From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a talk_page archive; please do not post new comments here. You can see current discussion by clicking on the first small link under the page title, or the Archive overview page by clicking on the second link.

Contents 1 Section-by-section editing 1.1 Discussions 1.2 Overall structure 1.3 Section-by-section editing 1.3.1 Overview 1.3.2 Overall structure 1.3.3 Summary 1.4 Summary 1.4.1 Summary: Rough consensus vote 1.4.1.1 Draft Summary Lima #4 1.4.1.2 Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #12 1.4.1.3 Discussion 1.5 Please substantiate 1.6 My alternative suggestion 1.6.1 My Reasons 1.7 I am not "American" 1.8 Edit wars 1.8.1 "Consensus vote" is an oxymoron

Section-by-section editing

Discussions

I propose that we use the system outlined under "overview" above to edit the article. I doubt we can resolve the entire dispute in this manner, but I think we can fix many of the less controversial portions of the article in this manner. I'd like to have feedback from the other contributing editors on this. // Pathoschild 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Overall structure

This is an archive subpage, which is transcluded into its parent archive. Careless edits to this page can break the archive system in use. An overview of the archives can be seen by clicking on "Archives" in the small list of links below the page title.

It's not necessary to agree to a complete structure for the article, but some generalisations are needed to make any meaningful progress in section-by-section editing. I propose the following preliminary basic structure:

// Pathoschild 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my take. It is important to realize many Traditionalists are in good standing and full and faithful members of the Church. They enjoy good relationships with the Diocese in where they operate. Your divisions make it seem like most are not, this should be short to start from.
IMHO:

(oops lostsig) 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Dominick 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My proposal for the basic structure:

N.B. I object to the use of phrases like "those in dispute with the Holy See" because it is vague and because the use of "Holy See" (or "Rome" or "the Church") has very definite and serious connotations for Catholics. I've explained my objections to this (numerous times) in earlier Talk Pages, but to cut to the chase: I think it is more accurate and less inflammatory to use the phrase "in dispute with Vatican hierarchs" -- but Dominick thinks this is "POV" for some reason. Used2BAnonymous 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I know next to nothing about traditionalist Catholics, I don't think there are sufficient differences between the types of traditionalist Catholics to create seperate sections for each. Dominick has suggested above describing them all under Characteristics of traditionalist belief, and Used2BAnonymous's version of the article does this anyway. Under one header, the text could describe the beliefs held by all groups, then give the differences in paragraph form. Used2BAnonymous suggests the headings Traditional Catholic Claims and Traditional Catholics as Contrasted with Other Catholics; those are topics that would likely be covered under the aforementioned Characteristics of traditionalist belief. Traditional Priestly Fraternities, Chapels, and Parishes and Liturgical links should be merged into Organisations, with subheadings in need be. Counter Opinions and Books supportive of the traditional Catholic movement aren't necessary, since these should be covered under a few of the other headings or in the external links section.

The heading Issues with Traditionalism proposed by Dominick suggests that there is something objectively wrong with the doctrine; I put forth Criticisms of Traditionalism as a more neutral heading, which could contain both the criticisms and any applicable refutation by traditionalists. The text under Demographics in Used2BAnonymous' version of the article strikes me as highly POV, so I've removed it in my proposal. If you think the text can be made more NPOV (do not discuss this, it will be discussed under it's own header later if controversial), feel free to add it back in. My above changes result in the following structure:

// Pathoschild 07:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't advocate different subheadings for each type of traditionalist; instead, I advocate, under one sub-heading, a numbered list broken down into two main sections: non-sedevacantist Catholic and sedevacantist Catholics. The first would have two nested items: Catholics who operate within ordinary diocesan structures and those who operate outside it. The reason I believe breaking it down in this manner is important is because for a Catholic seeking information, the FIRST thing he would want to know is "what do traditionalist Catholics believe about the Pope? Are they 'in communion' with 'Rome'?" The answer to that question is one of the KEY elements of the Catholic religion. Blending that above information with the section "Characteristics of traditionalist belief" would "create" an extremely long section.

In fact, upon further reflection, I think it would be wise to break it down like this: change of name in the first subheading because the "groups" referenced are priestly societies rather than "traditional Catholics" in general, and as it happens, a given traditional Catholic can (often does) float from "group" to "group" depending on his local situation, and the priestly fraternities have their own entries. Then move that section down below the opening section on traditional Catholic beliefs.

The revised outline I propose (this outline also leaves off demographics, which, BTW, I didn't write myself. I agree its language is too general and that citations are needed):

Used2BAnonymous 11:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest changing What traditional Catholics believe to Traditionalist beliefs; this is more succinct, and hints that there are different beliefs (as appears to be the case, as per previous proposals). Where traditional Catholics worship could be renamed to Places of worship, which is more succint and more accurate (technically, Catholics should worship God everywhere and at all times, but only certain places are dedicated "places of worship"). I've added "groups" to the heading Relations with other Catholic groups, because this will likely not include relations between individual members of different groups. See also should be placed before the external links.

I doubt that there is sufficient information under Where traditional Catholics worship to break it into three different subheaders. This would be best left in paragraph form, with emphasisis on the names of the types of traditionalists if necessary. Books supportive of traditional Catholicism and Counter opinions should be placed under Opinions.

Based on the guidelines in Wikipedia:External_links, I think we should entirely eliminate the links to organisations, churches, et cetera except where these sites provide POV or information. We should also eliminate redundant informational links; this article is an informational page in itself, and only needs links to back it up. Liturgical matters, as far as I can tell, could be redistributed into Opinions and References. If applicable, some links should be converted to inline links. Criticisms of Traditionalism might be redistributed into Traditionalist beliefs (their positions) and Relations with other Catholic groups (the reaction). Are there relations between traditionalist groups? Taking into account the above and previous proposals, my revised structure is as thus:

// Pathoschild 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think this is totally workable -- with just one tweak. Under "Traditionalist beliefs," I wouldn't have two subheadings for sedes and non-sedes; I'd have a bulleted list with brief descriptions. And then would move on to the things that all traditional Catholics (using the second definition in the summary) believe. Used2BAnonymous 18:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We still need to split the "Non-sedes", that term is absolutly unusable. I think the issue of leave for Mass is important. Many who take the time to attend Mass at a Diocesean approve Indult or approved Fraternity would not like to be lumped inwith vagus or excommunicated bodies. Dominick 18:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Things are looking prety good here, but I am responding to the request on the AMA page. If there is a desire and you think mediation would be helpful I am willign to help. Just let me know on my talk page or via e-mail as I will not be watching this page (to maintain impartiality). Thanks.Gator1 19:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We could get rid of the two subheaders entirely. The first paragraph or two may describe common beliefs, while the remaining paragraphs describe different positions held by different groups. For example, take this text quoted directly from the Sedevacantism article, to which I've added a single line break and emphasis. The beginning describes traditionalists in general, then goes on to define different factions.

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.

Sedevacantists, by contrast, believe that these men's promulgation and endorsement of the post-Conciliar changes has made them guilty of heresy, and each in turn has hence either forfeited the papal office or rendered...

This section is for discussion of the headings under which information will be organised. The current headings are far too long. These headings should be renamed to be shortened, for example "Those in agreement with Holy See" instead of "Traditionalist Catholics not in dispute with the Holy See". For reference, the current structure of the article is as such:

// Pathoschild 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I can see the reasoning behind Used2BAnonymous's suggestion that this section be in list form, I disagree. Prose form is preferable because it is much more readable. Since I think paragraph prose is possible in this case without making the text any less functional, we should avoid list form. The structure with the subheadings removed:

// Pathoschild 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, a proposed beginning based on the structure above and your advice to use prose, not lists, in the opening sections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Used2BAnonymous Used2BAnonymous 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. A work-in-progress version will be invaluable for section-by-section editing. I copied your version to Talk:Traditionalist Catholic/Consensus for later archiving. Used2BAnonymous and I both support the latest version of the structure; are there any more proposed changes from the other active contributors? // Pathoschild 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the latest version as well, it is concise and accurate. AdoramusTeChristeAdoramusTeChriste 02:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

See my comments below. Dominick 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I - unlike Dominick and a multitude of others who are unaware of the discussion here - have no objection to devoting this article to traditionalist Catholics in either a broad or a narrow sense. If the broad sense is accepted, the proposed structure is probably sufficient. But the narrow sense, as expounded in Used2BAnonymous's long Beliefs section, involves criticisms of the present-day official presentation of Catholic teaching. Space should be given to the response of what the Baltimore Catechism called the Teaching Church to the criticisms. Since, in the proposal of Used2BAnonymous, the Beliefs section is part of the definition, the response must be kept separate from the Beliefs section. It is also only fair that the response too be presented with no admixture of traditionalist counter-comment. Any counter-comment of traditionalists could be given a separate section, but of course there would be no counter-counter-comment section against them.

So, if the Used2BAnonymous definition is adopted, I think it important to add to the structure two more sections:

• Criticisms of the beliefs of traditionalist Catholics
• Responses of traditionalists to these criticisms

Lima 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was assuming that criticisms and responses of traditionalist Catholics could be placed under the Relations with other Catholic groups header. Is there a reason to seperate criticisms/responses from the relations section? // Pathoschild 12:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments not related to the overall structure have been moved to the SbS editing off-topic header. // Pathoschild 14:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose we agree on the overall structure —not necessarily the definition of traditionalist Catholicism— and move on to the first content section. I suggest that we accept the last proposed structure (see my comment yesterday at 20:44), which was agreed to by the active contributor Used2BAnonymous, as well as by commentators Pathoschild (me >_>) and AdoramusTeChriste. The opposition from active editors Lima and Dominick in this case strikes me as nonproductive, since they criticise it because they believe that it doesn't fit Used2BAnonymous' definition, whereas Used2BAnonymous himself supports this structure. This isn't the place to discuss the definition itself, which will be progressively examined in the content sections. If we later decide that there is too much information to fit in any one header, it can be split then. Thus, I propose we accept the current structure as last proposed and move on to the summary. In that section, we can argue the basic definition that will be used in the article. // Pathoschild 14:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask then there are no subsections under this heading on other groups? I can see where there is a blurb about it, however, some groups want nothing to do with any other group or Rome, some groups have a "unrequited" unity with Rome, and others have no issues with Rome, except the issues in dealing with local Ordinaries (Local Bishops). If we can cover this fact without introducing attacks from one of these three perspectives, we are golden. Dominick 14:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The subdivision of that header depends heavily on the result of a controversy (see the heading Broad or specific definition?, among others), which is the primary dispute concerning the article. I think we should ignore possible subheaders for now and work our way through the rest of the article up to it. When we begin discussing that particular section, we can see what information we'll be adding and add appropriate subheaders then. //Pathoschild 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Active contributor Used2BAnonymous, active commentator Pathoschild, and commentator AdoramusTeChriste have voiced their support for the latest proposal. Active contributors Lima and Dominick had some concerns but have not directly responded to proposed changes; however, Dominick has suggested in another discussion that we move on. If there is no opposition or if these two contributors express their support within the next 24 hours, this overall structure (with possible subheader modifications in the individual sections) will be assumed to have consensus and the Section-by-section editing can move on to the first section. // Pathoschild 14:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Though I am not party to this present fracas, I hope my opinion counts and that I might be considered an "active contributor" due to my history of contribution to this article. I approve the outline. In fact, I approve the entire proposed essay written by Used2BeAnonymous and am assuming Lima and Dominick could write their objections in the relations area of the entry. 70.236.18.189 16:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Though I am not party to this present fracas, I hope my opinion counts and that I might be considered an "active contributor" due to my history of contribution to this article. I approve the outline. In fact, I approve the entire proposed essay written by Used2BeAnonymous and am assuming Lima and Dominick could write their objections in the relations area of the entry. 70.236.18.189 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone's opinions count and are taken into consideration, but —unless you have an account or another IP address with contributions beyond that single comment— it'd be difficult to justify calling you an 'active contributor'. // Pathoschild 16:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we were making entries at the same time. I saw that I was not signed in so attempted to add "ADDING: My wife did something to our computer settings and I am seemingly unable to log in. I am Malachias111" to my entry. wikipedia.org is added to the list of approved sites in IE settings, so she's done something to some security program she has running. I will get her to fix things. She is the guru around here. 70.236.18.189 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there was somewhere an invitation to me to indicate within 24 hours whether I had any objection to pushing ahead with work on this article. Of course I have no objection. The article is not "mine". I regret only that I will not have time to contribute to the extent that others can - on one side Dominick, and on the other the many "concerned traditional Catholics who showed up to edit it, just like other human beings get to do".

Lima 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

A glitch or oversight in the Wikipedia prevents it from detecting the end of a section whose headers are styled, although it can detect it's start. I moved the discussion back to the bottom of the page to fix this.

With express support from all contributors except one (who has yet to explicitly comment), this structure will be assumed consensus-approved unless there's overruling opposition within the next five hours. // Pathoschild 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Section-by-section editing

Overview

The current article is highly controversial amongst the editors, which has led to an effective impasse of discussions and the indefinite protection of the page. This set of discussions is an attempt to form a cohesive, highly organised consensus on the article on a section-by-section basis. Do not discuss any matter that does not pertain to the section you are posting in. All discussion of the method of section-by-section editing should be placed under the header "Discussion of section-by-section editing". Pathoschild will rigidly control the formatting and organisation of comments placed in this section.

The article as it has been agreed to so far is located at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic/Consensus.

Overall structure

This question, which involved the titles and levels of the headers under which the information will be organised, has reached consensus. This discussion is closed unless a majority of members with at least one month of Wikipedian membership and 100+ edits wish it to be re-examined. The structure agreed upon is as such:

Summary

The summary is a short text, preferably one paragraph and no more than three paragraphs, which either summarises the article or introduces the subject. There are currently two conflicting proposals being debated, named after the users who originally proposed them. // Pathoschild 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Draft Summary Lima #4 (DSL4)

"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.

Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.

Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #12 (DSU12)

"Traditionalist Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more exclusively used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

---

---

Summary

This is an archive subpage, which is transcluded into its parent archive. Careless edits to this page can break the archive system in use. An overview of the archives can be seen by clicking on "Archives" in the small list of links below the page title.

OK, are we agreed as to the proposed definition, to wit:

In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, the term "traditional Catholics" refers to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Catholic Church return to those from before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are 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 the following section. Used2BAnonymous 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope that was not the consensus text at all. Even the desciptions are PoV. There is no proof at all what one is more common, in a definitive way. In talking to a few others about this, more people think the pre-reform practices were a bigger mistake than some of the problems that some people fret about in some of the Vatican II documents.

"The term traditional Catholics refers to Catholics who would like to see practices (or worship and practices) of the Church rolled back to those existing before the 1960s."

The whole second part was never agreed to. Read back through the discussion. It is not at all more common. The second part is what hung Lima and I up for all this time. The first definition encompasses both. In the desciption we can describe those who think Dogma had changed and those who think that Dogma had not changed yet the previous practices should be restored. Among FSSP people and Indult people, the problem presented from that PoV is similar to the mainstream Catholic, to wit, is the discipline that changed from this time.

I may have a solution.

Next part is not part of this debate, but background for this discussion.

For the benefit of Pathos, we are discussing the issues of three types of teachings in the Church, Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline. Dogma is unchangable, it came from Tradition of the Apostles; Doctrine is taught authoritativly by the See and had no basis to change; and Disciplne is imposed by the Holy See, but may change. There are other teachings where the Church has practiced these things for years. Examples are the Scapular, Stations of the Cross, and the Rosary. As a further example, you may recall Pope John-Paul added a fouth set of Mysteries to the Rosary for the faithful to enjoy.

SO the solution, there is some debate among traditionalists about if Vatican II allowed Dogma and Doctrine to change, while most in Catholicism believe that through Vatican II and during the Mass reforms, only outward Discpline changed. This is the crux (not a pun) of this disagreement, and I think that we need two parts farther down the article so UTBA and I can both tell the tale from our perspectives. We will have to agree to disagree, and present both outlooks. Dominick 02:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have proved to you that the second definition is the most common use of the phrase. The entry was created to be about those Catholics. The entry wasn't created to be about the first definition, a group of Catholics which are more commonly referred to as conservative Catholics. You want to turn this page into a debate between conservative and traditional Catholics (second and most common definition). There is a place for your arguments. That place is in the "Relations with other Catholic groups" section.

No trad believes that the Catholic Church has changed dogma. Used2BAnonymous 02:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how the background information submitted by Dominick is relevant to the topic, nor do I see the reasoning behind keeping the anti-Traditional PoV on the main page of an article that is supposed to describe what Traditional Catholicism is, and what Traditional Catholics do. Imo, it would be tantamount to allowing (pick a non-Catholic group and insert it here) to write an article about the 7 sacraments. AdoramusTeChristeAdoramusTeChriste 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The background information is pointless and does nothing but cloud the issue. Is this article supposed to accurately describe Traditional Catholicism or not? This article is not supposed to be about (as was stated earlier) the debate between the conservative Catholics and the Traditional Catholics. The ONLY purpose of this article is SUPPOSED to be an ACCURATE description of TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM. JLeigh

Pathoschild, since you're not Catholic, here's an analogy you might be able to relate to as to what is going on here: think about "conservatism" 100 years ago -- a type of conservatism that is now known as "paleoconservatism." Now think of the neo-cons around Bush. The analogy is that "traditional Catholics" or "traditionalist Catholics" (as the phrases are most often -- practically always -- used, which I have proven) are the paleocons and the people about whom this entry was made. Dominick is a neo-con. He wants to take a page entitled "paleoconservatives" and turn it into a page about neo-cons while saying over and over and over, "But we're conservative, too!" To further the metaphor, he wants to invade the page on paleoconservatism and argue the superiority of neo-conservatism -- not in one place (as in a section "Criticisms of Paleoconservatism"), but all throughout it, in the page's very definitions, and in such a manner that never even informs the reader what paleoconservatism is. Used2BAnonymous 04:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Since someone thinks discussion of the first section has already even been concluded, with consensus on a definition of "traditionalist Catholic", I must intervene without waiting further. What about the following as an opening definition?

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" will be employed in this article to refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

Note that the term "traditional Catholic" is also used in a wider sense, to refer to all Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

It does not say the interpretation to be used in the article is more exact or better or more common. Nor does it say this interpretation is less exact or worse or less common. If someone wants these questions to be addressed, space can be made later in the article for discussing them.

Lima 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I'd reverse the order so that "following section" flows better into the, um, following section, and would do a tiny tweak or two such that it read:

In the widest sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

I think it's silly, but if it will get this ball rolling, let's do it. Used2BAnonymous 05:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem it that using the assumption forces the conclusion that the teachings of the Church have changed, this is not held by the greater Church, and more importantly is not held by all traditionalists. That some of the traditionalists incorrectly think that Church teachings have changed is irrelevent in the opening.

What is said in the opening should apply to all who are traditionalists, this would include the Indults, independents, SSPX, FSSP, and others. While some independents (includes Sedes) and the SSPX think that unchangable teachings were altered, those who attend Indult Mass, and FSSP mebers do not have this view, as evidenced by attendence and cooperation with the Local Ordinary. That was my point. Dominick 11:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the other order of the paragraphs: it signals immediately what the article will be about ("traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" will be in bold "traditional Catholic", "traditionalist Catholic"); and "Note that ..." signals that the second paragraph is parenthetical. However, what counts is truth, not my preference about style. So I do not oppose the other order.

On the other hand, the phrase "in the widest sense" cannot pass, since it is untrue. The term "traditional Catholic" (necessarily with a lower-case 't') applies in a yet wider sense to the general body of Roman Catholics, who, with no special interest in "Tridentine Mass" and similar questions, follow what they believe to be the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Traditional or traditionalist Catholics in narrower senses may judge that those Catholics are mistaken in their point of view. But this judgement is in turn the point of view of those narrower-sense traditional or traditionalist Catholics. So, if the order that I do not prefer is to be the one adopted, "in the widest sense" should be corrected to "in a wide sense". This phrase does not state that there exists a yet wider sense. Nor does it exclude a yet wider sense. If enough people want to debate the question of how many senses there are, space can be made for the question elsewhere in the article.

Apart from those who wish this article to be about traditional Catholics in a wider sense than that proposed here (and who may have to be accommodated in the section on relations with other Catholics), the summary of the article should cause no great problems. But this is only because the summary does not really say who the article is to be about; instead, it leaves this for "the following section", an arrangement that is certainly not ideal. But I choose not to raise any objection.

