Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 2

message: The content dispute has dragged on for days with neither party showing any kind of willingness to work for consensus. I'm reluctantly protecting this article.  Please discuss with a view to producing a version of this article which is satisfactory to both parties. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment (and I'm not getting involved in the issues). Tony suggests it should be 'satisfactory to both parties', yes, in an ideally that's right - but in reality what is required is 'rough consensus' as to content, not unanimity. --Doc (?) 12:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected due to content dispute

message: We had a discussion that revolved around the difintion and still mr anon puts the poison pill in and puts a fence up around memebrship in Traditional. Thinking that we in 2005 can figure out what made what in 1965, or that attendence at a Novus Ordo Mass makes us ineligible foto be a Traditionalist is downright silly. Mr Anon  repeating his point over and over makes this unreadable. I am about to set this page in another archive and we can try again. Lima, the Definition I laid out was OK or not? Dominick 16:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is silly

message: A quote:
[Me] 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.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>[Dominick] We already have consensus on this.</BLOCKQUOTE>
So where's the "silliness"? And where's the part where I say that attendance at a Novus Ordo Mass makes one "ineligible foto be a Traditionalist" (capital T, eh? We're back to that again?)? If you'd read the article, you would have seen this about the Novus Ordo Missae, under the section "Traditional Catholic Claims":
Some see it as valid and as a viable option if necessary, though the traditional Mass should be attended when at all possible. This is believed by most priests who operate inside the ordinary diocesan structure.
:: Scrollup and read my consesus statement. Again you repeat the same wrong thing. Dominick 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous to Dominick

message: The quote COPY-PASTED two posts above comes from section "10. Dominick defends himself." Are you trying to get me to look at section "12. Consensus?" -- where you apparently changed your mind? 
OR are you saying that your having said "we have a consensus on this" --- in direct response to my having said "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" -- was not indicative of a consensus between us (as in you and me) -- but was your way of saying that you and Lima had come to a consensus on this?
152.163.100.202 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Dominick up to?

message: So what is the consensus on handling this. Listing the Hloy Sea of Chicago et al and trashing old edits is not going to fly. Dominick 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted edits by 64.12.116.202. // Pathoschild 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No such thing. You cant split this topic. By consensus we left the version you reverted behind. Dominick 14:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to the page Me, Lima and Pathos had consensus for. Traditional Catholics are traditional Catholics. Dominick 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this what we call working for consensus? Ref: bad eidts by anon more bad edits more bad edits.Dominick 14:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Aside from the suspicious fact that the above comment is PhatmassRulez's only contibution, the article is positively dripping with POV. Furthermore, it links to the article Conservative Catholics which was created in what is apparently an attempt to get Dominic and other opposing editors to give up on this article in exasperation (see: "Carry on there, Dominick" -- Anonymous). All changes to the Wikipedia must meet general consensus. Most edits that are undisputed are assumed to be consensual; however, should a dispute arise, one must obtain general agreement with the other editors. Anonymous 1 and Anonymous 2 are welcome to add to the article or modify it, but universal opposition from the other editors is often a sign that something (in this case NPOV) is lacking. // Pathoschild 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly PoV edits

message: Welcome to the now named Used2BAnonymous. His previous refusal to discuss concrete matters such as his proposed definition, which has the defect of containing within it the term to be defined ("they" = "traditional/ist Catholics"), meant that reverting, and, finally, protecting, may have been the only remedy against renewed insistence on a text that excludes any least hint of criticism of the claim it sets forth at length, that Catholics should consider erroneous or at least ambiguous and dangerous the teaching given for almost half a century by the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; that purges even from the "External links" any website that does not propound that same view; that deliberately chooses terms with a pejorative ring, such as "Vatican hierarchs", to speak of the Popes and the See of Rome; that presents as evident facts unsubstantiated claims such as "it is clear that their ranks are growing ... Demand for the traditional Latin Mass is very high"; that devotes much of its space, not to the subject of the article, but to "conservative Catholics" (why not rather ordinary middle-of-the-road Catholics, or why not also "progressive" Catholics? why indeed discuss any group of Catholics other than traditional/ist Catholics?); that ... 
No, it's better to leave all that aside and discuss concrete matters, one at a time. The definition, coming first in any version of the article, seemed, and seems, the obvious place to start. I promise to continue to be specific about problems with Used2BAnonymous's proposed definition. Will Used2BAnonymous be specific about what precise points require amending in the definition now in the article, so that modifications can be made to meet his wishes? My hope would be to agree finally on a "least common denominator" text, as was suggested by some other user, possibly one with the rank of Administrator.
Lima 08:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't we discuss concrete elements of the article?

