", 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.   

 : 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