Lima 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand my point? The summary would force a lot of traditional Catholics into a position that they do not hold, that Church teachings, and not just discipline changed. We all agree the Mass reform was a mistake, but one group holds it was unlawful and happened illicitly, while the other group hold that it was unwise, but within the ability of the Pope to change. Dominick 12:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Nothing forces any conclusions, because if you read the article, you will see language that excludes that possibilty. E.g., "They also have certain common beliefs which can be summarized by saying that mainstream Catholics accept what traditional Catholics believe would have been considered "Modernist" or "liberal" at the time of the Second Vatican Council, while traditional Catholics strive to remain consistent with what they believe was considered "conservative" or "traditional" at the time of the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II")"
2. No traditionalist in the universe thinks "the Church" teachings have changed. Traditional Catholics say that Church teachings CAN NOT CHANGE. See the line, "They believe that while the Church's understanding of eternal truths might develop, those truths themselves can neither change in substance nor contradict themselves, and that what they believe was taught by Christ, his apostles, and their successors 2,000 years ago or 50 years ago must still be true today."
3. The article is not about "all traditionalists" as YOU idiosyncratically use the word "traditionalist," nor is it about priestly fraternities. It is about traditionalist Catholics as a group.
4. Your saying "'in the widest sense' cannot pass, since it is untrue" is nonsensical. If it is alleged that there are two definitions of a word, and one of those definitions says "X" while the second says "X, Y, and Z," the first defition is the "wider definition."
5. I note that with your sentence, "The term "traditional Catholic" (necessarily with a lower-case 't') applies in a yet wider sense to the general body of Roman Catholics, who, with no special interest in "Tridentine Mass" and similar questions, follow what they believe to be the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church," you apparently want to contradict your own definition of "traditional Catholics" and add yet another category. Soon this article won't be about Catholics at all but about lemurs or something.
6. If a "summary does not really say who the article is to be about," then it is not a good summary.
7. The summary doesn't force any Catholic into any position because it makes clear that THIS ENTRY IS ABOUT "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 the following section." Used2BAnonymous 13:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1 is your definition which is the problem. The FSSP is definitly traditionalist, yet they hold the Novus Ordo is valid, which could have been a liberal position. There is no objctive method to divine what a position held in 1960 is by that standard.

The definition needs to be clear, and defining it in this way is not clear at all. The definition that you stated in this term, is self serving as you can simply say liberal in 1960, and that would allow you to excise any group you deem to be inferior. This isn't fair to the greater group of traditionlaists, like the FSSP and Indult Mass attendees.

2 means that the Church holds it now, this is correct, and an integral part of this Church is Rome, and the Holy See, as it is currently instituted. The Holy See of today holds the same truths as it did in January 1960. A bigger issue is that your own circle has an undefined divorce of the Holy See and the Church. You can't claim that the See has apostisized, as it is commonly put, and claim you are speaking for all traditionalists, many would think that is absurd.

3-4 I don't know what you mean.

5 Title says who it is about, this includes them all, even those you don't like. The article is about all traditionalists.

6-7 You are repeating the flawed definition, this is a circular defense of your flawed definition. The article does not yet exist.

Dominick 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1. This article is not about priestly fraternities. The FSSP has their own entry.
2. The SSPX also believes the N.O. is valid. Believing that is not a "liberal position." Validity requires valid matter, form, and intent, even if it's wrapped up in sacrilege. A Satanic Black Mass offered by a truly ordained priest using valid matter, form, and intent is a valid Mass.
3. The definition I use is not "self-serving"; it is a definition that explains clearly and succinctly what this entry is about, which is the same as what the entry had always been about.
4. I don't care how you want to re-define the concept of eternal Catholic teachings, but no traditionalist Catholic thinks they can change.
5. You don't know anything about my "own circle"; I attend Masses offered by priests of the FSSP. Whether a given group is in some "undefined divorce of the Holy See and the Church" is neither here nor there with regard to this article. You are writing with a mainstream Catholic POV. Realize this about yourself and move on.
6. You don't know what I mean by 3-4? That doesn't surprise me.
7. The article isn't about your idiosyncratic idea of what "traditionalist Catholics" are -- an idea which flies in the face of all experience, Google search returns, and the use of that phrase by the media.
8. I repeat no "flawed definition"; I repeat the definition that's always been in use for this article -- which not only does exist, but has existed for 2 1/2 years. Used2BAnonymous 13:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Holding that the position that the Novus Ordo is acceptable Mass, would have been outrageously liberal in 1960, even more wild would have been a Mass in the venacular in 1960? Even with such a poor concept of liberal and conservative in 1960, as far as the Church is concerned, the vast amount of literature shows clearly that these would have been definite liberal concepts, whish exclude you as a member of the "true" traditionalists according you your own definition, since you hold that it is a valid concept. You may recall that in the FSSP, some Priests are asked to help with other rites of Mass, as any Priest would be asked.

This is about traditionalists as a group and a class that includes all fraternities, the SSPX, the Sedes and everyone who would hold that the reforms should not have occured. On one hand, you want to narrow the concept by cutting out groups that don't match your preconceived notions; on the other hand you would like to trim out anyone who doesn't match the additional concept you added. Dominick 13:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Validity" and "acceptability" are two entirely different concepts, and, with all due respect, your conflation of those terms shows you really don't know what you are talking about. Once again, this article is not about priestly fraternities, each of which having their own entries where people can go and complain about them. Used2BAnonymous 14:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, either validity or acceptability would have been considered a liberal stance in 1960, and there is no way you can definitivly refute that. Everyone who had a proper CCD teacher knows what the difference in an illicit Mass, an invalid Mass, and a unacceptable Mass. Some Masses are a superposition of those three distinct properties. A primary problem with your definition is that you must have "liberal" purity to be a traditionalist, and nobody can make that standard. You are indeed infected if you have the stance that the Novus Ordo is valid but unacceptable, as Venacular Mass could have been considered invalid and unacceptable. Some person in 1960 could have said a venacular Mass has a defect in form, it only has to be postulated, and therefore it could have been a liberalization.

In any case, this deals with the super-set of traditional Catholics, of all groups. There is no distinction. As a supporting case, the SSPX was held in the orginial article as the primary defender of traditionalists. So indeed all groups must be included, as the orginal article intended. Dominick 14:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

For a valid Sacrament, three things are needed: valid matter, valid intent, valid form. If the priest is a true priest, uses natural wine with nothing added, uses bread made of wheat and water (possibly leavening, which is illicit though valid in the Roman Church), and intends to do what the Church does when She consecrates the Eucharist, then the Mass is valid.

From the Summa Theologica (written in the 13th c., which you'll note is long before 1960), in response to Objection I: "Objection 1. It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood.""

. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood."

See http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407801.htm

Your assertion that I am saying one must have "liberal purity" in order to be a traditionalist makes no sense whatsoever. Whether you think I am "infected" or not matters neither to me nor to this article one bit. Used2BAnonymous 15:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Psssst, to all who think they know what Vatican II "taught" (and with "clarity," too, even) there's this just in from Zenit:

ROME, OCT. 11, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The present translations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council are "imprecise," says Archbishop William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

To resolve the problem, the archbishop "hopes that for the Council's 50th anniversary -- in 10 years time -- a careful official translation of the Council will be made in the main languages."

To date, no translation of Vatican II documents has been presented as official...

...In his address, Archbishop Levada explained that ambiguous translations had been made of the Council's texts, in particular of "Dei Verbum," suggesting the urgency of a total revision of the texts to correct the various interpretations and translations, which, he believes, do not reflect the authentic meaning of what the conciliar fathers wished to transmit.

Used2BAnonymous 15:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

For how long and how many times does this same debate have to be dragged out? When can this page be made operative again? Can this entire page be locked up forever and made useless because one guy doesn't understand the basic concepts involved? People are now being deprived of useful information just because one person wants to change everything the page is supposed to be about. This stinks. Malachias111 17:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputes are not caused by users maliciously opposing the current version of an article; disputes occur when different users have different ideas of how to edit the article. Each side could equally well accuse the other side of causing the debate by opposing their view. Please note that blaming a user or group of users for causing a dispute is considered a borderline personal attack. Further, note that any comment judged to be a blatant personal attack will be moved to the archive. Articles on Wikipedia are ruled by consensus, not by one side "winning" the debate. // Pathoschild 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no winning. The solution I proposed before was forgotten in the off-topic discussion. I said use the broad topic summary, and talk about the term as seen by either side in the body. The major issue is not decided here at wikipedia. It sure isn't one person having the problem because in the past other users tried to make the same changes before and were run off not wanting to go through the birthing process like we are undertaking now.

The discussion is what is the topic sentence. It goes to the set of people we are discussing. Now we narow this so far, that not even the SSPX can be considered as part of this class, and that doesn't match with the way this term is used, as a description of Catholics that would like the practices of the Church to return to those from before the reforms of the 1960s. The parts I objected to is the vague sub-classification to exclude those who would not hold "liberal" ideas as it was believed in 1960, and the part that implies that teachings of the Church have changed, or are going to chage. The teachings underlying the changes in the Mass did not change, but discipline was loosened to allow the reforms of the Mass. I think laying out both classes is a better way to descibe the group as a whole. Dominick 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A request to Used2BAnonymous: If you want to respond to me, please keep your response separate from your quarrels with Dominick. Your comments 4-7 at 13:07 seem to be about what I wrote, but you address them to Dominick. If you mean them for me, please consider my remarks on their own, without confusing them with Dominick's.

If one definition makes a term cover only X, and another makes it cover X, Y and Z, is the definition that restricts it to X the wider or the narrower definition? I must surely be misunderstanding what you wrote. Your draft of "the following section" second section has not yet been discussed, modified(?), and agreed on. Until then, we do not know who exactly will be classified as traditionalist Catholics. Dominick should wait until then to put forward his objections, and you should not attack your own draft summary by saying that a summary that does not (yet) say who the article is to be about is not a good summary.

I thought we were at last having a calm constructive discussion on concrete matters. But you seem to have directed to me too the heat you feel against Dominick, provoking me also to some heat. Please wait at least half an hour before even beginning your response to me. Better still, sleep on it. I will not look again at this article for at least nine hours.

Lima 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I definitely don't confuse your remarks with Dominick's and will gladly not address both of you together in future posts.

You ask, "If one definition makes a term cover only X, and another makes it cover X, Y and Z, is the definition that restricts it to X the wider or the narrower definition?" The definition that restricts it to X is the wider definition.

The "following section" is the list of beliefs that have been in this entry for a long time (though I added a bit about Sacred Scripture, added links to some encyclicals, and formatted it better in my proposed version).

As to definitions, I thought that you and I had no qualms with the definition:

In the widest sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

There is talk now about the order of the listing, but I thought the basic definitions had been agreed upon. Used2BAnonymous 19:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, an experiment. The summary for the Wiki entry on Jews opens with:

The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of Jewish religion, please refer to Judaism.

I changed it just now to:

The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways. For certain Christian denominations, the term applies to themselves due to verses such as Jeremiah 31:31-34, Matthew 3:1-9, Galatians 3:6-29, Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, and others.

The term generally, though, refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term in this second sense and as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of Jewish religion, please refer to Judaism.

Doubt that will last (it's probably already gone), and neverminding the "begging the question" inherent in the second definition, the question is this: should the rest of that entry be about Christians who think of themselves as "Jews" or about the second definition given -- to wit, "a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes."? Should Christians who think they are "Jews" argue all throughout that article or should any comments be in one place? Used2BAnonymous 19:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The word Jew as an Israelite has a definite meaning. This term we discuss has no formal definition, except how it is used by those who study or practice traditional Catholicism. Your analogy is faulty. Dominick 20:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of altering other articles to make some indiscernable point, perhaps you can fix the current definition. The fault has been pointed out by Lima and I and yet you seem unable to compromise to come up with better verbage. Dominick 20:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "Jew" has several meanings, and if you'd read the Bible verses quoted, you can see that the word can apply to Christians in a deep sense. But the question is, should the article, after its summary ackowledges that some Christians believe themselves to be the "true Jews," then go on to be about those Christians rather than about the Jews of the second definition -- the people about whom and for whom the entry was made?

Lima and I, I'd thought, agreed to the definition for this article given above. Used2BAnonymous 20:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Used2BAnonymous does not understand what I wrote above, I must help him by expanding it and replacing the references in it by the full text of what they referred to. Used2BAnonymous may then think I have substantially changed what I wrote (which is not my point of view). If he does, it would be good if he would refrain from making non-productive heat-producing remarks about this opinion, turning us into bickering children saying: "You did." "I didn't." "You did." "I didn't." ... We can have different opinions on many peripheral matters that do not affect the substance of the article. Let us say nothing of such matters, and just keep to the substance.

I regret that the necessity of expansion to ensure full comprehension results in the addition of so much text here.

I have proposed the following summary (call it Draft Summary L1):

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" will be employed in this article to refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

Note that the term "traditional Catholic" is also used in a wider sense, to refer to all Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

Used2BAnonymous has proposed the following summary (call it Draft Summary U2):

In the widest sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

Personally, I prefer the Draft Summary L1 order of the paragraphs, since it signals immediately what the article will be about, namely, traditional/ist Catholics. The start of the second paragraph in Draft Summary L1, "Note that ...", signals that this paragraph is parenthetical. However, in spite of my personal preference, and if I can suppose that Used2BAnonymous is prepared to be cooperative, I do not oppose the order of paragraphs in Draft Summary U2. I see the question of the order of the paragraphs as a question of style. I have a right to have a preference about style. I freely state that preference, but, for the sake of advancing constructively, I do not insist on it, when others are strongly insistent on their personal preferences.

I must, however, draw attention to the fact that the first paragraph of Draft Summary U2 makes a false statement when it says that the meaning it gives to "traditional Catholic is "the widest sense". The widest sense in which the term "traditional Catholic" can be used is not that in the first paragraph of Draft Summary U2: "Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s" (a sense broader than the sense given to it in the second paragraph of Draft Summary U2). The term "traditional Catholic" can be used to cover, not just the classes in both paragraphs of Draft Summary U2, but also the general body of Roman Catholics, who, even if they have no special interest in "Tridentine Mass" and similar questions, follow what they believe to be the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Traditional/ist Catholics in narrower senses (the two senses mentioned in Draft Summary U2) may judge that those Catholics who fall outside the Draft Summary U2 limits (both the narrower and the broader limits of that draft summary) are mistaken in their point of view. But this judgement is in turn the point of view of those contained within the limits of the definitions in Draft Summary U2. So, if the Draft Summary U2 order of paragraphs is to be the one adopted (something that has not yet been decided, but which I would accept, not out of conviction, but only because my desire has always been to be constructive and no more argumentative than is absolutely necessary), "in the widest sense" in the first U2 paragraph should be corrected to "in a wide sense". The phrase, "in a wide sense", does not state that there exists a yet wider sense (concretely, one that includes also the general body of Catholics). Nor does it exclude a yet wider sense (concretely, if for the sake of being understood I must repeat, one that includes also the general body of Catholics). If enough people want to debate the question of how many senses there are, space can be made elsewhere in the article for the question of the meaning or meanings of "traditional/ist Catholic"..

I imagined that, apart from those who wish this article to be about traditional Catholics in a sense wider than that proposed (for use within the article) in the first paragraph of Draft Summary L1 and the second paragraph of Draft Summary U2, namely the sense mentioned in the second paragraph of Draft Summary L1 and the first paragraph of Draft Summary U2 - these may have to be accommodated in the section on relations with other Catholics - the summary of the article would cause no great problems. But this was only because neither Draft Summary L1 nor Draft Summary U2, on their own, really say who the article is to be about. Instead, both draft summaries leave it to "the following section" to spell out concretely who is to be classified as coming under the classification adopted. Ideally, the subject matter of the article should be stated within the summary itself. But I choose not to raise an objection to this fault. (Anyone who tries to start a public fight about this remark of mine must logically be either one who disagrees with leaving clarification of the definition until "the following section" or else - since I do not object to leaving clarification until later - one who is just adding heat to the discussion and delaying progress.)

It is false to say that I have agreed to the U2 Draft Summary. It is false to say consensus has been reached. Changing the text of the article is therefore not yet permissible.

Those who previously joined in angry arguments on this page are now failing to make any contribution to what I hoped would be a constructive dialogue on tangible proposals such as Draft Summaries L1 and U2. Is this because they are only interested in fights, and I was taking care to keep the discussion of concrete texts cool? Is there nobody who wants to discuss substance without injecting heat? And I quite fail to see why anyone not seeking a fight could sincerely consider it essential for the article to state that the sense indicated in the U2 first paragraph is "the widest" possible sense. Does it make any difference to the article whether the term "traditional Catholic" is used elsewhere in only two or in three or in scores of senses? Does it make any difference to the article which of these senses is the widest of all? It should surely be enough to say which of the senses that are mentioned within the article is the wider. Indeed it is not really essential even to say which is the wider of these two senses.

Lima 08:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. You say: "Personally, I prefer the Draft Summary L1 order of the paragraphs, since it signals immediately what the article will be about, namely, traditional/ist Catholics." -- and then say "I imagined that, apart from those who wish this article to be about traditional Catholics in a sense wider than that proposed (for use within the article) in the first paragraph of Draft Summary L1 and the second paragraph of Draft Summary U2, namely the sense mentioned in the second paragraph of Draft Summary L1 and the first paragraph of Draft Summary U2 - these may have to be accommodated in the section on relations with other Catholics - the summary of the article would cause no great problems."

As to why other contributors aren't here actively contributing, I imagine it's because it's been made clear that their opinions don't matter in that regard.

You ask: "Does it make any difference to the article whether the term "traditional Catholic" is used elsewhere in only two or in three or in scores of senses?" In my proposed version, the term is used consistently throughout the article, barring the noted claimed "wide sense" of the phrase in the L1's second definition.

If you don't like wide, wider, widest, super wide, the widest of the wide and other variations of the word, then use "one." I don't care. Used2BAnonymous 13:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. When I say "their opinions don't matter," I mean with regard to forming a consensus. Used2BAnonymous 13:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since views on the article outline have reached a consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic#Overall_structure), and
• since the books listed are to go under the opinions section of the links per Pathoschild's statement, "Books supportive of traditional Catholicism and Counter opinions should be placed under Opinions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic/Archives/Oct2005#Section-by-section_editing), and
• since the summaries mentioned here (either L1, L2, or what I have now at the entry in consideration to the stuff written above) match neither the body of the article nor the agreed upon summary (about which discussion is closed),

is there any issue with posting my proposed entry (which follows all of the above) in its entirety and then working through each section? Used2BAnonymous 14:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Though provoked, I will not respond in kind to Used2BAnonymous. Scoring points about "what it is about" and "who precisely it is about" would not advance work on the article one whit.

Used2BAnonymous has not given us an explicit statement of how his draft summary is now to be worded. But I think we can interpret the final paragraph of his somewhat agitated contribution as proposing the following draft, which we may call Draft Summary U3:

In one sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

But for the attitude Used2BAnonymous has shown yesterday and today, I would, out of courtesy, simply accept his draft. As things are, I will do so only after there has been input from others about the relative merits of Draft Summary U3 (just above) and Draft Summary L1 (which I think is superior stylistically):

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" will be employed in this article to refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

Note that the term "traditional Catholic" is also used in a wider sense, to refer to all Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

A comment on Used2BAnonymous's most recent posting on this page: If his question refers to replacing the present article with his version - I am unsure what he means by "posting" it - there most certainly is an issue. To get Used2BAnonymous's version, all we need to do is to click on his page, which he is free to modify as he pleases.

Lima 15:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you and I were posting at the same time. Check the history; I retracted the accusation that you were contradicting yourself.