message: You say:
:: Some "Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions" are convinced that the teachings of the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have been changed since before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions.
But the problem is that NO traditional Catholic believes this because NO traditional Catholic thinks the Church can change Her eternal teachings. There is a big difference between the true, eternal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the crap Cardinal Kasper passes off as "Catholic teaching."
You say:
:: But some of them believe instead that there is no contradiction whatever between the present teachings of that Church and "preserving the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner that they believe those teachings had always been understood throughout the Church's history."
There is an "AND" in my definition: those who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, AND to preserve the teachings..." There is no "first part"/"second part" conflict. If the person in question doesn't fit the description of the second part, he is not a traditionalist Catholic; he is a conservative Catholic who likes the traditional Mass and other traditional practices.
As to the great circular yellow ribbon you keep going on about, there is none. The "they" refers to the subset of Roman Catholics about whom this entry is being written. What those Catholics believe with regard to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is outlined in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims." But if you are still not getting this, how about this definition? No "they" appears, problem solved:
:: Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in section "Traditional Catholic Claims" below.
Now, not only have I not failed to substantiate that the article is sloppy as Hell linguistically, what with all the examples I've provided, but one would think I shouldn't have to. The linguistic sloppiness speaks for itself. Loudly. It is neon linguistic sloppiness with a megaphone.
As to your question about who it is that wants "the worship and practices of the Roman Catholic Church to be as they were before the 1960s" but who are not in my "opinion,"  "traditional/ist Catholics" -- try any "Catholic Answer type" who likes praying the Rosary, wearing a Scapular, attending the "TLM," etc., etc., but who does not agree with the claims outlined in the section "Traditional Catholic Claims."
Used2BAnonymous 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: The article was fine the way it was originally.  It was concise in describing what a traditional Catholic is.  Then two conservative Catholics come a long and vandalize the whole thing.  I was once a conservative Catholic and am now a trad Catholic, there is no comparisom between the two held beliefs.  Isn't there some other area you two, Lima and Dominick, can go to muck up with neo Catholic beliefs, like Phatmass, or EWTN?  I have an idea, write your own article about conservative Catholics and leave our traditional Catholic one alone.  It would be one thing if you knew what you were talking about, but it's painfully obvious that you don't.  You do not have concesus, you just like to think you do.  67.68.206.150 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole thing is ridiculous

message: (Note that Dominick isn't jumping in with his "no personal attacks" line)
No, the claims in question do NOT maintain that the teachings of THE CHURCH governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him have changed. "The Church" is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Mediator Dei) because She is the Bride of Christ, made one with Him in the Flesh through the Sacrament of Communion. The teachings of "The Church" headed by Pope Benedict XVI are eternal, and Truth cannot contradict Truth. 
What you are doing is equating exercises of the Solemn or Universal Magistierium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with the fallible teachings that exercise the merely authentic Magisterium. If you can find for me a document which uses language indicative of the exercise of the Solemn Magisterium AND which contradicts eternal Catholic dogma, then point it out (and become a Protestant while you're at it because it would show that the Church said for two millennia to be the Church of Christ doth lie). This is the very essence -- along with the notion of Christian obedience -- that distinguishes traditional Catholics from conservative Catholics (even those who like the "TLM" and praying the Rosary, etc., etc.).
John XXII used to preach in sermons that the blessed departed don't receive the Beatific Vision until Last Judgment. That's a heresy, a contradiction of the eternal teachings of the Church. There was a big to-do about his heretical statements. Theologians (they used to be Catholic back then) jumped on it. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
:: In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. 
Now, when he preached his heresy, did he "change the teachings of  the Church"? Would a faithful Catholic, one who rightfully refused to assent to what the Pope was saying and who insisted that the Blessed are in Heaven now, not have been "in full accord with" the Holy See? Would he have been "in open dispute" with Rome or "the Church"? 
"The Church" is not EQUATED with Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. "The Church" is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. 
As to "lex orandi, lex credendi," yes, I am familiar with the phrase. But I don't think you're familiar enough with it. Read paragraphs 46-48 of Mediator Dei: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html  You will see that Pope Pius XII said:
:: On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law for prayer is the law for faith. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins... But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.
For examples of linguistic sloppiness, scroll up to til you see paragraphs 8-10 in  the subsection I've just now labelled "Examples of Linguistic Sloppiness Here." And in this post, the post I type at this very moment, I've shown how the term "the Church" is used in a sloppy manner. 
Used2BAnonymous 06:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Snark Responds to Lima

