Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 6

message: 1. "The CCC broke with tradition". And "Pope Paul VI broke with tradition" And anyone and anything else that does not fit the ideas of the Great Authority who has appeared in our midst broke with tradition.   
    
2. The Great Authority is, of course, by no means "force fitting explanations into Paul VI's words", when saying the Pope admitted to having broken with tradition. A post-Vatican II invention, this Tradition or tradition business, which Pope Pius XII nonetheless miraculously foresaw, when he prophetically said that to "the Teaching Authority of the Church ... has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted" (Humani Generis, 18). How terrible of Pope Pius XII to write "tradition" with a capital T! And how still more terrible on that prescient Pope's part to say that interpretation of tradition is in the hands of the Teaching Authority of the Church, instead of being, as it really is, in the hands of the Great Authority who has power on earth to declare invalid a Eucharistic formula approved merely by the Teaching Authority of the Church! 
    
3. The Great Authority, who does not invent his own conclusions, has declared that Adrian Fortescue did not really say that the Roman Mass underwent a radical change from its mid-second-century Eastern-type form, a basically uniform style perhaps inherited from the apostles, to something quite new. The Great Authority has also declared that the "upper hierarchy" (perhaps some kind of Anti-Great Authority?) ordered nuns taken away by force "in" their convents "if they protested following changes" to be subjected to shock treatments.  
    
Let us all now bow low before the Great Authority. 
    
Lima 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a personal attack. Saying the Church ordered shock treatments is silly. Dominick (TALK) 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilarity ensues

message: :::I didn't say the Church did so. I said that the hierarchy under Paul VI did so. They didn't represent the Church. It is not only silly, it is horrendous, and a fact. Waiting now for why you, Lima and JzG call for RFC and then ignore results. (Diligens 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed any authority for myself. The discussion history here proves this. Simply and maturely ask for proof rather that personal attacks mocking someone as a god. I have a close relative whose best friend escaped a convent at that time and testified to the shock treatments of the nuns. An old Latin Mass magazine also did a story on it about 13 years ago. Now please answer why you are ignoring the results of your own RFC. (Diligens 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also 3rr on this page for removing a comment and claiming it was a personal attack. Dominick (TALK) 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the results?  What results?  The discussion is still going on, and thus far only you and the webmaster of fisheaters have expressed a preference for small-t traditional, while numerous excelelnt arguments against that have been advanced. You've also reverted four times, but the fourth was before the warning saved because I was busy reverting your removal of previous warnings from your Talk. You seem to be actively seeking a block, is that right? Just zis Guy you know? 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two RFC people you asked to come over and spent the time reading the discussion and article, said they want the title to be "Traditional Catholic". If Gin want a small t it was for the article, because all titles are capitalized. How long have you been on WP? You don't even know that when someon FIRST makes an edit in violation, any reverts of that initial violation are NOT CONSIDERED TO VIOLATE THE REVERT RULE. Why don't you know this? You have edited the main article and taken something out that was well established status quo for months, by Lima and Dominick. Only you and Dominic have made a violation edit of that article, because you both should not have changed approved status quo. You and Dominick are actively seeking a block. (Diligens 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are paranoid. Dominick (TALK) 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a tactic can easily be avoided by not reverting three times. Dominick (TALK) 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:RPA when there is an RV war, both parties may revert 3 times, but only the person who FIRST made a violation is the one who violates the 3 rv rule. The other person is fixing the violation each time. WP:RPA (Diligens 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps you can tell me. Dominick (TALK) 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to restore the arguement. I rarely see revert wars on talk pages. Dominick (TALK) 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC/RPA