What I propose as a summary is this (at present page):

In one sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is said to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s and to other Catholics who attempt to follow what they consider the traditional teahings of the Catholic Church.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

I don't feel free to revert and modify because I was told not to do a wholescale revision but to post bits and discuss. I think this is problematic in that we have an agree-upon outline -- but aren't using it, and working in bits and pieces without an outline in place would make for a very sloppy entry. So I am asking if we have a consensus, then, to revert the page to that version, replacing the summary with the new one, and adding links to sites in opposition to the opinions expressed in the article. Used2BAnonymous 15:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm tossing my "yes" vote in for the summary above posted by Used2BAnonymous. JLeigh

JLeigh gives no reason, no comment: just "tosses a yes vote in". JLeigh may have meant to support the proposal that Used2BAnonymous posted a bare quarter of an hour before JLeigh posted his message. (We can call it Draft Summary U4.) But perhaps JLeigh meant to support Draft Summary U3. Or he may have meant: "I say yes to whatever Used2BAnonymous says at any moment"?

Draft Summary U4 is for me unacceptable. Before commenting on it, I will again give Used2BAnonymous many hours to reflect on whether he really wants to throw aside Draft Summary U3 and replace it, just when a consensus seemed to around the corner, with his novel Draft Summary U4, which increases the points of difference, so that they are no longer just questions of style.

Lima 18:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

One would imagine that JLeigh was referring to the post just above his.

Now, what is it about "U4" (is Bono still with them?) that "increases the points of difference, so that they are no longer just questions of style"? And what's up with this patronizing royal-speak -- "I will give Used2BAnonymous many hours to reflect"? Used2BAnonymous 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that Used2BAnonymous did not take time to reflect whether it was really necessary or appropriate to raise new difficulties at this stage. I am sorry too if, as Used2BAnonymous claims, he has in this the support of JLeigh, whose direct input, and that of others, I invited, when there was a choice between two drafts differing only in style.

Since the problems in Used2BAnonymous's unexpected new draft for the summary do have to be discussed, I will begin with just one. Used2BAnonymous wants everyone to accept that it is proper to say that, in an interpretation he dislikes, "the term 'traditional Catholic' is said to refer to Roman Catholics who ...", but not at all proper to say that, in his preferred interpretation, "the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are said to refer to Roman Catholics ..." This is surely a point-of-view insertion by stealth.

On another matter, Pathoschild certainly has my permission to reorganize the article. If he has difficulty in inserting the "Terminology" material into the new framework, I would not object if he omitted it. But maybe someone else would object.

Lima 04:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that that issue is one that calls for deep "reflection," least of all a "few hours" worth. There was nothing "stealth" in the insertion of "is said to" -- especially since there's been an insistence from your side that "traditional Catholics" now refers not only to "those who want to roll things back," but to "the general body of Roman Catholics, who, even if they have no special interest in Tridentine Mass and similar questions, follow what they believe to be the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church." (I think this definition includes We Are Churchers, if I'm not mistaken).

Second, I don't see why you see my oh-so-sneaky insertion of "is said to" (which shows up in bright red font in the pages that contrast versions) as a bad, bad thing, but you apparently don't seem to mind Dominick's use of "may" in his revision. Used2BAnonymous 09:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Used2BAnonymous to try to justify using "is said to" for the interpretation he dislikes, while excluding it for the interpretation he favours.

Lima 11:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Because you and Dominick say -- in spite of what Google and the media say -- that "traditionalist Catholics" refers to people who want to "roll things back" and to those who think they're following traditional Catholic teaching. Because you say this, "it is said." Now, I am waiting for you to try to justify jumping on me for that while not being concerned about Dominick's revisions. Used2BAnonymous 11:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous admits that the function of "is said to" is to mark the interpretation he attaches it to as not in correspondence with his point of view. At the same time he admits that his point of view is not everyone's.

Lima 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously my interpretation isn't "everyone's" because you and Dominick are here saying contrawise, in spite of what Google and the media say. Used2BAnonymous 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

POV.

Lima 17:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's POV to point out that some people (you and Dominick) say "that "traditionalist Catholics" refers to people who want to "roll things back" and to those who think they're following traditional Catholic teaching"? How so? Used2BAnonymous 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Only when the writer puts the statement out of balance with an alternative notion not tagged with "some people say" and thereby indicated as, in the writer's view, the better.

Lima 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The "alternative notion" is what the entry is about, and its definition has been proved to be the way the term is most often understood. It is about a self-described group of Catholics known as "traditional Catholics" -- who not only describe themselves as such, but are called such by others. Used2BAnonymous 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Any particular interpretation can be chosen as subject for the article. The idea that other interpretations are wrong is your point of view. Lima 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want the page to be about definition one, then you need to set up a disambiguation page. This entry was set up to be about, has been about, and is about traditional Catholics of the "restrictive sense." Used2BAnonymous 19:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, you may choose whatever definition you like for the article. (I leave it to you.) But that does not require you to say other usages are wrong, which would be expressing a particular point of view. Lima 20:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) It is approaching midnight where I am. I should already be in bed. I'll see tomorrow if there is any advance. Lima 20:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To discuss whether a given personal opinion is right or wrong is neither here nor there with regard to this article. But note that my proposed definition doesn't say "In the loosest -- but very wrong -- sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms, etc.." Used2BAnonymous 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have an axe to grind, Lima? Your comment: "Or he may have meant: "I say yes to whatever Used2BAnonymous says at any moment"?" suggests that I have nothing better to do with my time than to nod "yes" at any suggestions put forth by Used2BAnonymous. It also borders on a personal attack. Just to clarify: Used2BAnonymous is trying to keep this article accurate and truthful. I whole-heartedly support this persons endeavor.

It is sheer idiocy to have an article about Traditional Catholicism that contains erroneous or inaccurate information. It also defies logic to deliberately disregard proofs put forth time and time again which supports our definition of traditional Catholicism.

Furthermore, if I want to post a "yes vote", I shall do so at any time I please - without including a 3 paragraph dissertation on the motives behind my vote. JLeigh

This discussion concerns a new summary. If you wish to address a concern that does not apply to the topic, please do so under a different heading.

The definitions don't seem to be mutually exclusive; both refer to Catholicism as before the 1960's. It's not necessary to rigidly define Traditionalist Catholicism, but only to give a rough overview. I propose the following synthesis of the previously argued summaries, which I realise is very rough; if the idea is supported, it can be further refined. Specifically, I suggest that Traditionalist Catholicism be described as a movement within the wider sense of traditional Catholicism. This seems logical to me, but I may be mistaken.

"The term traditional Catholicism may refer generally to a body of Roman Catholics who prefer the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church as it was before the reforms of the 1960s. This article focuses specifically on Traditionalist Catholicism, a movement within this body which seeks to revert to and preserve the pre-reform worship and customs. Several different implementations of this are proposed by various groups, as outlined below."

// Pathoschild 00:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Where do we deal with the larger movement? This is the article on the larger movement, IMHO. Part of the problem is just this. We have an article on "shoes" and we have a group thinking this is only about the "high heels" they found on sale at Macy's last week. 00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, then. To return your analogy, though, I see it as an article on shoes (those who want to revert to pre-reform) within the larger scope of footwear (the general body of those who simply prefer pre-reform). The various forms of shoes, ranging from high heels to sneakers (the different groups), are then described in greater detail under the "Traditionalist beliefs" heading. If this isn't so, feel free to simply return to the last proposition before mine. // Pathoschild 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The "larger movement" is dealt with in the page called "Roman Catholicism." There are other pages on the FSSP, etc. This article was CREATED to be about traditional Catholics of the second definition. Here are the first two paragraphs of the VERY FIRST page:

Traditional Catholic refers to those groups of Roman Catholics who reject the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, especially the Novus Ordo Mass. They are to be distinguished from other Catholics who merely prefer the older Tridentine Mass (established at the Council of Trent), without actually rejecting the new Mass or the Second Vatican Council.

Traditional Catholics can be generally divided into two groups. The majority of traditional Catholics, while opposing recent Vatican decisions, still claim union with Pope of Rome. The second group believe in the papacy but reject Pope Paul VI and his successors Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II as antipopes owing to their belief that these popes are heretics due to many of the Vatican II decrees and subsequent papal promulgations. As a result of their heresy, they claim, they have lost or never validly acquired their office. Some of these sedevacantist groups have elected popes of their own.

This is what the page was made to be about, has been about, is about, and will be about, world without end, per omnia saecula saeculorum, ex hoc nunc, et usque in sæculum.

Now, Dominick, does the above description fit you?

Circle one: YES NO

Does this page seem to be about people who might not have an interest in the Tridentine Mass but who think they're traddies anyway?

Circle one: YES NO

Does this page seem to be about people who think the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents are kewl?

Circle one: YES NO

The people this page was created to be about: do they like the Novus Ordo Mass jes fine and consider it just one preference among many, just another thing, like picking out which sweater to wear that day?

Circle one: YES NO

If you answer no to these questions, why do you insist on changing the focus of your page? Could it be that you have a POV? That you hate traditional Catholicism as defined in the second definition and just can't stand that this page exists?

Circle one: YES NO

Used2BAnonymous 01:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You know what, this is a childish game. I left this circle note game back in third grade. Right now this article is a mockery of traditionalism, that supports one view and censors all others. It is not a traditional PoV, it is on one groups PoV, founded in anti-clericalism, fueled by artstoturfing from a site with a narrow view. This is just silly. Chidhishly screaming hate, when I am expressing the greater traditionalists movement that desires constructive changes from Rome, the seat of the Church. We don't toss invective at out leaders at the Holy See, unlike you and yours, because it is counter productive. Dominick 12:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And for the love of all that is HOLY, stop reverting and typing "POV" all over the section that deals with traditional Catholics' POINTS OF VIEW. That's just like going to the page on Judaism, scrolling down on the section on Jewish beliefs, and crossing out the part about not eating pork because it's "POV." Well, no duh. People have points of view, and in a part of an article explicitly set up to relate those points of view, you will find --- I'll give you two guesses! -- points of view. Used2BAnonymous 01:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ruled by consensus; see Consensus decision-making and Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not about right or wrong unless you can prove it. Cite serious studies, official declarations, self-descriptions from the groups concerned, mission statements, or other related documents. Don't put forth Google searches or quotes from websites biased to your favour as proof. Condescension is about the worst thing you can do to sour a debate. This is Wikipedia policy, not a suggestion. At this rate, we're going to end up sounding like the Canadian parliament during election season. >_> // Pathoschild 03:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have long given up hope that a cool logical view, like that put forward by Pathoschild, would be acceptable to Used2BAnonymous. I am only trying to ensure that, within the framework of an article limited to the particular notion of "traditional/ist Catholic" on which Used2BAnonymous is so insistent, point-of-view and simply false statements are excluded.

Back to my discussion with Used2BAnonymous, who I pray will have had a restful night before he reads this.

Quotation: "But note that my proposed definition doesn't say 'In the loosest -- but very wrong -- sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms, etc."'" The contrast between two interpretations, one only of which is tagged with "is said to", marks that one as not being the correct interpretation, the very reason why Used2BAnonymous wants the tag inserted. The article has neither need of value judgements, nor, if it is to be a neutral-point-of-view article, can it express value judgements. "To discuss whether a given personal opinion is right or wrong is neither here nor there with regard to this article," writes Used2BAnonymous. I am not the person who wants to discuss the "right or wrong" of a given personal opinion, passing a value judgement on it.

(By the way, I thought the "Traditionalist Catholic" was to be reorganized within the new framework, not replaced, as it now is, by the Used2BAnonymous version.)

Lima 08:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to reverting changes wholesale to limit other contriobutions, 00:45, 17 October 2005 Used2BAnonymous. ON RfP. Dominick 12:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I make a public apology to JLeigh. It was wrong of me to use language that suggested JLeigh might be merely a blind follower of Used2BAnonymous, ready to back up whatever Used2BAnonymous might put forward. I wrote it at a time of annoyance (now passed) with Used2BAnonymous, for the insufficient reason that I was disappointed that JLeigh did not indicate whether "the summary above posted by Used2BAnonymous" was the U3 draft that was supposed to be compared with the L1 draft, or was instead Used2BAnonymous's quite new draft, which JLeigh was able to study in a few minutes and decide that it, rather than either of the two drafts presented for comparison, deserved to be supported. So I beg the forgiveness of Jleigh.

Lima 16:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Lima. I want to make it clear that I do not make decisions on just a few minutes of studying. JLeigh

The on-topic discussion ended with two proposals, called DSU3 (Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #3) and DSL1 (Draft Summary Lima #1). DSU3 nearly had consensus, but was superceded by DSU4 which met opposition. The proposals below are, respectively, DSU3 and DSL1.

In one sense, the term 'traditional Catholic' is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms 'traditional Catholic' and 'traditionalist Catholic' refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section.

// Pathoschild 18:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As DSL1 is a derivative of DSU3 or vice versa, they are both suffering form the original problem. I attempted to fix it, before the mass revert by UTBA. This issue is that they both equate traditional Catholicism with a rejection of Vatican II as it were, and not just the over reaching reforms that followed. If we read through the discussion in archives, we see we all agreed, we had a consensus, that the specific problems were not caused by Vatican II per se, but the reforms of the Mass following the council.

This article has to include traditionalists who think errors were made afterward, and the best course should not have included the drastic reforms of the Mass, and as a result seek refuge in approved Indult 1962 Missal Masses. They do not share the dire PoV that permiates this article at the moment.

Lets look at it this way, we define the term traditional Catholic, then discard the definition to redefine it another way JUST because the article has a deficient PoV that only reflects one class, to the exclusion of all others. This is not how controversial subject should be treated.

The term 'traditional Catholic' and 'traditionalist Catholic' refer to Roman Catholics who restore, the Mass and other Sacramental rites as they were in use before the liturgical revisions of the 1960s.

The term 'traditional Catholic' also refers to all Roman Catholics who fit the above definition, but in addition believe the Catholic Church has strayed from its Catholic roots as they were in the 1960s.

I think this covers everyone, and preserves the character of the differences between traditionlaist groups, as evidenced by the trouble we are having coming to agreement. Dominick 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No traditionalist Catholic believes the Catholic Church has strayed from Her Catholic roots. And can you find any examples at all of the term "traditionalist Catholic" being used to refer to Catholics who don't think that the presentation of Catholic teaching has changed? 64.12.116.202 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That isn't what was presented in the article. It was said there was a "revolution". Every Catholic of any stripe knows the Church changed the way it does business. The Church no longer produces "Anathemas" does it? Would an anathema agaisnt Mother murdering the unborn work? The traditionalists think the Church should return the practices, the Missals, the character of the Mass.

It is a separate issue entirely between those traditionalist who think things should return because they would be better, that things were done in error, and those who feel the Church is in full apostacy. The article should do all three groups justice. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• No traditionalist Catholic thinks the Church is in full apostasy. 64.12.116.202 00:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• We have a whole category of people with that opinion featured as "true" traditionalists in this article now. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• No, we don't. 64.12.116.202 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Is this where I say oh yes we do? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 01:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Probably. 64.12.116.202 01:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Would you like to get on topic, and we can archive/delete this little exchange? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 01:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was on topic. You segued into a discussion about what your reaction will be to the truth that no traditionalist Catholic thinks the Church is in full apostasy. 64.12.116.202 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the three groups. Perhaps apostasy is problematic, but, IMHO, if we include Sedes, we need to include all traditionalists. There is a sizable group of traditionalists, who do not war with Rome. This article as it sits now, pretend they do not exist. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

breaking this up, pending the archive master's attentions Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

They are included. They're in the intro. The page is about the "other" trads. 64.12.116.202 02:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not good enough. This is the only place where wikipedia deals with Catholic tratidionalists, those who prefer the Catholic Mass of 1962. One sub-groups can't censor another group from this page. Both groups will be represented, and presented with the same detail. I made the analogy before, lets say this is the Men's shoe article, one group will not take it over and exclusively talk about oxfords, and not mention penny loafers because they are not "true" shoes and lack laces. Thanks for helping. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

They are only mentioned here at all as "traditionalists" out of deference to your notion that such people actually call themselves and are referred to as "traditionalists." But we both know that isn't true, and the article is about Catholics who call themselves that and are called that by others and who believe the things outline in the section entitled "Traditionalist Beliefs". 64.12.116.202 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the instruction to make no significant changes without first obtaining consensus, the article "Traditionalist Catholic" has in fact been completely rewritten from a single point of view, and has rightly been tagged as accused of being such.

As the text now appears, the section "Traditionalist beliefs" gives in its first paragraph what seems to be the fundamental belief to which reference is made in the summary section. Would it not be better to include in the opening summary this fundamental belief that distinguishes traditionalist Catholics, in the narrow sense, from all others, instead of merely giving a generic reference to "the following section", consensus on which is even more problematic?

The opening summary would then read:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Unless explicitly stated, the terms will be used in this article in the latter meaning.

Obviously, Dominick would dislike the second short paragraph of this draft summary. But would he accept this draft summary as a whole, even if reluctantly?

Would his opponents accept this draft summary as a whole, even if reluctantly?

Lima 07:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The first part is acceptable, if the sentence following it is deleted. I asked before, "What good is a definition if we discard it?" I think the same question can be asked, "What good is a definition if we disregard it?"

The confusion is simple to see, we are mixing which are what this article is about traditional Catholic people and practices, and the sad sport of some of this group with making accusations against the Holy See, the Church, and any Cardinal, Bishop or Priest that doesn't suit thier liking. There is room for faithful traditionalists who want to see things change, and who work constructivly within the Church. I am not saying we should not mention any other group. The other side has stricly removed any reference in this article to traditionalists who prefess actual fidelity to Rome, instead of the mock fidelity of other groups.

Couple this with the antics of a smaller group withing this group, that seeks to expel from consideration in a larger sense in an orchestrated campaign any mention of those who are taking advantage of the Holy See's offer to allow worship with those practices from the 1962 missal, and the fallout is here on display at wikipedia. This is one of the foundations of wikipedia, that everyone has a place for a PoV in a given article. Since the name of this article is traditionalist Catholics, it must include them all.

I would further put forth there are a lot more traditionalists like me who do not scream and moan on copius numbers of webpages. A quick view of a Catholic bookstore, or any number of magazines that maintain fidelity to Rome, AND the Latin Mass will serve as examples. [1][2] Some background reading is good as well, into the motivations of some narrow view traditionalists, claiming the confessed homosexual Bishop Weakland is an ally of the Wanderer, a traditional magazine. You will note the labeling of the magazine which meets all the first parts of our definition as not traditionalist but as a conservative. This is one of the orgins of the term as misused to the faithful Church. [3] As a group, there is no room for pejoratives, in the body of the article. We self identify as traditionalists, we attend Mass as traditionalist, and no person can rightfully deny we should be included. Get a copy of Stephen Hand's "Traditionalists, Tradition, and Private Judgment", he attends Indult Mass, and has written on why the Mass from 1962 should be preferred. He is a meets the definition in every sense, as do I, except that we do not engage in sport over making fun of the Princes of the Church, and finding fault with anything the Holy See does or says.

The one constant is that any sort of fidelity to Rome gets expulsion from the ranks of "true" believers. There is a long list of other purity tests, that grows as the tabloid presses churn out the same sort of thing, soon no person will ever meet the tests, like the Jansenists of Pope St. Pius X's time.

As far as the rewrite, I would like to get consensus on a revert to where we were talking, this article is now a screed of calumnity against the Church, the Holy See, and anyone remaining faithful to the See. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have some observations to make on Dominick's remarks, in the hope of diminishing his opposition to the short second paragraph of the proposed summary. But I think it better to wait for some reactions to the draft summary (not to Dominick) from those who were once so quick to oppose Dominick, but are now silent.

Lima 18:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been waiting for a response, I imagine no response is coming. I would hate to take silence as consensus. As it sits, perhaps discussion is elsewhere. I have no desire to cut out other groups, my intention is to cover the Indult groups that remain loyal to both the 1962 Missal, and the Holy See. If you like, you can make the comment to me on my talk page, or use another channel.

Can we please revert back to a version you and I agree on, perhaps the last admin protected version, and edit together setion by section. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot. Futhermore, there is no "calumnity" against "the Church" in this entry (and I can prove this), and even if you characterize traditionalist Catholic beliefs as such, your POV doesn't belong in the article. 64.12.116.202 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholics (second definition, the people about whom this page is made) believe that a revolution took place in the human element of the Church. 64.12.116.202 02:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Dominick says, silence is consent about the draft summary. I make bold to presume the permission of Pathoschild to insert the proposed text into the article. If there is opposition to it, its insertion will secure a reaction. If there is no other negative reaction, Dominick's objection can be discussed later, before deciding whether there is consensus on all sides. For the moment, I will just say that Dominick is presuming that the rest of the article will remain in its present form. That form has yet to be discussed.