message: Please note that I've flagged DominusTecum and JLeigh as possible sockpuppets of Used2BAnonymous. The reasons for my suspicions are outlined on Used2BAnonymous' talk page. Please make any response related to this accusation on that page and not here. All suspected sockpuppets are welcome to continue the discussion; this is simply an attempt to get all related parties to discuss the matter on the appropriate page. // Pathoschild 06:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed comments pertaining to the above and moved to Used2BAnonymous' talk page. // Pathoschild 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sockpuppets

message: I am ready to take this to mediation. Does anyone have any input on this? Lima, if you say no to mediation, thats enough for me. I am not getting involved in your discussion since people are taking this personally. Dominick 13:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay on topic.I can't tell if this is a yes or a no. In an article about Catholicism Rome's view is paramount. Dominick 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Sounds good in theory. But the reality is that Dominick simply has no clue what he's talking about. This is not a "personal attack"; it's a statement of fact (with regard to this issue, that is. I'm sure he has other talents). There is no "addressing the criticisms" of one who can't express himself clearly, changes his mind, mid-stream, on the meaning of terms (even after saying "we have a consensus on this"), and won't look at -- or admit -- the clear evidence provided with regard to how the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used in the real world. Used2BAnonymous 13:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will take that as an OK from you. The rest of your comment is off topic, your statement of fact sounds a lot like a personal attack, and is not going to serve you well. Indeed I am talking about how the Church deals with traditionalism, those of us attached to the 1962 Missal. Dominick 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Mediation may be necessary for this article. Neither side of the argument seems to be making any progress whatsoever, and the discussion is devolving into personal attacks. The consensus editing model isn't working for this article. // Pathoschild 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The new consensus editing process is working very well so far, negating the necessity of mediation. This will be archived for now and returned to the talk page later if discussion fails again. // Pathoschild 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: All Traditionalist Catholics are, by definition, opposed to the post-Conciliar reforms. Most traditionalists, however, 
 would argue that, while the recent occupants of the Vatican may personally have held many scandalous or heretical beliefs, 
 they have nevertheless been true Popes, and have never tried to use their infallible authority (which is only used very 
 rarely) to teach heresy - something which all orthodox Catholics believe would be impossible.
Change to
 Most Traditionalist Catholics are, believe the post-Conciliar reforms were problematic. Some traditionalists, however, 
 would argue that, the recent Popes they have nevertheless been true Popes.
IF and only if this paragraph is there at all, it needs pruning. A Pope may not definitivly teach heresy, as this imples. Even at that the tortured phrase to avoid calling Pope John Paul a Pope, and mearly an occupant is seriously a PoV problem, and smacks of serious anticatholicism. Dominick 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph was only an example text to illustrate the use of emphasis to demarcate different factions within the same section. The text was directly quoted from the Sedevacantism article; if you feel that it poses a POV problem, feel free to edit it on that page. // Pathoschild 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the check I will look there. Sorry! Dominick 00:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild 00:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in example text

