but articles about persons have names at the top. Articles about the adherents to an idea generally redirect to the idea in question Marxists, Protestants.--Samuel J. Howard 04:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Many who want to see worship and customs return to those prevailing at a particular stage of history do so not for ideology or doctrinal reasons. Others want it only indirectly, since what they primarily want is, say, the victory of the Palmarian Catholic Church or some similar group. I wonder therefore whether classifying traditionalist Catholics as "adherents to an idea" falsifies their reality.
Pat8722 (below) doubts whether the term "Traditionalist Catholicism" has (any single, definable) meaning at all. Lima 09:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Traditionalist Catholics do not claim to belong to "Traditionalist Catholicism", they claim to belong to traditional Catholicism (small "t"). The term "Traditionalist Catholicism" has no agreed upon meaning, nor admitted adherents (google the terms) and appears to have been used only recently by movie reviewers to color advocates of Mel Gibson's film. I further point out that not all wiki articles that describe people name a particular person in the title; see "artist" and "poet". pat8722 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke when I said "definition" of a term; the article describes generally a "person, place or thing" in the same sense as does every other wiki article, such as the article about "trees" (which is named in the singular, "tree"). It is not an article about "Traditionalist Catholicism" (that is a much broader category, with many subcategories, each deserving of their own article, if the term has meaning at all, which I doubt), it is an article about "Traditionalist Catholics". pat8722 As you are back to your original proposal, I have removed the "alternate proposal" header. pat8722 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for link

How about John Rao's site, For the Whole Christ: Writings by Dr. John C. Rao? It's relevant and scholarly if often polemical, and would be useful to someone interested in exploring the issue and what could be said on various sides of it. Jim Kalb 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more useful on a link about the Roman Forum or Una Voce, unless there is any particular article that you like. (JASpencer 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Category rename discussion referenced above...

If you are interested, please voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 26#Category:Catholic Traditionalism to Category:Catholic traditionalism. I moved the motion for speedy rename (normal in a case of simple capitalization, usually) to a full discussion since there seems to be debate regarding this on this page. --Syrthiss 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports ( http://tcrnews2.com/) presents needed corrections to extreme traditionalist opinion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholicism/Archive_5&oldid=1088834045"