Lima 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding. It is nice to be understood. I will leave my comments as they are. I have been talking with other traditionalists, and they made some other suggestions to me on reference works. When the time is right I can bring those references up to show therer are a lot of prople who attend independent Indult, FSSP or ICK Masses, but do not engage in the sniping currently in the article. The issue is pretty much the same, the other group doesn't want to engage in discussion on the bounds of traditionalism.

I still object to the sentence, but I will have a little faith, Mr. Lima. Thanks again. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection. Oddly, Used2BAnonymous seems to have been absent from the Wikipedia since October 17th. // Pathoschild 12:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he is gone. Lets continue fixing this article. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If Lima and Dominick are agreed, I propose that Draft Summary Lima 2 (blockquoted below) be considered to have consensus unless it is opposed by an active contributor within twenty-four hours. This extended deadline gives a fair amount of time for everyone involved to comment, and should prevent any accusation of rushing through while the opposition is away.

// Pathoschild 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I like my version better because:

• the only reason that first definition is in there at all is because Dominick insists, contrary to evidence, that "traditionalist Catholic" refers to anyone who likes the traditional Mass (and, as he said before, to anyone who thinks they're traditional Catholics). He has been challenged to come up with instances where his kind of so-called "traditionalist" refer to themselves as such AND are referred to by others as such. He has failed to do so. I, on the other hand, have shown how the term IS used -- not only by conservative Catholics, but by traditionalist Cathollcs themselves, Vatican hierarchs, liberal Catholics, and the media.
  
  
• I know exactly where such an introduction would lead: it would lead to Dominick inserting his POV all throughout the article. His anti-traditionalist statments belong in the section concerning "Relations with other Catholics," not in every sentence.
  
  
• He keeps insisting that the people he wrongly defines as "traditionalist" are "excluded" from an article which isn't about them. But, in spite of the fact that this article isn't about tham, they are not excluded. They are mentioned in the FIRST SENTENCE, have their opinions related in the "Relations with other Catholics" section, and have a section at the bottom for links to their websites. And if this entry were about them ALONE, there is nothing to say about them whatsoever except "they are 'in full accord' with the 'Holy See', they attend Masses offered by the FSSP, ICK, and other priestly fraternties, and they think Vatican II was good for the Church." Dominick wants his POV all over this article because, simply, he hates traditionalist Catholics (second definition, the one that is used in the real world), and if his post of 13:05, 19 October 2005 doesn't show his POV in the metaphorical equivalent of flashing, blinking text, then nothing does. He hates them the way Ann Coulter-loving, Free Republic going neo-cons hate that "leftist" Pat Buchanan and anyone else against the war in Iraq. It is the exact same principle here: those who claim to be "conservatives" are actually "liberal," and their cognitive dissonance over this fact causes them to go on hateful rampages against those who are truly "conservative." That is the game here. All Catholics are supposed to be "traditional" because Sacred Tradition is one of the three pillars of the Church. But some people cling to the idea while throwing out Tradition itself, and they can't stand themselves for it, they can't make things line up in their minds. I'd bet you that Dominick hasn't even read the encyclicals referenced. Here's another challenge: read them, Dominick, and make them line up with what is presented as Catholic teaching today (which does not go to say that Catholic teaching has changed -- because CATHOLIC teaching can't change. It also doesn't go to say that the Church has changed Her teachings -- because the Church can't change Her teachings. If you would stop equating "the Church" with "Pope and Bishops" and, instead, see the Church as governed by the Pope and Bishops, you might be able to work around this obvious block you have in understanding what traditionalist Catholics think).

Used2BAnonymous 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(SNIP) Missed one. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

1) OK, if you've read the encyclicals, show me how they line up with what is presented as Catholic teaching today -- or, as is more relevant to this article, show me how traditionalist Catholics (second definition) are engaging in "calumnity (sic) against the Church, the Holy See, and anyone remaining faithful to the See" when they "scream and moan on copius numbers of webpages" about these issues?

2) It is your lack of objectivity -- your insisting beyond evidence -- that conservative Catholics are "traditionalist Catholics," call themselves "traditionalist Catholics," and are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" -- that has caused us to go back and forth for over two weeks now.

3) In what fantasy world does this article poke fun at Cardinals? Used2BAnonymous 14:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(SNIP) Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Paragraph 1 of Used2BAnonymous's comment, "traditional Catholic" does in fact seem to be used by and of people who share Dominick's ideas. Something at least like it is found on the site What Makes Us Traditional Catholics, and perhaps in the comment by a certain Tom Cornell about TCR on another site - indeed in the very name of that site, which incorporate the words "Traditional Catholic" (this last is a comment added on 22 October). But we do not need to treat the Internet as a new sola Scriptura, taking it that, if something cannot be found on the Internet, it is not to be believed. I think Dominick's word about the usage of persons of similar ideas should be enough for any fair-minded person, when it is only a matter of mentioning the existence of that usage. Those who share his ideas evidently do not have the same strong urge to broadcast them on the Internet that is felt by those "who see it as their duty to resist the changes ..." If those who share his ideas use the term "traditionalist Catholic" less frequently than "traditional Catholic", that is true also, Used2BAnonymous assures us, of the more restricted class.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are, in one way, like Dominick's have been in the past: largely based on suppositions about what will be in the rest of the article. Discussion on the rest of the article will have as its purpose the elimination of any such point-of-view bugbears. It is the summary section alone that we are now discussing.

(I am sorry that Dominick did not resist the urge to respond to invective. I have made the same mistake in the past myself. We must try to ignore red herrings, and restrict ourselves to the main topic.)

Lima 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction Lima, thanks. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick:

1. You accuse this article of being filled with calumny (which, even if it were, is neither here nor there; what is stated is what traditionalist Catholics believe) but won't point any out?
2. You produced Stephen Hand -- and one page at Phatmass, an organization that otherwise spends a good deal of time warning conservative Catholics away from those "rad trad integrists." Now you claim that the Wanderer uses the term "traditionalists" to refer to conservative Catholics. Here is what The Wanderer actually says:
   1. 7-14-2005: "Liberals (and traditionalists) may at this point reasonably object: “If the Second Vatican Council and John XXIII clearly believed and preached the social reign of Jesus Christ, why is it no longer reaffirmed in teaching? Why did everyone after the council act as if Quas Primas had never been written?”"
   2. 5-27-2004: "An orthodox Catholic here shook his head as he read an attack on Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s decision to allow the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated in the Diocese of Phoenix beginning in June. The criticism appeared on the front page of the April 30 issue of The Remnant, a biweekly national traditionalist paper that doesn’t accept the Novus Ordo Mass instituted by Vatican II."
   3. 9-18-2003, interviewing Fr. Aulagnier, SSPX: "Q. Why do you believe that the reconciliation of Bishop Rifan and his priests is a positive step not only for the traditionalists of Campos, but for every traditional Catholic?"
   4. 5-22-2003, in an article critiquing "The Great Facade" (written, they say, by "Ferrawood"): "The notion, then, that this book "refutes, with devastating logic and precision, all the common ‘neo-Catholic’ objections to the traditionalist position, while confounding all the usual ‘neo-Catholic’ excuses for the ruinous mistakes of judgment by Church authorities" would be laughable if it were not so obscenely absurd." and "The definition of tradition, of course, ought to have been the starting point for the traditionalist argument, but it was not." and "The authors of Façade do not need to be convinced that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra he must be obeyed. Likewise, there is most likely no argument between the traditionalists and myself about the fact that the Pope acts as the Magisterium when he speaks ex cathedra."
   5. 9-18-2003: "Since he has become head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, the cardinal considers that he has a special duty to reconcile not only the Society of St. Pius X but all other traditionalist schismatics — the invisible part of the traditionalist iceberg, the part that lies hidden below the water."
   6. [4]: "This fact is something lamented by traditionalists and the so-called neo-Catholics, persons like Dr. Janet E. Smith and so many others. It seems as though conservatives at least attempt to conserve the Church’s teaching on contraception." and "Yes, shame on Pope Paul VI for suggesting that there may have been a problem with the fact that the faithful sat in Catholic churches praying their rosary during Mass. Even some dedicated traditionalists admit this. " and "It is well known that traditionalists are fond of quoting Cardinal Ratzinger as though he were squarely in their camp. The authors do not completely fall prey to this tendency. They do spend several pages later in their work criticizing the more "liberal" opinions of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrines of the Faith (CDF). Still, there are a number of positions that are attributed to Ratzinger by the authors that do not take into account what is clear to anyone who has read the cardinal’s works, viz. Ratzinger’s position is deeper and more complex than the traditionalists know or want to believe."
3. Why is it suddenly irrelevant that you believe this article "pokes fun at Cardinals"? You've been going on about such things for two weeks now. Is it because you can't find any calumny in it? Used2BAnonymous 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"TCR" is Stephen Hand. There's about one guy out there that fits Dominick's description. Or try this on: my mother-in-law (a Protestant) was heard complaining about those "traditional Catholics like Ted Kennedy." Turns out she was meaning "cultural Catholics" who call themselves "Catholic" just because their parents were Catholic. Perhaps we should have my mother-in-law consult for this article, too.

But despite Dominick's urges and mine, this is an entry about "traditionalist Catholics," and we all know what sort of Catholic is almost always meant by this term, and what sort of information people are looking for when they search for it. THAT is the guiding principle -- the "principle of least astonishment," as Wikipedia puts it. Used2BAnonymous 16:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(SNIP) Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We all know people can be "faithful to the Church" and "faithful to the Catholic traditional Mass"; I am such a person -- and the book you mention isn't in wide circulation among those attending the "indult" Mass in my area. If you think people who attend Masses offered by the S.S.P.X. revel in "schadenfreund," trust me, you have no idea at all what you're talking about (though it's good to know you recognize that things are miserable out there). This article is about rad trad integrists. Do you belong in it? Used2BAnonymous 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse me, Dominick, if I repeat in more explicit terms my suggestion: don't respond at all to anything that Used2BAnonymous says that isn't directly related to the draft summary. No matter how ridiculous or provoking his statements sound to you, say nothing, and let him think he has won the argument. He may perhaps then address the matter really under discussion.

I must go to bed early tonight. I'll see how things are going some time tomorrow.

Lima 18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, comments fixed. Thank you for being explicit, without being explicit. I call the orders of the day, IIRC:

If Lima and Dominick are agreed, I propose that Draft Summary Lima 2 (blockquoted below) be considered to have consensus unless it is opposed by an active contributor within twenty-four hours.

This is the issue on the table, per Pathos. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

24 hours have elapsed. I take the comments above as bearing a vague objection. Shall we progress? I would like this article to reflect the subject, right now it does not. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 15:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Vague? I think I was quite clear. Anyway, it's nice to see you admit out loud that you want to change the very subject of this article. Used2BAnonymous 15:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that Dominick has again raised questions that are irrelevant to the opening summary. As was to be expected, Used2BAnonymous reacted, just as it was to be expected that he would react to the combative challenge for him to become involved again. Fortunately, this time Dominick has not reacted to the reaction.

With regard to the point at issue, Used2BAnonymous has not yet responded to the observation made at 16:01 on 20 October 2005 that, of the three paragraphs with which he objected to the latest proposal for the summary, the last two are about as irrelevant as Dominick's latest observation, and that what he says in his first paragraph (that Dominick's usage of the term "traditional Catholic" is not to be found on the Internet) seems to be unfounded and would in any case be inconclusive. Would it not be better to quietly drop such objections and move on to where Used2BAnonymous can perhaps deal definitively with Dominick's claims?

Lima 04:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Dominick's usage of the term "traditional Catholic is not to be found on the Internet (DOT com/catholic/test/000.html you can find anything on the Internet). In fact, I specifically mentioned "Stephen Hand -- and one page at Phatmass, an organization that otherwise spends a good deal of time warning conservative Catholics away from those "'rad trad integrists.'" I did say and do maintain that the term is most commonly used to refer to those Dominick would call "rad trads." You seem to understand this, having written on Dominick's Talk Page:

If you examine the Google references for "Traditional Catholics" and "Traditionalist Catholics", I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" (some 54 800 times)on the Internet. There are a few cases, scarcely worth mentioning, where "Traditional Catholics" is used of Catholics who have no interest whatever in the "Tridentine Mass". Though "Traditionalist Catholics" appears only some 18 200 times on the Internet, it seems clearly to be the usual term outside Traditionalist circles. Since Traditionalist Catholics are only a minority of the general population - I hope you do not mind me saying so - it appears therefore that the really more widely accepted term is "Traditionalist Catholics". I do not recommend bringing this fact up now in the discussion, but you may wish to keep it in mind. Lima 04:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

By your own statement, traditionalist Catholics "in the narrow sense" -- i.e., my sense, the sense used in this article from its very inception -- make up the immense majority of those who refer to themselves by that term. Now, Wiki follows the "principle of least astonishment" and seeks to have an encyclopedia with which one can search for a term and get information about the term searched for. People aren't searching for the term "traditionalist Catholic" to find out about some guy who goes to Masses offered by the F.S.S.P. and otherwise thinks everyhing's kewl. There is nothing at all to say about such people. They're just plain old Catholics who like the traditional Mass for whatever reason, and they are mentioned, nonetheless, in the very first sentence of this entry.

This article is about Catholics whom Dominick would consider "not in full accord with Rome," Cardinal-bashers, filled with, um, "calumnity" toward "the Holy See," etc., because they believe the things listed in the section "Traditionalist beliefs." Dominick can list all his many problems with such beliefs in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. He can add links to the bottom of the page, in the "opposing" sub-section. But he can't take this entire article and turn it into a debate. Used2BAnonymous 10:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is unresponsive. Lima you asked me to stay on topic. If it takes us a week for a summary, how long is is going to take to fix the rest of this? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Used2BAnonymous mentions something that is decidedly to the point, even if his last paragraph has once more wandered into matters that, whether intentionally or not, are a provocation to Dominick. Used2BAnonymous wants it stated that the sense he favours is the more common. There is no way we can measure the comparative extent of usage in ordinary conversation among the general population. Any statement about which is the more common usage in that wide field can only be a matter of opinion, an expression of a point of view. But I think it is clear that, if we are considering the field of controversy, Used2BAnonymous is right. Contention about "traditionalism" almost always concerns traditionalists in the narrow sense: it is usually about them that arguments are exchanged, for or against; the others, whatever their numbers, are far less controversial. I do not think Dominick will want to dispute this.

We could, therefore, change the final part of the proposed summary, so that it will read:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Unless explicitly stated, this article will use the terms in the latter sense, which is the more common meaning attached to them in debates about the people concerned.

Though Used2BAnonymous and Dominick will each prefer something closer to his own distinctive point of view, I hope they can find it possible to accept this as a compromise.

Lima 14:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bear with me, this is on topic. The essence of my complaint is a matter of degree. If we are going with this decription, then it needs to apply to all traditionalists. Traditionalists who do not "resist" those changes have no need to get google hits. In fact making a dedecated forum is counter productive in the sense that the vatican-hater crowd comes along and it is a big headache. We want to change the minds of those who can make the changes, not cause a groundswell of donations or popular revolt.

This is indeed on topic because I will accept the paragraph, if there is a small change to the last sentence to read:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. These individuals and groups are characterized as being Roman Catholics who work towards the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and who seek to revert the changes, that were in their view too far reaching, by different means among different groups, that have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Revolution resist and words like that characterize the changes as a confrontation, which it sometimes is, but not always. Even in talking to liberal officials in a diocese, which I have, they are sympathetic, to a point. My confrontations about traditionalism are with lay staff most of the time. We are only lacking a trained Priest for an new indult in my area.

Nobody claimed doctrine changes, and in fact UTBA has said the same thing on this talk page. I removed that part, the claim can be made for the group in question, if that is indeed what they think happened. I know a number of Sedevacanist groups that falsely claim that the Pope abrogated Trent's doctrine in changes. This is not the general position and should not be in the summary.

Let me address the issues of population and google hits, as a means to discussing the worthyness of approaching the Indult groups. Do I need to blast my problems on a webpage and compile an enemies list, like many integrist sites do, and generate the google hits? Members of the FSSP, and ICK barely have a web presense, because that isn't essential to the mission, but groups like the SSPX seem to spread the same information repeatedly, because without donations from outraged Catholics they could not survive.

Obviously, despite the hysterical charges, I am working towards the same goals, as any traditionalist does, I know that every one I listed holds the view changes need to be made in the Church. Nobody can accuse any of the people I mentioned of sitting on thier hands, and helping liberal Theologians start litugical dance ceremonies in the place of Mass. We do not want a counter-revolution, unlike other groups, we want changes made the way they SHOULD have been made the first time, organically. The revolution following Vatican II was made and the resulting transient was devastating, No responsible Catholic would like to create a second transient, and devastate the Church further. Why would there be a big multiplicity of web pages to carry out that goal?

Here I think I have explained in logical terms the problems I have with the revolution and the resistance terms. I want to decouple the radical outlook, with the bona-fide general Catholic traditionalist outlook. That does not mean there isn't going to be an addressing of both points. Thanks. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dominick that he has been on point in his latest contribution. I would present the following thoughts for his consideration.

It is a fact that there are people who use the terms we are discussing in a narrow exclusive sense only, thinking it wrong to apply the terms in the inclusive sense championed by Dominick. It is also a fact that there are people like Dominick who think that the terms should always be used, unless accompanied by some distinguishing adjective or phrase, in the broad inclusive sense. Each side thinks its view is the correct one. There is no authoritative source, either doctrinal, such as a declaration by an ecumenical council, or canonical/legal, such as the Code of Canon Law, to which we can turn for a decision on the matter. Accordingly, in a neutral-point-of-view article, neither side has a right to say, even implicitly, that the other's opinion is wrong.

The text Dominick now proposes seems to give only one view, more or less the inclusive one, one that those who disagree with Dominick would not, it seems, accept as theirs. But, just as it is not right to exclude Dominick's opinion, it is also not right to exclude the opinion of those who differ from Dominick.

To avoid having to state in which meaning the terms are used each and every time they are mentioned in the article, it is surely useful, if both interpretations are mentioned, to select one as the "default" meaning (i.e. "unless explicitly stated"). For the reason I have mentioned in my last contribution, namely that the meaning most common in controversy is the exclusive meaning, not the broad inclusive one, I think the narrow exclusive one is the more suitable meaning to use as the default meaning. Used2BAnonymous is saying the same thing when he speaks of the principle of least astonishment.

I may not have formulated these thoughts in the best way possible, and perhaps I should give more time and reflection to what Dominick has written than I feel up to giving at this hour of the evening, especially when I think I may have to make a similar effort when Used2BAnonymous presents his observations. However, I trust I have presented mine in a non-combative manner, and not in the tone that others have used against Dominick.

Lima 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As for "resist", "revolution" etc., the draft does not put these forward as facts, only as "in their view".

Lima 20:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima,

I'm not sure if my final paragraph could be considered particularly "provocative" since Dominick has made clear his belief that Catholics who believe the things outlined in the section "Traditionalist beliefs" are "Vatican haters" -- a term he goes on to use in the post above. Why believing those things makes one a "Vatican-basher" is beyond me, but so it goes. Some of those who hold those beliefs are "Vatican-haters"; others aren't. But subtelty is lost on some.

Anyway, it seems you understand what I've been trying to say. I'd be happy with:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

Others understand the terms to apply only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of only only the traditional Latin Mass, but all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and all doctrine as understoood in the section "Traditionalist Beliefs" below. Traditional Catholics of this type see it as their duty to resist the changes they characterize as a veritable revolution that took place in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Unless explicitly stated, this article will use the terms in the latter sense, which is the more common meaning attached to them in debates about the people concerned.

To make myself even more clear, it's not that I see a pressing need to having to mention that the latter term is "more common" (though it is and am glad, because it is helpful and relevant, that you want the information is included); I want it to be known that it is traditional Catholics in the narrow sense that this article is about. I don't want the entire article to be filled with rants against "those integrists" from someone who quite obviously believes that people who think they way they do are "Vatican-haters" who love nothing more than to "poke fun at Cardinals." That is not what traditionalists are about, and there is a section -- "Relations with other Catholics" -- where people who take issue with them anyway can have their say (and where traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense can rebut). I don't want every paragraph to have an addendum from Dominick warning people about how all "those Catholics" hate "the Pope" and "Rome" and "the Church" and "Catholic teaching" and "the Holy See." I don't want the article to be turned into a debate about who is and is not inside the Church, or about the SSPX or the FSSP or ICK or any other priestly fraternity -- fraternities that are mentioned only in passing in the section "Places of worship" and whose statuses vis a vis ordinary diocesan structures are made quite clear. There are pages about all of these priestly fraternities, and most of the memos and encyclicals and documents concerning them belong on their respective pages.

