Talk:Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat

message: The reforms of the Ukrainian Church are not the reforms of the latins. Ukrainians as well as the rest of the Churches of the East have been charged with a traditionalist set of marching orders, to turn (gently, gently) our forms and devotions to eastern modes and let western imports fall by the wayside, disused in our churches. The SSJ are the modernists in this fight, supporting the introduction and continued observance of outside elements that were imported in order to create more division between Eastern Churches in communion with Rome and those who remain outside Rome's formal orbit. These introductions have a few decades or at most a few centuries of observance and the older forms, the one that Vatican II promotes often are over a millenium in age. 
The  SSPX's traditionalism is a curious one and its hypocrisy shows up exactly here, in their support for the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat. It is a traditionalism that only wants to go back so far, to the 1950s, but not so far as to honor centuries and millenia old papal commitment to the independence, dignity, and honor that are rightly part of the Eastern Churches. This article as currently written utterly fails to capture this reality. TMLutas 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I'm trying to do what I can, but Latin triumphalists and pseudo-Traditionalists keep pushing their agenda. InfernoXV 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditionalist? I think not 

message: * Teaching is given by Polish SSPX priests and by sympathetic local Greek Catholic clergy. 
* [The suspention] however does not apply to all priests of the SSPX. 
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: added "originating" in "[SSJK is made up of] priests and seminarians from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" to make it more neutral. I get the feeling the article has a slight bias towards SSJK although it's worded subtly enough that nothing is unreasonable. My major edit concerns the removal of a paragraph about the SSPX bishops "unexcommunication" which was located in an area about Fr. Kovpak's excommunication. Since Fr. Kovpak's excommunication is totally unrelated to the 1988 excommunications I see no reason why to include anything about the SSPX status. Zantorzi (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed SSPX excommunication paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061107093537/http://www.laportelatine.org:80/accueil/entret/2006/jenkins/versionanglaise/anglais2006.php to http://www.laportelatine.org/accueil/entret/2006/jenkins/versionanglaise/anglais2006.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Really just a small point, but Lubomyr did not act as Cardinal, but as Major Archbishop of the UGCC.  That is why he could act for the excommunication of such a person. The Pope in Rome can give him all sorts of honors, but they are irrelevant. I suggest this be changed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal Lubomyr 

message: Wherever the word "however" occurs, the article veers into an argumentative mode that is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  E.g. "however, Metropolitan Andrey opposed the use of force" implies that the rise of the PSSJ is not required.  But this article is not about whether delatinization is good or not, it is about the PSSJ. Likewise "The Holy See, however, has argued since before the Second Vatican Council" - this is an argument for delatinization, not relevant to this article.  "However, critics[who?] claim that the essence of Eastern liturgical practice is to pray in a language which is understood by the people" - really? Do the Russians and Greeks agree? 
and "In rejecting these reforms, they also reject the right of the Church authorities to make these reforms; thus who controls the formate of liturgy becomes an important point of debate."  Pure original research, someone's idea that has no textual basis. 
I encourage someone to edit the article keeping a clear focus on the topic of the article - not delatinization, not ecclesiology, but the PSSJ.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  thesis-making