message: What's up w/the title of this article?  Why is it Traditionalist Catholic?  Shouldn't it be Catholic Traditionalism or Traditional (or Traditionalist) Catholicism?  The current title does not appear to be grammatically correct for a Wikipedia article.--Inquisitorgeneralis 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with the use of the term, but grammatically both work with subtly different meanings. Traditionalist Catholic refers to a Catholic who is traditionalist (that is, Catholic is a noun modified by the adjective traditionalist), and Catholic traditionalist would refer to a traditionalist who is Catholic (the inverse, with traditionalist being a noun modified by the adjective Catholic). Strictly speaking grammatically, traditionalist Catholic may be more correct because the article refers to a traditionalist movement within Catholicism, not the inverse. If there is no official or popular use of the arrangement 'Catholic traditionalism', I think it should remain as-is. // Pathoschild 23:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems that the subject matter of this article is really more an idea or a set of theoligical beliefs, so it should be an "-ism" of some sort.  So I do think Traditionalist Catholicism would at least be a slight improvement.  As it stands now, it looks like you're talking about an individual "traditionalist Catholic," as opposed to the movement in general.--Inquisitorgeneralis 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that "Traditionalist Catholicism" is a more valid name, a possible solution is to simply place a redirect on the other pages so that any visitors landing on those pages automagically see this page. A debate on this would be best left off until the current debate is resolved; if there's a consensus that the article should be renamed before then, of course, there should be no problem renaming it. Personally, I support the move because "Catholicism" refers to the doctrine, whereas "Catholic" seems to refer to the individual believer. // Pathoschild 07:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that last part was what I was trying to say.--Inquisitorgeneralis 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Traditionalist Catholic' versus 'Traditionalist Catholicism'

message: What has happened to this article? It is now a disorganized mish-mash of conservative Catholic interjections and criticisms into an article that was supposed to be about traditionalist Catholics. I've read a bit of these talk pages, and see a scheme on the part of Dominick to hijack this article and turn it into one about something else entirely. UsedToBeAnonymous knows what he is talking about here and has made his case, if you ask me. Like Pathoschild said, all those criticisms should go in thte relations section, and let the traditioanl Catholics offer their rebuttals. Let the rest of the article be about traditional Catholicism -- er, in the second sense. Malachias111 15:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More invective? How many accounts will be created to edit ONE article? Dominick 16:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gosh, Malachias111 must be psychic then; he's been an editor for this article since March 2005 (and they say we "trads" are paranoid). Your accusations of sock-puppetry have grown tiresome. Used2BAnonymous 16:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow!

message: This is a farce. Revert by sections is unacceptable. This is a joke now. Dominick 00:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are are starting a revert war again? 

message: Several terms are repeatedly used in the Section-by-section editing discussions. I think that, as such, they should be unambiguously defined under the overview subheader. Blockquoted below are my proposed definitions.
Several terms may be used in this section that have specific, non-ambiguous meanings. The list is organised by relevancy and not alphabetical order.
*Active contributor: Any user of Wikipedia with 100+ non-vandal edits over a registered period of at least one month. Where there is sufficient proof of identity, unregistered IP addresses with 100+ edits, no record of vandalism, and contributions over at least one month may be considered active contributors if they register an account.
*Contributor: Any user of Wikipedia with less than 100 edits and/or registered for less than one month. Contributors have equal say in discussion but cannot participate in consensus votes.
*Anonymous: Any user identifiable only by an IP address. Like contributors, unregistered members have equal say in discussion but cannot participate in consensus votes.
*Personal attack: Any comment or statement intended to discredit, insult, incite, or label any other user without providing sufficient objective evidence. Comments deemed to be personal attacks will be immediately moved to the archives by a third party (see: Third Party). No active debator should archive comments themselves due to the potential for abuse.
*Third Party: Any user deemed neutral by consensus who is expected to format and archive comments, help direct discussion, ensure the following of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, hold consensus votes, and see that all voices are given a fair voice and influence in the discussion.
*Mediator: This may refer either to a Third Party or, more commonly, a user who is part of the Mediation Committee. A mediator in the second sense (see Wikipedia:Mediation) performs the same duties as a Third Party but has much greater authority granted by consensus to control and direct the discussion.
My above proposition is obviously subject to modification by other active contributors. Should there be a consensus-defined list of terms used in the lengthy SbS editing section? // Pathoschild 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Why are there no references so far to sources opposing traditionalism? Is there anyone here who is familiar with any such sources? Would this perhaps make the summary discussion above more productive? So far, the article seems to display a single point of view. Halcatalyst 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above is primarily focused on defining "Traditionalist Catholicism." There are no opposing links because those sections were reorganised abstractedly—that is, in the discussion on the Overall structure—and we simply haven't gotten around to adding anything there yet. Feel free to propose links, but keep in mind that these links should contain sufficient relevent information for encylopedic mention. If you wish, you can edit the article directly and risk being reverted. // Pathoschild 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References