The article is about traditional Catholics of the narrow sense because, as you say, that is how the term is most often used. Therefore, it should simply state who these Catholics are, what they believe, where they worship, how they get along with other Catholics(the place where Dominick can state his objections), and the details of any reliable demographics we might come up with. Used2BAnonymous 22:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you say you want the opening to indicate that the entry is about those "Roman Catholics who work towards the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and who seek to revert the changes, that were in their view too far reaching, by different means among different groups, that have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church since that Council."

What could you say about "traditional Catholics" who have no problems with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents but who seek to preserve the traditional Mass and reverse things that were "too far reaching"? Say this entire article were about them: what would it say?

This is what I think you should do: write up your rebuttals to the intems listed in the "traditionalist Catholic beliefs" section. Explain how Mortalium Animos and modern ecumenism aren't contradictory; how the power of the Bishops' Conferences don't contradict Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and the Nota Praevia to Vatican II's Lumen Gentium; how the post-conciliar changes don't contradict the Fourth Anathema of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, the teaching of the First Vatican Council (especially the document Pastor Aeternus), etc. And explain how believing that there are contradictions makes one a "Vatican-hater" and an "integrist" who is automatically "not in full accord with the Holy See." Explain how interpreting Catholic doctrine in the same way Pope St. Pius X would makes one a heretic or schismatic or just an all-around bad guy. Explain how such beliefs are "hysterical charges" as you claim.

You say you want "to decouple the radical outlook, with the bona-fide general Catholic traditionalist outlook" -- but this is as POV as anything I've ever heard. You say that there is a "bona-fide general Catholic traditionalist outlook" which, you intimate, has nothing to do with calling a revolution a revolution (a revolution which you admit took place by saying, "The revolution following Vatican II was made and the resulting transient was devastating") and nothing to do with believing the "hysterical charges" outlined in the section "Traditionalist beliefs." Since you've failed to explain how those beliefs are not only wrong, but evidence of "Vatican-hating" and "hysteria," I will have to counter-charge you with hysteria. How could holding on to the Catholic Faith as understood in the section "Traditionalist beliefs" be "irresponsible"? You seem to be saying that there was a revolution, but that it's evil to say so, that it's good to be "traditional" in liturgical actions and private devotions but not in actual belief, that somehow understanding Catholic doctrine in the same way Leo XIII did is bad, and that, besides, presentation of Catholic doctrine hasn't changed at all anyway in spite of the fact that just about everyone thinks it has (surely you've heard the phrase "since Vatican II" coupled a thousand times with some item that, it is claimed, "the Church doesn't teach anymore").

Let me ask you this (for your own thoughts, not to debate here): You and I agree, I imagine, that Cardinal Mahony twists true Catholic teaching, that Fr. Richard McBrien should be defrocked for doing the same, and that there are thousands of other examples of such men. You and I agree that, nonetheless, Catholic teaching can't change, but that these men present Catholic teaching as having changed. Why can't the same be true with regard to the things listed in the section "Traditionalist beliefs"? Why is the idea so repulsive to you that one believing it is charged with "hysteria" and "Vatican-hatred"? Used2BAnonymous 22:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope Dominick will resist the natural urge to respond to Used2BAnonymous's renewed red-herring attack on matters outside the summary, matters indeed that belong to the still-distant section on relations of traditionalists with other Catholics, and not just of other Catholics with traditionalists.

Signing blank cheques is normally unwise. Used2BAnonymous wishes us to sign up to "whatever will appear in the 'Traditionalist beliefs' section". When it seemed possible to move on quickly to that section and get down to discussing what should be in it, I was prepared, in spite of my dislike of the phrase, to accept its inclusion. The obstructionism that has delayed a decision on a short summary, even one containing the reference to "the following section", makes it now abundantly clear that it would be extremely unwise to accept inclusion of that reference.

Maybe I was wrong - or maybe I was not - in thinking that Dominick was keeping to discussion of the draft summary, and that he was only talking about words that are in the draft summary, like "resist" and "revolution". (My hurried added remark to him about these two words was, I now recognize, very badly expressed.) But Used2BAnonymous clearly has not kept to the draft summary, explicitly talking about the "Traditionalist beliefs" section and presuming that it will remain totally unchanged. Maybe indeed it will remain quite unchanged, but discussion on it has not even begun. We are still stuck in discussion on the summary.

Surely it is not impossible to explain in a single sentence to someone who has never heard of traditionalist Catholics or even of Catholics what it is that makes traditionalist Catholics different from the rest of mankind. So would Used2BAnonymous please withdraw his insistence on a "definition" that in reality takes up, I think, more than half the article as proposed by him.

Lima 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My intention was to craft a universal definition that included all groups of traditionalist Catholics, and to provide language that would cover them all. The rest of the last set of counter charges are indeed a red herring and are obstructionist in nature. If UTBA decides to post more sweeping indictments of my beliefs, we can safely ignore them as unresponsive to the current task. The "boy who cried wolf" comes to mind.

I move that we proceed, please post the last "Lima summary" in the live article. If you think my comments are useful about a general definition without the "lets ignore this sentence", then please Lima, post some of those changes in the live article as well. The current summary is woefully inadequate to my stated specification, the changes are a little better. Lets move to the middle parts, without further obstruction. I think we should use the live article instead of posting large excepts here, since only two people are commenting on the "meat" of the article in talk.

IMHO, my proposal to have a third party perform all reverts is still on the table. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope, too, that Dominick doesn't respond here to what you characterize as my "red-herring attack" since I said to him, parenthetically, that the questions of the last paragraph were "for your (Dominick's) own thoughts, not to debate here."

I am curious, though, as to why you seem to want to portray Dominick as some innocent thing being "attacked" by me when it is he who, for weeks now, been accusing me of bringing in sock-puppets and meat-puppets, of "astroturfing," of being a "Vatican hater," of liking to "poke fun at Cardinals," of having "hysterical" objections to the ways Church teaching is presented since the Council, of being "irresponsible" in making these objections known, etc. And now you can add to that the adoption of your accusation that I am throwing out "red herrings obstructionist in nature," "unresponsive," and like "the boy who cried wolf" (whatever he means by that).

As to why I think the reference to the "Traditionalist beliefs" section should go in the opening paragraphs: because if you define "traditional Catholics" of the narrow sense -- the people about whom the article is written -- by saying, they are Catholics "who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine.." you invite every Catholic without a "dissenting spirit" to say "hey, that's me! I want to 'preserve all doctrine'!" But the thing is that most Catholics who truly try to be "orthodox" have never read anything that wasn't published before 1965. They don't know what traditional Catholic doctrine is.

But if you want it all in one paragraph, then one could say:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

Others understand the terms to apply only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of only only the traditional Latin Mass, but all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council. They also seek to preserve Catholic doctrine against what they consider false ideas concerning ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, ecclesiology, ecclesiastical tradition, soteriology, eschatology, and the natures of man and the supernatural and preternatural worlds. Traditional Catholics of this type see it as their duty to resist the changes they characterize as a veritable revolution that took place in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Unless explicitly stated, this article will use the terms in the latter sense, which is the more common meaning attached to them in debates about the people concerned.

Used2BAnonymous 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the irrelevant parts of the last post, I would comment that the rewrite loses any NPoV of the previous versions, uses issues that are not universal at all among traditionalists, and leaves in all the sepatation between the different groups. Furthermore the added sentence appears to issues charges agains the Holy See that many traditionalist groups do not issue, so do not belong in a summary. For your own reflection, I am not going to fall into debating things not related to the topic at hand. Please don't post food for thought to me here. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Used2BAnonymous honestly imagine that traditionalists are the only Catholics who "seek to preserve Catholic doctrine against what they consider false ideas concerning ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, ecclesiology, ecclesiastical tradition, soteriology, eschatology, and the natures of man and the supernatural and preternatural worlds"? Surely all Catholics wish to preserve Catholic doctrine against what they consider to be false ideas in the fields mentioned. Surely all Catholics wish to preserve Catholic doctrine against what they consider to be false ideas not only in these fields but in all fields.

I don't want to say that Used2BAnonymous is simply being obstructionist. But does he really mean his proposed summary seriously?

Lima 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we proceed now? Lets change the summary. In the future, I think we should delete further personal or doctrinal attacks not related to the section under editing. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 20:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

So you see the problem, then, of not referring to "the section below." Used2BAnonymous 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The summary should not refer to the section below. Both Lima and I have said as much. This is not new ground. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(SNIP) I think Used2BeAnonymous's original suggestion makes sense. Malachias111 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I warned, I applied no personal attacks. Thanks for your opinion. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 23:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You're editing people's posts in the Talk Pages now??? What nerve! And he didn't insult you; he asked you a question, one that needs to be asked even more now that you're dishing out "warnings," too.

This page is about traditional Catholics in the narrow sense. Why one can't give a brief, one or two sentence explanation of who they are, coupled with a reference to "the section below" is far beyond me. Used2BAnonymous 01:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What does "Like I warned, I applied no personal attacks" mean? When did you "warn" whom? What did you warn about? How does one "apply" a "personal attack"? Who are you to "warn" anyone anyway? Why are you so hyper-sensitive to non-existent "personal attacks"? Have you ever heard of "projection" before? Malachias111 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, please be patient. In the light of eternity, does it matter whether we talk about questions outside the summary today, tomorrow or in two or more weeks' time? In suggesting that we move on, you are only giving others the for them welcome opportunity to escape from discussing the matter in hand.

Now would Used2BAnonymous please justify his proposed definition of traditionalist Catholics, or at least say why in his opinion the other proposal, which is composed of his own words, is wrong. Any group can be identified by using just one sentence. The article should begin by letting readers know who or what the article will be about. It is no identification to say: "Read this article first, then you will know who or what the article is about." The place for a fuller account of the subject is later in the article.

Lima 04:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's this idea:

"In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are 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 of Catholics of the past two millenia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council."

-- but this is where Dominick jumps in and says that his kind of "traditional Catholic" wants to "preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millenia, too!" -- even though it's not what they want in fact. Used2BAnonymous 05:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't mainstream Catholics too "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council"? They certainly think they are doing so. The Holy See thinks it is doing so. When Used2BAnonymous says of traditionalists in the inclusive sense, and presumably also of the Holy See and Catholics in general: "It's not what they want in fact", he is expressing his personal opinion, his point of view, one with which they disagree. He is of course entitled to hold his point of view, but he is not at liberty to impose it in a neutral-point-of-view article.

How many more such "ideas" will Used2BAnonymous come up with?

Lima 09:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is more general than that Lima. Every Catholic who attends Mass from the 1962 Missal, and the anti-reform crowd who have never attended a Tridentine Mass wants to "preserve" two centuries of Tradition. It is a common trait that many Catholics share. We are further dividing those from the Catholics who are returning liturgical elements as well. By backing into the article this way, we may get a general summary yet. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. I may lose power due to Wilma. Be patient with my reply for a day or two.) Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I presume the permission of Pathoschild to repeat here, for reference, the archived text of the proposed summary to which Used2BAnonymous objects on unspecified grounds, although each part of it was built on his words:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

Unless explicitly stated, this article will use the terms in the latter sense, which is the more common meaning attached to them in debates about the people concerned.

Used2BAnonymous's rival proposal, in its latest form, is:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are 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 of Catholics of the past two millenia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council.

Of the serious faults that I see in this text, I have indicated above the one that I consider to be the most egregious.

Lima 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima asks, "Don't mainstream Catholics too "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council"? They certainly think they are doing so."

Gee, ya think that's why I wrote, "this is where Dominick jumps in and says that his kind of "traditional Catholic" wants to "preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millenia, too!" -- even though it's not what they want in fact"?

You say that with the "it's not what they want in fact" part, I am just "expressing (my) personal opinion, (my) point of view, one with which they disagree" -- but it is not my opinion. It is fact, and the documents listed in "the section below" prove it. Can you or Dominick make them line up with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents? Why would John Paul II wax on and on about the "new" theology, the "new" ecumenism, the "new" "pentecost," the "new" practically everything? How could Ratzinger have approvingly described Gaudium et Spes as a "counter-DOT com/catholic/syllabus.html syllabus" and be consistent with tradition? When, before the Council, was there anything remotely similar to the Assisi events, to Popes praying in synagogues, to Cardinals bowing down in mosques before the Muslim allah?

And this is where you jump in and accuse me of being "obstructionist" and "not sticking to the issues" and such, but these things are the issue -- and they're an issue twice if you are going to accuse me of being "POV" when pointing them out.

Now, why is it you two seem to have issues with any references to other parts of an article? Here's the summary for the entry "Jews":

The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in many ways, but generally refers to a follower of Judaism, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of Jewish religion, please refer to Judaism. Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and converts who joined their religion at various times and places. The Hebrew name Yehudi (plural Yehudim) came into being when the Kingdom of Israel was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. The term originally referred to the people of the southern kingdom, although the term Bnei Yisrael (Israelites) was still used for both groups. After the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom leaving the southern kingdom as the only Israelite state, the word Yehudim gradually came to refer to people of the Jewish faith as a whole rather, than those specifically from Judah. The English word Jew, is ultimately derived from Yehudi (see Etymology). In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification. Used2BAnonymous 16:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is off topic, I can't figure what deals with the specific text that Lima proposed. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's about as on-topic as you can get with regard to using a line such as "see section below." Used2BAnonymous 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that Used2BAnonymous is now trying to discuss the issue.

"It is fact, and the documents listed in 'the section below' prove it," he says. It is not a fact, and the documents listed in "the section below" do not prove it.

There can be "a new theology", "a new ecumenism", "a new pentecost", but still the same faith presented in a new way, believed in with new conviction, and lived with new vigour. The reference Used2BAnonymous gives does not, as I hoped, point to where the alleged statement of Cardinal Ratzinger can be seen in its context, but only to a text of Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, which taught that holding the Catholic religion as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship, has not ceased to be expedient; and that it is unwise to enact legislation to allow persons coming to reside in Catholic countries to enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship (propositions 77 and 78).

The opening summary of the article on Jews nowhere refers to a "following section" as a way of identifying the subject of the article. Instead it lists various meanings that the term "Jews" can have, without saying that any is wrong or uncommon. (Why cannot the article on traditionalist Catholics do the same?) It chooses one meaning for the article ("This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group") and directs readers to another existing article for information on another possible meaning of the term "Jews" (i.e. as followers of a religion). Its reference to the later section "Etymology" has nothing to do with identifying the group that is being discussed.

Lima 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And I'm so glad that you're glad that Used2BAnonymous is "now" trying to discuss the issue; the running commentary on your emotional states is edifying.

Yes, there could be "a new theology", "a new ecumenism", "a new pentecost", but still the same faith presented in a new way, but that is not the case. Typical interpretations of the documents go beyond calling for "conviction" and "vigor" (no one calls an Ecumenical Council just to have the equivalent of a school spirit pep rally), as is evident by the gloating over the "counter-syllabus," Gaudium et Spes which, according to either its letter, spirit, or interpretation, is considered by the present Pontiff to go exactly against Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, which indeed taught that holding the Catholic religion as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship, has not ceased to be expedient; and that it is unwise to enact legislation to allow persons coming to reside in Catholic countries to enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship . Or perhaps you can point out where, "in the Holy See," these things are still taught.

So, you are defending the summary for the entry "Jews" because -- its reference to the section below doesn't include the words "section below"? Or because it doesn't include ideas having to do with popularity of terms or -- what? Where does my proposed summary say anything about one definition being "wrong"? And did I not say above that I didn't see a pressing need to present one definition as "more common" than another -- but you included it nonetheless in your next proposed summary, and I said I was glad because I thought it true and helpful or some such? Used2BAnonymous 23:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The "alleged" statement from Ratzinger about the "counter-syllabus" comes from his book, " Principles of Catholic Theology." Look in the epilogue. Used2BAnonymous 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

On the article "Jews", Used2BAnonymous has withdrawn the suggestion that its definition of "Jews" contained a reference to a later part of the same article. I had forgotten that in his latest draft he had already dropped the reference to "the following section". So I now see that he caught me with one of his red herrings, and if Dominick was talking about the last part of Used2BAnonymous's contribution, Dominick was quite right.

Used2BAnonymous has not shown that the expression "counter-syllabus", in the context in which the then Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have used it, meant that the teaching Church had failed "to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council." In the fifth century, Monophysites saw the teaching of the Council of Ephesus, that Mary is the Mother of God, as support for their theory that her son really has only one (divine) nature. It took the counterbalance of the Council of Chalcedon (a counter-Ephesus, it could have been called) to make it clear that their interpretation of the earlier Council was not orthodox.

Lima 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "withdrawn" any "suggestion" that the definition of "Jews" in the entry "Jews" contained a reference to a later part of that same article because I never said that the "definition" contained such. I said the summary did, and it does. Nor have I dropped the idea of referencing "the following section"; on the contrary, I think it makes the most sense to reference the following section. You are the one who finds the idea abhorrent for some reason, but there is no way around it, as I see things.

Nestorianism was an error; Ephesus countered it. Monophysitism was an error; Chalcedon countered it. What was contained in the Syllabus was not error, but condemnation of error (error that is now commonly taught as "Catholic teaching"); it required no "countering." Your analogy fails. Used2BAnonymous 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ephesus required countering not in itself but as interpreted by certain people. The Syllabus required countering not in itself but as interpreted by certain people. -- Lima 06:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is falling into a red herring again. Support for the Syllabus of Error is not a unique characteristic of traditionalist thinking, even at the hyper integrist interpretation of it. Just as I said before, resistance to the Pope is not a hall mark of traditionalism, and again this contempt for the Pope's administration also is not unique to traditionalism. Once again we are off track for the umpteenth times.

Ratzinger never said he was against the terms of the syllabus, but that Gaudium et Spes [5] was positivly constructed to oppose the errors the Syllabus laid out.[6] This is typical of the Holy See hating crowd to take a simple statement and twist it into a very different thing. Most of the errors in the syllabus is attacked in plain language in a 2nd grade CCD book. Se again we are arguing the Pope is at odds with Catholic teaching, and not writing a summary. This attitude that the Pope is countering traditional Catholic teaching, is not a tenet of traditionalism. Why are we discusssing it? Are we thinking of adding it as part of the summary? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lima, you can rest assured that there wasn't any major problem before the Council of people interpreting the Syllabus in a way that had to be countered. There was more DOT com/catholic/testembenevolentiaenostra.html Americanism -- which is the exact thing that the Syllabus tried to counter and which Gaudium et Spes embraced. Used2BAnonymous 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you can go on and on and on about my alleged "contempt" for the Pope's administration (which, even if true, is irrelevant to this article), but you haven't even begun to look at your contempt for Popes Leo XII, Pius IX, and Pius X among all others who preceded the Council. You've apparently not read Ratzinger's remarks, either. He did not say that Gaudium et Spes was constructed to oppose the errors the Syllabus laid out; he said it was counter (against) Syllabus. Here is the quote in further context:

"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected viafacti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-Revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789."

And even if you don't agree with this analysis, this is what traditional Catholics of the narrow definition think, and this article is about them. Used2BAnonymous 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous tells me: "You can rest assured ..." In other words, he once again gives his point of view, which is not enough to justify his claim that the only people who "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council" are traditionalist Catholics in the exclusive sense that he champions.

There are many millions of Catholics who sincerely believe they are doing what Used2BAnonymous claims to be the preserve of a different few. Their point of view is not his. If his point of view is the only right one, there are indeed very many stupid people in the world. And extremely few right-minded.

Lima 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't say, "You can rest assured that the only people who seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council" are anything at all. What I said was "You can rest assured that there wasn't any major problem before the Council of people interpreting the Syllabus in a way that had to be countered." If you believe there was some significant amount of error in understanding the Syllabus such that Gaudium et Spes and Ratzinger's interpretations of it were needed to ensure an "official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789," then name the movement that promulgated the "error." What name is given to this heresy that misunderstands the Syllabus?

We already know that there are many Catholics out there like Dominick who sincerely believe they are doing what traditional Catholics are, in fact, doing -- i.e., upholding the Faith as understood for two millennia. But this entry is not about them, though such people are mentioned in the very first sentence as the article now stands. Used2BAnonymous 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a Wikipedia neutral-point-of-view article.

We all, it is now clear, agree that there are sincere points of view that hold that the phrase "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council" applies to others than exclusive-sense traditionalists. Used2BAnonymous's point of view is not the only one.

In a neutral-point-of-view article, the "Traditionalist beliefs" section is the place for expounding the point of view of exclusive-sense traditionalists about themselves. The "Relations with other Catholics" section is the place for indicating their views of other Catholics, whether those others call themselves traditionalists or not. Indeed Used2BAnonymous has three times declared as much, saying that that is the place for Dominick, an inclusive-sense traditionalist, to put his observations on exclusive-sense traditionalists.

Lima 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am still looking for a shred of anything to divide me from other traditionalists, except for my fidelity to Rome. Inclusive sense; exclusive sense? No such terms are used anywhre, I defy you to find a dividing line in any external document. Are we creating new vocabulaty for traditionalism? How about [7] where this is more clearly removed. The text you quoteed is lifted from "(Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)" and indeed the article where I found this was [8], which is a Feeneyite site. Also the entirety of the quote and the context is offered here [9], and the opinion rendered is not universally traditionalist, or even a narrow traditiopnal view. The conclusion is also not a traditional one, "But what the Pope is saying is that the more cats, dogs, frogs, human beings, compounds, molecules, atoms, quanta, super-strings a man rips out of reality through his analytical science, the more likely he is to crawl out of his laboratory not only a God-slayer, but also a killer of kings and priests, Popes, and unborn babies." This would also say a traditionalist one must also be a luddite. So much for the tradition of the Catholic university well before 1960.

It seems we can use this quote to say the Pope was wrong, and any number of conclusions are right. This quote is easily parsed any way you like it to be parsed.

Reading Ratzinger's actual words when he was a Cardinal, he made it plain, the GS document talked against those who held the views enumerated in the Syllabus. Counter syllabus meant that GS had the same conclusions, with a different approach. To say this article is now the new litimus test, for traditionalists, is an artifice, so what happened to the old litmus test? Will we have a new litmus test next week?

This is NOT the universal opinion among traditionalists, and the way Ratzinger made it clear, the Syllabus was correct. You think it is how they think, I disagree. I already talked about the references, and I cited a few that supported my contention that traditionalism need not require rejection of valid Church documents. From "Traditionalists, Tradition, and Private Judgment ", the unwritten practice among local Ordinaries, and reformers, and "litugists" is what has caused out problem with the Mass, and not the problems of Gaudium et Spes. A revision does not mean opposition to the original thesis. The GS document was an attempt to talk to the world as it has changed from 1789, the French revolution.

What I wanted to see what a general article that talked about traditionalists; "people who worship using 1962 missals, and think the Church should return to practices that were in existence before reforms". By mere obstructionism we have narrowed this defintion to only those Catholics and "non-Catholics" who are approved by UTBA. As proof you take an out of context quote from Ratzinger, and claim it shows the current Pope fell and participated in Heresy and in error. This is not the traditionalist position, universally, as I have already shown with references, not just "I told you so". Your subdivision doesn't cut it.

At an Indult Mass, we do not ask people at the door if they agreed with GS, or Vatican II. If they are there, they are there to worship our Lord.

Sanitizing the article to remove traditonal Catholics, claiming there is a dividing line, only for fidelity to the Holy See, and not to Econe, is not NPoV. If this is about Catholics, there should be no mention of Sedes. They oppose the Pope, and the Holy See, some even electing anti-popes. But they apparently have a place in with the rest of traditionalists. The only way a traditionalist can be included is if they think that Vatican II docuemnts were toilet paper. What of other changes that went on years before 1962, like the removal of saints from the Calendar, or the changing of some aspects of Holy Office. This article is about traditional Catholics, and those characterisics they share, not what one group thinks they SHOULD be. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the article isn't about "traditional Catholics" who are considered such just because they attend an indult Mass. This article is about Vatican-bashers, Pope-haters, rad-trads, integrists, people who like to poke fun at Cardinals, Catholics with no "fideility to Rome," and other such bad things. You say you just can't find a "shred of anything to divide" me from other traditionalists, well what have we been arguing about for three weeks? Have you read the list in the section "Traditionalist Beliefs"? That's the dividing line. Used2BAnonymous 16:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about traditional Catholics, period. No litmus test, no secret handshake. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Wiki follows the "principle of least astonishment." The term "traditionalist Catholic" is used almost ALWAYS to indicate traditional Catholics of the second definition. This has been shown to you repeatedly. The other kind of Catholic who considers himself "traditional" is mentioned in the FIRST SENTENCE and can argue in the section "Relations with other Catholics." This isnt hard, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 16:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Principle of least astonishment" is a guideline in user interface design that states that direct conflicts should be resolved by allowing the more logical consequence to override the lesser. The purpose of the Wikipedia being to catalogue all human knowledge, any groups which can make valid claim to the label "Traditionalist" should be included in the article. The two proposed definitions are not mutually exclusive, so the principle of least astonishment does not apply. What is important is their validity, not their surprise factor. The more common meaning may be made more prominent as per the above principle of least astonishment, but not exclusive or overriding. // Pathoschild 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is precisly the problem, inclusion as a group, and the definitoon to cover all traditionalists. The underlying problem is for some groups, the admission that there exists traditional Catholics who live harmoniously with the Holy See, is a threat to the radical groups existance. I did not want to shut out any other group from this article just include the groups that should be included, whereas other groups would like to shut out any group that does not hold a radical "party line". There would be no conflict if the right of inclusion of "good standing with Rome" traditionalist groups were respected, right now the article is a travesty. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be exclusive. Dominick's definition is included in the first sentence of the article, and he can go on about how the "other" trads hate Rome and are "Vatican-bashers" and such in the section "Relations with other Catholics." (The two proposed definitions are mutually exclusive, though. One either believes the list of items in the section "Traditionalist Beliefs" or he doesn't.) Used2BAnonymous 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the views of traditional Catholics shall be in the article body, reflecting the views held by the groups contained in the definition. Relations with other Catholics will reflect the relations with non-traditionalist Catholics, not groups you don't consider "traditional enough". This is the crux of the problem. The list is an attempt incorrectly categorize traditionalists with a particular viewpoint, not list beliefs they have in common. It does not speak for all traditionalists, and gives credence to my contention that this article and classification is a violation of the rights of traditional groups to be on good terms with Rome, and be true to our Faith. It further validate that you are simply trying to delay the work on thsi article, by not dealing with the summary. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing to say about "tradtitional Catholics" of your definition except that they attend "indult" Masses and believe in typical interpretations of Vatican II. I've asked you repeatedly to present a version of an article you would write if the article were ONLY about "traditional Catholics" of your definition. The main definition used is the MOST COMMON DEFINITION. See your own Talk Page. Used2BAnonymous 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue of Vatican II is not the defining issue of traditionalists, it is the reforms afterwards that were overreaching and reversing them that is universal among all traditionalists. Edits were made and they are not made again because we are trying to work towards a consensus not obstruct work. I objected to linking traditionalism to dissent, just as I would object linking CCD eduaction to liturgical abuses. I provided a link, in fact a few including some book titles. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For some trads, it is Vatican II. For others, it's the interpretations of the documents. For others, Vatican II wasn't even a valid Council to begin with. Now what does this have to do with the article? You say you object to linking traditionalism to dissent, but have spent the last three weeks lambasting me as a dissenter and "Vatican-hater" for presenting the traditionalist view. And, BTW, you still haven't come up with the article you'd write if this entry were only about trads of your definition. Used2BAnonymous 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In 24 hours Used2BAnonymous has not yet attempted to defend his proposed summary from the objection that either his words have to be interpreted from a non-neutral point of view or else they quite fail to distinguish the traditionalist Catholics Used2BAnonymous wants the article to be about from many others.

Following on Used2BAnonymous's declaration, We already know that there are many Catholics out there like Dominick who sincerely believe they are doing what traditional Catholics are, in fact, doing -- i.e., upholding the Faith as understood for two millennia. But this entry is not about them, though such people are mentioned in the very first sentence as the article now stands, the objection was:

This is supposed to be a Wikipedia neutral-point-of-view article.

We all, it is now clear, agree that there are sincere points of view that hold that the phrase "seek to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs of Catholics of the past two millennia up to before the changes that followed the Second Vatican Council" applies to others than exclusive-sense traditionalists. Used2BAnonymous's point of view is not the only one.

In a neutral-point-of-view article, the "Traditionalist beliefs" section is the place for expounding the point of view of exclusive-sense traditionalists about themselves. The "Relations with other Catholics" section is the place for indicating their views of other Catholics, whether those others call themselves traditionalists or not. Indeed Used2BAnonymous has three times declared as much, saying that that is the place for Dominick, an inclusive-sense traditionalist, to put his observations on exclusive-sense traditionalists.

Lima 04:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The people Dominick is referring to as "traditionalist Catholics" are not, in fact traditionalist Catholics, rarely refer to themselves as such, are not referred to as such by others, and spend an inordinate amount of time screeching about people who do call themselves "traditionalists" and who believe the things outlined in the section "Traditionalist beliefs."

What would the "Traditionalist beliefs" section look like if Dominick got a hold of it? Something like this?:

1. A new understanding of collegiality which they claim has weakened the papacy and made bishops' conferences a veritable "second Vicar of Christ" for the Church. They see this as contradicting, among others, Pope Leo XIII's DOT com/catholic/satiscognitum.html Satis Cognitum and the documents of Vatican I. --- No, we don't. This is a lie of the Pope-haters. Real Catholics don't think this way at all!

2. A "false" ecumenism that has as its goal a religious unity that they see as not requiring conversion to the Catholic faith. They see this as contradicting Sacred Scripture, Pope Pius XI's DOT com/catholic/mortaliumanimos.html Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XII's DOT com/catholic/humanigeneris.html Humani Generis and other documents. --- False again! Real Catholics don't see anything false coming from the Holy See and are in full accord with everything at all times that comes from men in mitres! Only vatican-bashers think otherwise!

-- and so on? I mean, come on. Dominick can have his say in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. There is nothing to say about people who think like Dominick except that they love Vatican II, don't have any problems with it, and they worship at indult Masses. They are plain, ordinary, everyday conservative Catholics. This article, on the other hand, is about the people who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time -- the people you know are most often called traditionalist Catholics, which you admit to on Dominick's Talk Page where you wrote:

"If you examine the Google references for "Traditional Catholics" and "Traditionalist Catholics", I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" (some 54 800 times)on the Internet."

This article is not a matter of distinguishing "the traditionalist Catholics Used2BAnonymous wants the article to be about from many others"; it is a matter of 1) what information people are looking for when they search for the phrase "traditionalist Catholic," 2) the people who are, in fact, called "traditionalist Catholics" and refer to themselves as such the immense majority of the time, and 3) what the article was created to be about.

You said, "In a neutral-point-of-view article, the "Traditionalist beliefs" section is the place for expounding the point of view of exclusive-sense traditionalists about themselves. The "Relations with other Catholics" section is the place for indicating their views of other Catholics, whether those others call themselves traditionalists or not. Indeed Used2BAnonymous has three times declared as much, saying that that is the place for Dominick, an inclusive-sense traditionalist, to put his observations on exclusive-sense traditionalists." --- Well, exactly. So what is the problem here and what am I supposed to be defending every 24 hours? We've got the thing set up; Dominick should just write his criticisms for the "Relations with other Catholics" section, add a few anti-trad links at the bottom, and then go back to his Ann Coulter page. It is getting extremely tedious having to repeat myself all the time about this.

As to the summary, I still maintain that the more exclusive definition should refer to "the section below." It's all very simple. It makes clear that certain beliefs are involved, and "the section below" explains what those beliefs are. There is no other way around this since reality is considered "POV" -- i.e., people either are or are not consistent with traditional Catholic teaching, but those who are not think they are and think that anyone claiming otherwise is just offering a "point of view" in the same way that 2+2=4 is a "POV." You can tell that 2+2=5 is just another viable POV because Popes now worship in synagogues, but conservative Catholics are fine with it, all while thinking they're perfectly consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. It's as if everyone knows that the presentation of Catholic teaching has changed except conservative Catholics or something. From a few articles I read in just the past two days:

From Zenit:

"NEW YORK, OCT. 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A Jewish leader considers the Second Vatican Council's declaration "Nostra Aetate" of 40 years ago a landmark that completely redefined relations between Catholics and Jews...

"With the advent of the Good Pope on the throne of Peter an extraordinary revolution began within the Catholic Church, promoted from the word and action of the Second Vatican Council, a historic landmark that completely redefined the relationship between the Church and Judaism," the Argentina-born Tenembaum told ZENIT...

"This point of change in the history of Judeo-Catholic relations was not a chance result or political opportunism," Tenembaum said. "It was the testimony that confirmed a new attitude toward the Jewish people, a real transformation originating in the sentiments and profound sense of reconciliation of John XXIII."

From the American Jewish Committee:

October 24, 2005 – New York – Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee’s international director of interreligious affairs, will be the Jewish speaker at the official Vatican celebration of the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate. The event will take place on October 27 at the Vatican.

“As we celebrate this revolutionary transformation in the Catholic Church’s teaching about Jews, Judaism and Israel, we must urge that these teachings become an essential component of the training of priests,” said Rabbi Rosen. “Nostra Aetate must be woven more profoundly into the fabric of the Church.”

Fromt the New Jersey Star-Ledger:

When she was a child, Sister Rose Thering was told that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, but she didn't believe it for a minute.

The quest for the truth became her life's work, inspiring the Catholic nun and Seton Hall professor emeritus to write a paper arguing why people should not blame the Jews for what happened to Jesus.

Her work caught the attention of Jewish leaders and Vatican officials. In 1965, her research was included in a papal document called "Nostra Aetate" and helped to change what was taught about Jews in Catholic religious texts.

From the Jewish Journal:

The Rev. Robert J. McNamara plans to do something this Friday evening that would have been unthinkable in the first 2,000 years of the Catholic Church: He’s going to a synagogue.

More unthinkable, (Rev. Robert J. McNamara is) going to be delivering the Shabbat sermon.

Indeed, until fairly recently, the Catholic Church forbade priests to step foot into synagogues, even under the highly unlikely circumstances that they had been invited. After all, according to the church’s official stance, Jews were infidels who rejected and killed Christ and who needed to be converted in order to be saved from eternal damnation.

For crying out loud! No, nothing's changed in the way Church teaching is presented, Dominick! Go back to sleep! Pope St. Pius X would've loved all this! Used2BAnonymous 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous’s proposed description of his "traditionalist Catholics" either ignores the point of view of others (positing only his opinion about who "uphold the faith as held for two millennia"), or else it fails to distinguish his "traditionalist Catholics" from other people.

The summary (not the article as a whole) is about distinguishing Used2BAnonymous's "traditionalist Catholics" from other people. Dominick's "traditionalist Catholics" are described in words that are of a neutral point of view. Used2BAnonymous's should also be described in words that are of a neutral point of view.

Instead of answering this objection to his proposal, Used2BAnonymous only plants red herrings, talking about other as yet undecided sections of the article or pretending that the statement that, while the general public instead overwhelmingly uses "Traditionalist Catholics" rather than "Traditional Catholics", Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" somehow means that the article should deal only with exclusive-sense traditionalists. This is not the place to discuss such matters. Lima 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much sums it up, Lima. I sometimes despair and get sick of words being put in my mouth, and I respond and knock us off track. There is room for all traditionalists, and I still find it curious how the sede groups are included that profess no attachemnt to the Holy See or Catholicism while U2BA proclaims that some groups are not "traditionalist enough". Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No red herrings. What I said was that the definition should refer to "the section below." The items in "the section below" are very clear and NPOV. Used2BAnonymous 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is another red herring. What we are discussing is the opening summary, and more particularly Used2BAnonymous's draft for the that summary, which even he seems unable to defend. If he does not even attempt to defend it, may we take this as an implicit withdrawal of the draft? Lima 17:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to put the bottle down if you're seeing so many non-existent red herrings. I am talking about the summary. I say that the second definition -- i.e., the definition of "traditional Catholics" in the exclusive sense -- should refer to "the section below." Used2BAnonymous 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid implicit, borderline, or subtle personal attacks. The latest proposed versions are, unless I'm mistaken, DSL3 and DSU4, respectively blockquoted below. If at all possible, please relate the discussion more closely to the summary itself. [The blockquotes have been removed because updated proposals are blockquoted almost directly below. // Pathoschild 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)] //Pathoschild 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bumped due to edit conflict with comment below. // Pathoschild 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you withdraw your draft? It is a simple question. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think accusing me of throwing out "red herrings" and of being "obstructionist" with every post I make is a personal attack. As to the summary, once again, I propose that the second definition refer to "the section below" or "the following section" or what not, such as the summary used in the present article does. What is the problem with this? It is a simple question. Used2BAnonymous 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok we have two editors accepting the Lima version and one insisting, for some unknown reason, that his own is better. Now what. 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The updated proposals, DSL3 and DSU5, are respectively blockquoted below for comparison. [The blockquotes have been moved out of the discussion.] // Pathoschild 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's TWO for Used2BeAnonymous's version. Malachias111 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild, you wrote that Lima and Dominick propose and agree to:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy]] and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.

-- but they object to this because they say that "traditionalist Catholics" of the first definition also want to preserve "all doctrine." The doctrine involved is understood differently by these two groups, which is why I propose referring to "the following section" to clarify the beliefs of the second group -- the group most often referred to when the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" is used. Used2BAnonymous 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely quote from the archives. See my own comment posted 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC) and their subsequent responses; Lima's comment posted 14:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC); and Lima's comment posted 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Both Dominick and Lima express their support for those revisions. Any comment about the proposal itself should be directed at Dominick and Lima. // Pathoschild 05:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that, yesterday evening, Pathoschild, on behalf of Used2BAnonymous, replaced DSU4, which Used2BAnonymous was no longer defending, with DSU5, corresponding to what Used2BAnonymous seems to have really been talking about, though he had not formally made the change. I think Pathoschild's move was wise, and I hope that Used2BAnonymous accepts DSU5 as the concrete topic to which we should keep (if not discussing DSL3), or else that he immediately formulates DSU6.

The problem with DSU5 is its reference to "the following section". The article should begin by letting readers know who or what it is about. Instead of that, DSU5 says: "Read the following section first, if you want to know who or what the article is about."

DSU5 is in fact a proposal that we suspend discussion of the summary and move instead to discussing the next section.

To Dominick I regret I must say that it is not numbers that count, but truth and logic.

To Used2BAnonymous I say that for me it was, and still is, the word "resist" that serves to distinguish traditionalist Catholics in the Used2BAnonymous sense from other Catholics. That may not have been Dominick's reason; but he is as much entitled to change his mind as Used2BAnonymous, who now, it seems, has changed his mind about his previous acceptance of a summary without "the following section".

Lima 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Both contain the same opening. Perhaps this hybrid works:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

This would refer to Catholics who pursue the preservation of the Mass liturgy and preserve all the other sacramental rites used before the reforms of the 1960s. While traditionalists differ in what they consider to have changed, all agree that either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree.

Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 11:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Presenting only an inclusive idea of traditionalist Catholics, Dominick's proposal of 11:17 today ignores the existence of the exclusive idea that Used2BAnonymous considers to be the only true one (one he finds it difficult to define clearly). I think the summary should indicate the existence of both strongly held ideas, in terms as precise and unambiguous as possible. Lima 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to simply include both PoV in the summary, and show there is a conflict there, between inclusive and exclusive. I must beg to differ Lima. I can't ignore what isn't defined clearly. So far all I can tell is there is some vague critera for being "traditional" enough, I must have failed to make a good reference. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see it stated in what you have written that there are some who have a more exclusive understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" and who think that not everyone included in your (inclusive) description of traditionalist Catholics is indeed a traditionalist Catholic. Yes, Used2BAnonymous has not yet come up with a clear definition acceptable to himself (although I would have thought that his words inserted in DSL3 were not only clear but exact), but perhaps in one of these days or weeks or months he will. Lima 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK try:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

This universally refers to Catholics who pursue the preservation of the Mass liturgy and preserve all the other sacramental rites used before the reforms of the 1960s. The exact definition of what constitutes a traditionalist differ among different groups of traditionalists; groups differ in what they consider to have changed, even though all agree that either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree.

Debating the issue didn't help lets edit til we come upon an equilibrium. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What can "we" edit and how, without Used2BAnonymous? When I dial up my ISP again some time tomorrow, there may be some reaction from him to a) the formulation of DSU5; b) the drawbacks I have again mentioned in trying to include in a definition a reference to a yet undetermined "following section"; c) Dominick's proposal. Lima 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What's this with the idea that I can't "define clearly" what I mean by "traditionalist Catholic"? The entire "following section" lays it out nicely. You just don't like the idea of referring to the "section below" for some reason -- it seems because you think that it means "You can't know what it means until you read the following section." But what it "says" is that there are definite beliefs involved, beliefs that are much too involved to describe in 6 words. Film at 11. It's also been said that your side doesn't want to write a "blank check" regarding the "Traditionalist Beliefs" section -- but the present list is pretty much as it has been for a couple of years or so, I believe, and can be worked through as it's gotten to. The fact remains that the second group of Catholics believe that either Vatican II itself or interpretations of its documents have ushered in a veritable revolution in the presentation of Church teaching. They know what they mean by this. Their criticisms can be found all over the Internet.

Again, what Dominick is trying to do is to wish away the entire second group of Catholics -- the very Catholics about whom the entry was made, and the same Catholics who refer to themselves and are, the immense majority of the time, referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" --- and turn the entire page into a debate. He should write his rebuttals and put them in the "Relations with other Catholics" section instead of trying to take over the entire entry and turn it into one about a group of Catholics who rarely refer to themselves as "traditionalists" and are rarely referred to as "traditionalists."

And Dominick, most of the Catholics of the first definition aren't concerned about "all the other sacramental rites"; they concern themselves with only the Mass most of the time.

Hmmm, maybe the summary should go like this:

In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms.

In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are 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 that earns them the undying hatred of mainstream Catholics.

Used2BAnonymous 22:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I presume Used2BAnonymous is not serious in his latest proposal, which for that reason I will call not DSU6, but DSU6(?). So I will not go into details about it except to say that, apart from the point-of-view "less common" and "more common" - we can agree that in controversy the Used2BAnonymous meaning or something like is more common, but it seems that the ordinary general public normally includes in the term the so-called "indult" traditionalists (or, if you prefer the expression, the Dominick-style traditionalists)- DSU6(?) has advantages over DSU5, which, I take it, is really Used2BAnonymous's real choice at present.

DSU5 can become clear, only when it is clear what will be in "the following section". Used2BAnonymous seems at times to treat his version of it as almost untouchable. Yet only a short time ago the part of it that is an attack on the beliefs of other Catholics was, in minimally shorter form, given as a separate section headed something like "Attitude towards the Second Vatican Council". In the new agreed overall structure, that negative part belongs to "Relations with other Catholic groups", the place indicated also for treating relations (in both directions) with inclusive-sense traditionalists, as Used2BAnonymous has, now for the fifth time, told Dominick.

I mention this only in the hope that Used2B will see that including a still undecided "following section" in the summary is indeed problematic. I do not think it appropriate to discuss it in detail, as long as the topic of discussion is still the summary.

Lima 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The more Used2BAnonymous tries to push his idea that the only traditionalist Catholics are those who fit his definition, the more ridiculous I am beginning to find his pretensions, and the more too I am beginning to think that, after all, Dominick is right in his basic idea. I have hitherto supported a viewpoint different from Dominick's, not out of conviction, but merely in the hope that it might prove acceptable to Used2BAnonymous. Used2BAnonymous is forcing me to think more deeply about what is true and right.

Used2BAnonymous wants the article to be solely about traditionalist Catholics who subscribe to a largely negative or protest-ant (not Protestant) profession of faith that pleases him. But the article is not titled "Traditional Catholic in Used2BAnonymous's sense". The title is "Traditionalist Catholic". Not even Used2BAnonymous denies that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is in fact used of people who do not fit his definition. He says it is only used in this inclusive way by Dominick, Phatmass ... (if forced, he would admit step-by-step increments to the list), but not by his exclusive-sense traditionalists. But of course: it is mere tautology to say that exclusive-sense traditionalist Catholics use the term "traditionalist Catholic" only in the exclusive sense.

I am within an ace of concluding that, if the article is to be about traditionalist Catholics, it should exclude none of them; and that, if Used2BAnonymous wants an article only about traditionalist Catholics in his sense, he should write an article with a title such as "Militant traditionalist Catholics" and transfer there his ideas. After all, Wikipedia has an article on "Roman Catholic Church", precisely to provide for those who want to use the term "Catholic" in a more restricted sense than the senses that are permissible in the articles "Catholic" and "Catholicism".

Dominick, please do not comment on this until Used2BAnonymous has first responded. Even after he does respond, please comment moderately. Perhaps quite unfairly on my part, I find your style at times too combative and impatient, and you might thus prevent me from completing what you might call my "conversion" to your point of view.

Lima 08:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If Dominick accepts the following as corresponding with his idea, I will give my support to it instead of to DSL3. It can then be referred to as DSDL, or whatever Pathoschild chooses.

"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.

Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.

Lima 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I believe that the second definition -- the definition the article is about -- should refer to "the following section" is because I know exactly what will happen if it doesn't: Dominick will intrude in there and try to turn the article into one about Catholics of the first definition. The "rad trad integrist traditionalists" is what this article is about, and Dominick has made his hatred for such people very clear. He wants to debate throughout the entire article instead of listing his objections in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

I think it is also important to refer to "the following section" because, for the second group, beliefs are involved. It's not just a matter of wanting the traditional Mass and Sacraments; it's also a matter of wanting doctrine preserved in a way that Dominick and others of his type see as "Pope-bashing" and "Vatican-hating." Because beliefs are involved -- and because we can't describe such Catholics as wanting:

• to "preserve Catholic doctrine" (Dominick: "I do, too!) or
• "preserve doctrine in the same way it was understood before Vatican II" (Dominick: "Hey, that's me! Nothing's changed in how people understand Catholic doctrine! Isn't it obvious? Look around you!"), or
• "to preserve Catholic doctrine in such a way that, in actual fact, is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching" (Dominick: "That's me, too! Popes have always prayed in synagogues!"), etc.

then it seems that referring to "the section below," even in parenthetically, makes it clear that a) beliefs are involved, and b) those beliefs are complicated. Besides, a listing of such beliefs per my proposal that went on about "ecclesiology, soteriology," etc., was met with something to this effect: "Used2BAnonymous CAN'T be serious."

In addition, the Catholics of Dominick's definition -- and who are not generallly called "traditionalist Catholics -- are NOT ignored in this article. They are listed first (you want to expand that first paragraph and say that they dont believe presentation of Catholic teaching has changed and they worship in ordinary diocesan structures at Masses offered by indult through Priestly Society X, Y, B? Fine.) They are also included in those who attend Masses offered by indult and who worship in ordinary diocesan structures. And their opinions can go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. I have asked Dominick how he would write an article if it were only about such Catholics, and he has said nothing. I suspect that it's because there is nothing to say about them. They're just Catholics who like the traditional Mass. Used2BAnonymous 16:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Used2BAnonymous insists on "the following section", I will now revise the article, to see if Used2BAnonymous will still want "the following section" mentioned in the summary. Lima 21:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it would make no sense to refer to "the following section" as explaining traditionalist beliefs if you move that section down so it doesn't explain traditionalist beliefs. It would no more make sense to do that than for me to go to the section just before your section "How 'official' or 'mainstream' Catholics view the traditionalists just described" and change it to a talk about Lutherans. 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

So we now agree that referring in the summary to "the following section" makes no sense, unless what is to be in the following section is first decided. Lima 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been decided. The outline agreed upon goes like this:

Summary

1 Traditionalist beliefs

2 Places of worship

3 Relations with other Catholic groups

4 See also

5 External links

5.1 References

5.2 Opinions

5.2.1 Pro-traditionalist

5.2.2 Books supportive of the traditional Catholic movement

5.2.3 Anti-traditionalist

In section one would go Traditionalist beliefs, hence the name. Used2BAnonymous 05:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous's outline does not quite agree with the agreed outline, given near the top of this page.

The "Traditionalist beliefs" section should be about the beliefs, not the disbeliefs, of traditionalists; and not all traditionalist Catholics are Used2BAnonymous traditionalists.

Mainstream Catholics too are a Catholic group. Traditionalist criticisms of their beliefs and those of the Holy See belong in the section "Relations with other Catholic groups".

Lima 06:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it looks exactly like the summary at the top of the page with the exception of the sub-section "Books supportive of the traditional Catholic movement" which Pathos and I and whoever else was here agreed should go in the section I have it in in the summary above.

The traditionalist beliefs section is about traditionalist beliefs, and traditionalists believe (at the least) that typical interpretations of Vatican II documents are in error. Mainstream Catholics can critique those beliefs in the section "Relations with other Catholic groups." Used2BAnonymous 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid discussing the rest of the article except as it pertains directly to the summary.

It's not necessary to refer to the following section, since the reader will be reading it immediately upon finishing the first. Similarly to an essay, it's bad form to declare that "in the next paragraph, I'm going to talk about [X]" instead of just talking about [X]. The text should follow naturally without the use of forewarning. // Pathoschild 06:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Then how do you propose indicating that beliefs are involved with the second definition (not just liking the traditional Mass) -- and doing so in such a way that Dominick doesn't say "That's what real traditional Catholics think, too!"?

Perhaps one way to do it is thus:

In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms.

In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are 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 as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Used2BAnonymous 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous's latest draft has several point-of-view elements: a) "loosest", we have already seen, is disputed; b) "less common ... more ... common" is a matter of opinion, except perhaps in the field of controversy; c) "the way the term is used in this article" implies that only Used2BAnonymous traditionalists fit under the article's heading, "Traditionalist Catholic", though it is clear that there are others too who fit under that heading.

I would want Used2BAnonymous to assure us he is seriously proposing a draft with the phrase "in a manner that more 'mainstream' Catholics find objectionable", before commenting on that phrase. If he is going to tell us he is serious, would he please at the same time adjust the point-of-view elements that I have mentioned in the perhaps vain hope that they will be avoided in any further drafts he may propose.

Lima 09:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I was proposing with the above is a way to differentiate between the Dominicks of the world and real traditionalists who actually refer to themselves as traditionalists and are referred to as traditionalists. I copied what I had on my hard drive to make a point with that, not to propose an entirely new summary. But while I'm here, this is what I propose:

"Traditional Catholic" is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics of this sort generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used -- and are used in this entry -- to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the Mass liturgy but who want to preserve all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

or "most Catholics" or some such could be used, something that clearly delineates the two and that makes clear that beliefs are entailed in the second, more common definition -- the definition used in the entry.

As to what "fits under the article's heading": the entry is about traditionalist Catholics of the second sense (and, besides, there is nothing to say about the other kind that isn't already said in the summary. Used2BAnonymous 09:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

May I request Pathoschild to place this latest Used2BAnonymous draft at the start of the "Summary" section of this Talk page, so that it is clear what is under discussion. The same holds for the draft I now prefer, which, as Pathoschild knows, is the one I proposed at 10:37 yesterday 29 October. Placing them side by side will assist in judging which is superior.

Used2BAnonymous's new draft still keeps the point-of-view (and unnecessary) phrase "more commonly used". It also attempts not just to define Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, but also to limit the article to that kind of traditionalists. Used2BAnonymous says: "The entry is about traditionalist Catholics of the second sense." It is not. The heading of the article says clearly that it is about traditionalist Catholics, not about any one particular subclass of traditionalist Catholics.

These two points I have already made. Now for "in a manner that more 'mainstream' Catholics find objectionable". It has, rightly or wrongly, been argued that Catholics believe everything that Protestants believe, and disagree only with Protestant negations of Catholic faith. Used2BAnonymous admits that the essential distinguishing mark of his traditionalists is an interpretation of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that dissents from that of the general body of Roman Catholics. Though the phrase could have been fashioned more elegantly, I am happy that it is there. I think Dominick, whom I commend for his highly admirable patience, must also be pleased.

Lima 11:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "traditional Catholics" of Dominick's definition (all three of them) are mentioned in the first paragraph. The entire entry can't be about both any more than an entry about "Jews" be about both those who typically call themselves "Jews," and those Christians who consider themselves "Jews." I've suggested his setting up a disambiguation page if the summary and "Relations with other Catholics" sections aren't plenty enough mention for him, especially considering that the only things that can be said about them are contained therein.

Not only do I "admit" that traditional Catholics interpret Catholic teaching is a different way than most Catholics, I've been *&^#% screaming it from the top of my lungs since I got here: "BELIEFS are involved!" Glad you're finally happy about it. Used2BAnonymous 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I object strongly that we are still saying this article isn't about all traditionalists, and we are applying a litmus test in the summary. Tying the issue up into a tight ball, at the summary is incorrect. This is the article about traditionalists, whose beliefs are NOT entirely what U2BA says they are. I posted a version, and it is now discarded? The version I posted isn't even listed as a comproimise offer. Reposting the same versions over and over again we get nowhere. Lets discard both and use the commen elements to write a summary. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Set up a disambiguation page, Dominick. We are talking about two different things. Used2BAnonymous 21:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The proposal Dominick refers to is copied from the archives below (17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)).

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

This universally refers to Catholics who pursue the preservation of the Mass liturgy and preserve all the other sacramental rites used before the reforms of the 1960s. The exact definition of what constitutes a traditionalist differ among different groups of traditionalists; groups differ in what they consider to have changed, even though all agree that either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree.

// Pathoschild 21:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A definition of "traditionalist Catholic" must cover all traditionalist Catholics and nobody who is not a traditionalist Catholic. In Used2BAnonymous's understanding, the description in the second paragraph of DSU6 is such a definition: everyone dissenting as he does from the understanding of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church held by the general body of Roman Catholics is a traditionalist Catholic, and nobody else is a traditionalist Catholic.

The same does not hold for the non-dissenting group mentioned in the first paragraph of DSU6. Everybody, including the members of that group, agrees that there are others too who are traditionalist Catholics. The first paragraph is therefore not a definition, in anybody's understanding, of "traditional Catholic".

The first paragraph must be rid of the accretions that Used2BAnonymous has attached to an originally inclusive definition, one that covered also the Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, instead of excluding them.

Lima 21:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

We need version that covers them all, but we are back to a yellow ribbon is a ribbon that is yellow. Shall I withdraw my version again? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about introductory paragraphs, not definitions, and what those beliefs are that are held by traditional Catholics are in the next paragraph. If you don't like the present proposal, you can either move the entire "traditionalist beliefs" section into the summary or refer to "the section below" unless you have a better suggestion that makes it clear that trads of the second definition want not only to preserve and restore ALL the Sacramental rites, but also have definite BELIEFS (remember that part that made you and Dominick so happy when I "admitted" to it after all these weeks of screaming about it?)

Dominick, the "traditionalist" you refer to (all three of them) don't have any beliefs that aren't mainstream. There is nothing to say about them that isn't said in the introduction, where they and their beliefs are mentioned in the first sentence (so you can stop wee-wee-weeing all the way home about "litums tests" now). I've asked you on a FEW occasions what you would say about them if this ENTIRE article were about them, and you've come up with nothing. The only thing you can say about them is that "we're in 'fulllllllllll accord' with 'the Holy See,' we don't think anything's changed because Popes have always prayed in synagogues, we don't agree with anything listed in 'traditionalist beliefs section,' and we hate people who do think those things" -- which is precisely your game: you want to debate all throughout the entry instead of listing your complaints in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

OK, now is the time for someone to admonish me for "personal attacks" even though I've had to repeat myself for weeks now, even though Dominick got his practically unused (see Google) mention of those "other 'traditional Catholics'" in the introduction -- and that is so in spite of the fact that the OTHER SIDE not only recognizes but brought up the fact that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used to describe Catholics of the second definition "the immense majority" of the time. (Or perhaps Dominick would like to do a little snipping? Oh, I know! How about accusations of "red herrings"?! Those are always pleasant for a diversion.) Used2BAnonymous 00:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A sarcastic or mocking tone gets us nowhere. Please avoid any such unless you fully intend on abandoning progress. // Pathoschild 02:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree Pathos, I think we need to continue and leave the childishness behind. The beliefs that traditionalists hold are not smilar to U2BA, even among militant dissenters, and are not universal within all the groups. I reread Lima's version of the Summary, and it makes the most sense. We need a definition that defines all traditionalists, and does not equate Catholic traditionalists with dissenters against the Holy See. Let me formall withdraw my hasty summary. As far as "debate", the same old stuff is not progress and frankly debating the same issues is not a good use of time. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the first definition equate Catholics traditionalists" with dissenters agaisnt "the Holy See"? Do you not see that TWO TYPES OF CATHOLICS ARE MENTIONED THERE? Why can't Catholic traditionalists who, as you think, "dissent from the Holy See" be spoken of? Besides, when speaking of "Jews," do you need a definition that defines "all Jews"? Why is there no mention in the entry on "Jews" of Christians who consider themselves Jews? And, once again, if this article were ENTIRELY about "traditionalists" of the first definition, what would you SAY about them?

Pathos, apparently using non-sarcastic, non-mocking language gets us nowhere, too. Used2BAnonymous 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Used2BAnonymous believe the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church have changed since "before the reforms" of the 1960s? Presumably he does. Would Used2BAnonymous like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s? He certainly is not against it. In that case Used2BAnonymous is one of the traditional Catholics described in the first sentence of DSU6, one of "those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s". But does the rest of the first paragraph ("Catholics of this sort generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult etc.") apply to him? The answer is surely no, since he says he is one of those who dissent from the beliefs of the general body of the Catholic Church. As it stands, DSU6 is self-contradictory.

DSU6 is illogical also in saying that there are traditionalists who "don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed". Every presentation of Catholic teaching is and always has been different, every homily, even by traditionalist priests, every catechetical lesson, every catechism: the catechism of Pope Saint Pius X did not have exactly the same text as the 1566 catechism of the Council of Trent (of Pope Saint Pius V), the Baltimore Catechism of the United States was not identical with either. There can be and are, and, because of differences of time and place, must be and should be different presentations of Catholic teaching, all of which may be faithful presentations, even if different. It is nonsense to suggest, as DSU6 does, that there are traditionalist Catholics of any type who think there have never been any changes in the presentation of Catholic teaching.

Lima 20:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous asks: "If this article were ENTIRELY about 'traditionalists' of the first definition, what would you SAY about them?" Plenty. The first definition, as everybody but Used2BAnonymous understands it, is inclusive. It includes the Used2BAnonymous traditionalists. So it would say as much about them as there is to say about Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, and more besides.

Lima 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS: A) those Catholics who JUST want the traditional Mass but who have no problems with the typical interpretations of Vatican II, and B) those Catholics who want the traditional Mass, too, along with all the other Traditional Sacramental rites, but who ALSO believe radically differently than those who JUST want the traditional Mass and think nothing is wrong with the typical interpretations of Vatican II. There cannot be an entry about both using the same term because they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I have recommended your setting up a disambiguation page, because THIS entry was created to be about, has been about, is about, and will keep being about Catholics of the second definition. It will not be turned into a Dominick rant against those "MILITANT traditionalists" (see his latest version that has since been reverted. Note, too, how he leaves sedevacantists totally out of the picture). You can no more have a meaningful entry about "traditionalist Catholics" with this ridiculous, rarely used (the second definition is the one used the immense majority of the time, acc. to YOU) "inclusive" definition than you can have a meaningful entry about "Jews" if every paragraph has to condescend to those Christians who think they're Jews, too. Dominick's last proposed entry shows exactly what I said this game is about: turning the entire entry into a debate, a diatribe against Catholics who have issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents.

As to "DSU6" (does this James Bond talk work for you?) being "illogical also in saying that there are traditionalists who 'don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed'" because "every presentation of Catholic teaching is and always has been different, every homily, even by traditionalist priests, every catechetical lesson, every catechism" is unique: you might want to take that up with DOMINICK who insists otherwise and insists that real "traditionalist Catholics" (i.e., all three of them who fit his definition) -- who aren't referred to as "traditionalists" but who, nonetheless, are trying to take over this entry -- don't believe that the presentation of Catholic teaching has changed. In his last version of the entry, he wrote, "By militant traditionalist Catholics are here meant those who claim that errors have crept into the presentation and understanding of Catholic teaching."

But the problem being referred to is much deeper than that, and you know it. Yes, one could get silly and claim that there is a "change" in the "presentation" of Catholic teaching if Priest A delivers a lesson wearing a red hat while another delivers in in a green hat. That is not the issue. The issue is that trads (second definition) believe that the substance of the Catholic Faith is being presented as being different than it once was. Quit trying to be "cute" here. Used2BAnonymous 23:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously on the merits of what is said, by Lima, the point is made. The wide definition of the traditionalist covers every traditionalist. The contention, if I can read through the nonsense, is that it includes too many people that are not regarded as traditionalist. There is no accpeted definition, by the Church, beyond those who prefer the 1962 Missal Mass, and going on about changes from Vatican II as a definition of a traditionalist includes those who attend venacular Mass. There are four possible states, those who attend venacular Mass, and dissent from the Church, those who attend venacular Mass and do not dissent; and the two that we are concerned with, those who attend 1962 Mass and dissent from Rome or do not dissent from Rome concerning varied teachings of the Church. The cookie cutter definition that U2BA thinks applies to all traditionalists, is not encyclopediac. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 00:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "an accepted definition by the Church"; this isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia. The entry is about people who refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" and who are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics." Those people, as has been proved to you over and over again, are people of definition 2. "Your side" admits as much when, in your talk pages, it was admitted that people who fit definition 2 are the people referred to "the immense majority of the time" when the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used. Your language of "dissent from the Church" is completely ridiculous and POV. No traditional Catholic thinks he is "dissenting from the Church."

Your intentions have been made QUITE clear with your last "revision"; it is hateful, bigoted, wrong, POV, and badly written. Your agenda is all over it. Used2BAnonymous 02:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Not only do they aggravate the target, they also hurt your own case with any disagreeing or more moderate party. Should further attacks ensue, the (non-retroactive) application of WP:RPA will be proposed for vote. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, Wikipedia:Civility. // Pathoschild 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I already did that Pathos. It caused a lot of diversion. I think WP:RPA should be the rule. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then start with yourself, Dominick, and quit accusing Catholics you don't like of being "militant" and not "official Catholics" as you did in your entry. Dishing it out is easy. Used2BAnonymous 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In a sense different from that intended by Used2BAnonymous, I agree fully that "we are talking about two different things." One of them is nonsense, namely the idea that "traditional Catholics" can mean only Catholics who, while not dissenting from the beliefs of the general body of the Catholic Church, want to see worship and customs return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Does anybody genuinely think that "traditional Catholic" is a term that applies only to non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, so that Used2BAnonymous-style people are not really traditionalists? Yet Used2BAnonymous claims to take this nonsense idea seriously, and suggests that "some" use the term in that sense. In reality, nobody uses the term in that sense. Instead, in contrast to the notion that Used2BAnonymous traditionalists are the only traditionalists, some do use the term "traditionalist Catholic" to cover all Catholics, none excluded, who want to see worship and customs return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Used2BAnonymous is the only person talking about the term "traditionalist Catholic" as if it had the nonsensical restricted sense that he attributes to it. We are indeed talking about two different things.

There is no contradiction between "By militant traditionalist Catholics are here meant those who claim that errors have crept into the presentation and understanding of Catholic teaching" and "By non-militant traditionalist Catholics are here meant those who disagree with the claim that errors have crept into the presentation, in line with concrete circumstances of time and place, of Catholic teaching". DSU6 speaks of "the presentation of Catholic teaching" (without mentioning "the substance of the Catholic Faith"); the presentation it refers to is presumably the official presentation by what the Baltimore Catechism called "the teaching Church". Without being unfaithful to the substance, this official presentation does change from time to time, as witness the distinct catechisms of Saints Pius V and Pius X. It is again nonsense to suggest, as Used2BAnonymous persists in doing, that there actually exist traditionalists of any type who believe that this presentation has never taken different forms.

Lima 08:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

LIMA, there are TWO DEFINITIONS GIVEN. The FIRST refers to Dominick's definition; the SECOND is the one that is used (and I quote you now) "the immense majority of the time". So desist with this "Does anybody genuinely think that "traditional Catholic" is a term that applies only to non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, so that Used2BAnonymous-style people are not really traditionalists?" madness. The FIRST kind of "traditionalist Catholic" (who, as Google proves, aren't actually called that in any general sense at all in the real world) are mentioned in the FIRST sentence. Where they worship is mentioned in the FIRST paragraph. Their non-issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents is there, also, in the FIRST paragraph.

Who says there is contradiction between "By militant traditionalist Catholics are here meant those who claim that errors have crept into the presentation and understanding of Catholic teaching" and "By non-militant traditionalist Catholics are here meant those who disagree with the claim that errors have crept into the presentation, in line with concrete circumstances of time and place, of Catholic teaching"? "Contradiction" is not the issue; the bigoted, POV use of terms like "militant" and "official Catholics" is.

Conclusions about whether what comes out of most of our hierarchs' (yes, Dominick: "hierarchs") mouths is "unfaithful to the substance" of the Faith is exactly the thing that divides the first type of "traditionalist Catholic" from those who are actually called traditionalists in the real world. If you have some hang-up about the fact that, heretofore, mention of "the substance" has not been included, it could be easily modified to include such words. But that is the issue here. And the entry is about those Catholics of the second definition -- not at the expense of the 3 "Jewish Christians" people in the world who call themselves "traditionalist Catholics" but who otherwise don't fit the second definition -- for, you see (and I repeat because it is what I do around here and I'm sure I'll be doing it again soon), they are mentioned and DESCRIBED (FULLY described, as far as I can see) in the FIRST PARAGRAPH. If there is something else to add about these "traditionalist Catholics" then add it to the first paragraph of the summary. Their issues with Catholics of the second definition -- you know, the militant, Pope-hating, "unofficial Catholic" terrorists -- can go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. Used2BAnonymous 08:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick's definition is: "'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" (cf. the top of this Talk page). What the first paragraph of DSU6 presents is not Dominick's definition, but a chimera.

"Militant" seems to be an objective description of those who consider "resisting" to be essential. I do not see it as pejorative. On the contrary, I am proud to think of myself as part of the Church militant. If Used2BAnonymous dislikes it, what better objective description would he propose for distinguishing Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalists from traditionalists in the inclusive all-embracing sense? Would "resistant" do?

No matter how many times Used2BAnonymous repeats: "The entry is about those Catholics of the second definition", i.e. about Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalists, the heading of the article still says it is about traditionalist Catholics, not about any one subcategory of traditionalist Catholics.

Lima 10:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are referring to the definiton as a chimera. It is an imperfect synthesis, but I always looked at something that was considered a "chimera" as unacceptable. I have no objection if you move/delete personal attacks from this talk page. I think that is now a good approach to keeping this on track. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick seems to think I was describing his definition and mine as a chimera. I explicitly excluded something so ridiculous: the chimera in question is "what the first paragraph of DSU6 presents". Apart from the meaning "Chimera" has in Greek mythology, "chimera" means either "a creature of the imagination: an impossible and foolish fancy" or "an organism containing tissues from at least two genetically distinct parents". Both images fit the DSU6 attempt to combine its first-sentence inclusive definition of "traditional Catholic" (which accords with Dominick's) with a notion ("Traditional Catholic" means exclusively a non-Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalist Catholic) that nobody holds.

I do not know who Dominick meant by his second "you". Perhaps Pathoschild?

Lima 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I had taken the comment Chimera as being a combination of two or more parts that do not fit. Oops. The second "you" could be Pathos or Lima, I was meaning you all. I would like to stay on track, the identification of the correct definition that you (lima) and I hold as being my invention is old and rejected. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As one who has been a Traditional Catholic all of my life, I want to point out that the type of Catholics that Dominick keeps calling "Traditional" are what is commonly known as "Conservative Catholics". Not one person in the trad circles (that I have been a part of my entire life) would describe the type of Catholic that Dominick is describing as "Traditional". Dominick's description would in fact be dismissed out of hand in trad circles. A Traditional Catholic is not someone who merely "prefers" the TLM. A Traditional Catholic is someone who actively avoids anything BUT the TLM. I strongly recommend taking the time to browse through such forums as Angelqueen and Apologia to get a good idea of what Traditional Catholicism really means. What you will not find in these forums is a majority of Traditional Catholics who fit Dominick's description. This is all really quite simple. JLeigh

Yes, it is simple, JLeigh. And so is the game being played here. Note how Lima says he, as a member of the Church Militant, would be proud to be called a "militant Catholic" -- but then he puts up a version in which Catholics he doesn't agree with are called "militant Catholics" and are defined thus: "By militant traditionalist Catholics (for want of a better term) are here meant those traditionalists who, dissenting from the beliefs of the general body of the Catholic Church, claim that errors have crept into the general presentation and understanding of Catholic teaching."

Note his fine ecclesiology with the use of such phrases as "the general body of the Catholic Church" (how many Bodies does the Church, Which is the Mystical Body of Christ Himself, have anyway?).

Lima, there is no attempt on MY part "to combine its first-sentence inclusive definition of "traditional Catholic" (which accords with Dominick's) with a notion ("Traditional Catholic" means exclusively a non-Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalist Catholic) that nobody holds." First, you yourself HAVE SAID that "the immense majority of the time" it is MY definition that is used. I have proven this through Google search results, too. I have proven this using Dominick's own sources of "evidence" for his side. Second, I am not attempting to COMBINE but to DIFFERENTIATE. There is Catholic Type A and Catholic Type B. They are two different things. Catholic Type A is defined and described in the first paragraph, but this article is about Catholic Type B, the ones who -- "the immense majority of the time" -- are actually referred to as traditionalists.

At this stage of the game, I can only consider what you and Dominick are doing as vandalism pure and simple. Used2BAnonymous 23:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing this Talk Page, Dominick. For the second time, he has "snipped" comments he doesn't like. Just now, he removed JLeigh's comments and my response to it. TWICE. Used2BAnonymous 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is surely wrong to edit other people's comments or remove them. Someone in the position of Pathoschild may perhaps have the authority to do so. But I hope nobody else will do it. A "need of attention" notice may be suitable for an Article page, but is surely out of place on a Talk page. Would Dominick please remove it.

Now back to our discussion of the best formulation of the summary.

JLeigh has not, I think, spoken to either of the two draft summaries under discussion. He objects to a supposed definition/description of a "Traditional Catholic" as "someone who merely 'prefers' the TLM". Perhaps DSU6 does propose that definition in its first paragraph - it is hard to tell. But DSL4, which is Dominick's too, certainly does not. A mere preference for the Tridentine Latin Mass does not make a traditionalist Catholic. Being a traditionalist Catholic involves more than a private preference for oneself. Traditionalist Catholics want to see the worship and customs of the whole general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s. There are differences about what means to employ, from declaring the Popes responsible for the reforms to be heretics who must be replaced downward; but all traditionalist Catholics have an aim that distinguishes them for other people.

Used2BAnonymous seems to have forgotten that he was warned on 17 October: "Cite serious studies, official declarations, self-descriptions from the groups concerned, mission statements, or other related documents. Don't put forth Google searches or quotes from websites biased to your favour as proof." He also misquotes me again, but, in any case, his misquotation is not to the point: even if I had said that his definition of "traditionalist Catholic" is used the immense majority of the time, I would not have said that it is the only valid definition.

We are asking: "What does 'traditionalist Catholic' mean? Who is a traditionalist Catholic?" Answer A is in DSL4, a description that covers not only Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalists but others as well. Answer B is in the second paragraph of DSU6 and also, even if only implicitly, in the second paragraph of DSL4. In Used2BAnonymous's interpretation, the first paragraph of DSU6 - although its first sentence seems to give Answer A - gives an answer that is neither Answer A (a wide, inclusive definition that includes more than Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalists) nor Answer B (one that covers only Used2BAnonymous-type traditionalists). What else is this Answer C except: "A traditionalist Catholic is one who is covered by Answer A but not by Answer B"? Who seriously thinks this is what "traditionalist Catholic" means? Like "Someone who merely 'prefers' the TLM", this is a straw man set up to be easily knocked down.

In short, DSU6 ignores Answer A, an opinion that is in fact held, and in its place proposes an Answer C that nobody holds.

Lima 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said that you said that my definition was the only valid definition. I said that you said it was used "the immense majority of the time." And you did. But whether it is or isn't, the fact is that we are talking about two different types of Catholics, A and B. A are the people of Dominick's definition. They are described in the first paragraph. B is "my" definition -- the one that is used by traditionalist Catholics who hold the beliefs outlined in the section "Traditionalist beliefs," the ones who refer to themselves as traditionalist Catholics, the ones who are referred to as traditional Catholics the immense majority of the time.

As to this alleged "warning" I was given, I followed through. But if you want more, then fine:

The Revealer, a publication of the New York University Department of Journalism and New York University's Center for Religion and Media: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/links_000260.php

Journal of Religion and Society, Creighton University http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2004/2004-6.html

Journal of Religion and Film, University of Nebraska http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/FlanneryDailey.htm

Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=50

Orthodox Communion http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/rome_orth.aspx

Catholic World News: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37861

Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp

Yahoo UK News: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030307/80/duw15.html

Rick Ross, the cult deprogrammer: http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general645.html

Atheists: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2003_07_13.htm

Trad Newspaper: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/about.htm

Go to these two traditional Catholic Forums with over 1,000 members between them and ask them what a "traditional Catholic" is: Angelqueen http://angelqueen.org/forum/index.php

Apologia http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/mb/apologia

Does Dominick want to associate himself with a movement that is described like this in the Weekly Standard?:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/187bvgea.asp?pg=2 "One innocent explanation would be that French society has suited up to do battle with the anti-Semitism of 70 years ago, and simply doesn't recognize any other kind. The new anti-Semites are not German-speaking militarists--who were conquered. They are not Catholic traditionalists--whose anti-Semitism rested on doctrines no longer asserted by Catholicism, which, in any case, is a religion the French no longer practice."

Or would he like to consider himself a "traditionalist" when they are described as not even Catholic in an article -- by a conservative mainstream Catholic -- entitled "The New Face of Modernism: Why Traditionalists Are Not Catholic"? http://www.teresabenns.homestead.com/WhyTraditionalistsarenotCatholic.html

As to all this DSL4, DSU6, Answer A, Answer B, Answer C stuff: I can't follow it. Speak English.

And now a question: In the most recent version of the article that Dominick keeps reverting to, there are four new sections -- sections that break the AGREED UPON outline which was, to wit:

This question, which involved the titles and levels of the headers under which the information will be organised, has reached consensus. This discussion is closed unless a majority of members with at least one month of Wikipedian membership and 100+ edits wish it to be re-examined. The structure agreed upon is as such:

The first of these four new sections is "How militant traditionalists view mainstream Catholics" -- which then goes on to list everything that is now in the section "Traditionalist beliefs." Why this section has been retitled "How militant traditionalists view mainstream Catholics" is beyond me since it says nothing about what traditionalists think of mainstream Catholics; it is about traditionalists' beliefs about the postconciliar presentation of Catholic teaching.

The other three sections are:

A: How mainstream Catholics view militant traditionalists

B: How non-militant traditionalists view mainstreamCatholics

C: How mainstreamCatholics view non-militant traditionalists

Now, go examine those sections and tell me what is found in A that isn't already found or can't be put in the section "Relations with other Catholics." And tell me what is found in B and C that isn't already found or intimated in or couldn't be added in two seconds to the first paragraph of the existing article. Everything that Dominick wants said -- with the exception of slandering other Catholics with words like "militant" and intimating that they are not "official Catholics" -- is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE or needs to be added to the "Relations with other Catholics" section. The situation here is just as I described: it is the desire of some to turn the entire article into a debate, a smear of traditional Catholics (second definition). There is no other explanantion. Used2BAnonymous 11:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the template it was acceptable on the talk page for needing attention. None of these articles exclude traditionalist who are not "resisting" the Holy See on various terms, or in schism. I may point to ICK and FSSP as two traditional organizations that do not have issues in common with other groups to "dialog" about with the Holy See, and we have been through this. The moving of things not related to the summary was out of frustration. I can't see U2BA being anything but obstructionist.

Looking at the plethora of off topic reasons U2BA offers why traditionalists are not a traditionalist but according to some mere "conservatives", we need not look farther than Angelqueen, a site set up by a SSPX adherant. It is not aceeptable to use second hand sources for articles, but perhaps I can show how inconsistant the view U2BA holds.

Well, you see, many Trads come to the realization in the end that (as the original poster ) there is no coping with the conservative Catholics in those many dioceses. Most Trads cannot deal with the animosity directed towards them, and find somewhere more congenial to worship. To my mind, most conservative Catholics don't give a flying fig for Traditional liturgy, although, yes, they often do think traditionally in terms of morals and basic doctrine.

So conservatives don't care for the TLM. Thats not a mark of a traditionalist. Maybe thats true, lets look at another mark of the conservative:

This is the mark of the Conservative: Rather than condemn the abuse, he will correct the terms being used to describe the abuse. "Oh No! They're not 'Eucharistic Minististers', they're 'Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion'. OK?" Wasn't it Juliet who said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"? The same is true for the opposite.

Obviously a traditionalist would find these things out of place with the approved rubrics from the Holy See for the Missal of 1962. An attendee of the Novus Ordo may even be a conservative and a "EMHC". There are no lay people handing out Communion at Indults.

So where is the dividing line?

Without wasting any time, read the thread title. There is nothing about the Novus Ordo that demands this nor do conservative Catholics. Again, we see the "traditional" inability to differentiate the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church with abuses within the Church in action. I know the answer to the above questions. I suggest you read the Church Fathers so you can find out (and not some tertiary reference in The Remnant or whatever you currently mistake for Catholic doctrine).

"Conservatives" prefer the Novus Ordo, accept the liturgical changes in the rubrics over the past few years, and reject the resistance as expressed by in the "Remnant". Still we are left with the traditionalist preferrring the Latin (1962) Missal, the changes are irrelevant since they do not affect the 1962 Missal, and silent on the issues presented by such publications as the "Remnant". I would further put forth that this is an artificial line, as even on the site, the definition flip flops around. We can't define one informal term with another. Can we get back to using logic and reson to include the different opinions among traditionalist Catholics? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Dominick, your definition of "traditionalist Catholics" is ALREADY COVERED. Answer my questions and stop being obstructionist. Used2BAnonymous 13:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The childish mocking needs to stop. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There was also a strong recommendation: "Please avoid discussing the rest of the article except as it pertains directly to the summary." Let's talk about the summary.

"I never said that you said that my definition was the only valid definition," says Used2BAnonymous to me. Nor did I say he said it. What I did and do say is that "his" definition is not the only valid definition.

Used2BAnonymous maintains that the first paragraph of DSU6 describes "the people of Dominick's definition". Dominick's definition is: "'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." That definition covers, among others, sedevacantists.

How can Used2BAnonymous seriously maintain that sedevacantists are described in the DSU6 paragraph that goes: "Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics of this sort generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents"?

Lima 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, clever ploy in reverting a page but labelling it "thats fine... corrected version" as if you were just removing the POV comment in response to Pathoschild's "problem is not one of poor writing, redundant with attention on talk page." He'd already removed it, and you knew it. But fine; it's just the sort of game I expect.

Now, Dominick quotes from Angelqueen forum:

To my mind, most conservative Catholics don't give a flying fig for Traditional liturgy, although, yes, they often do think traditionally in terms of morals and basic doctrine.

And he then concludes, "So conservatives don't care for the TLM. Thats not a mark of a traditionalist." Looks to me as though the writer at Angelqueen said "MOST conservative Catholics don't give a flying fig for Traditional liturgy." This means that some do. That would be you, Dominick.

Yes, "a traditionalist would find these things (laymen handing out the Eucharist, etc.) out of place with the approved rubrics from the Holy See for the Missal of 1962" -- but what that has to do with anything is beyond me (and most "traditionalists" -- cough, cough-- of your definition wouldn't find it "out of place" at the Novus Ordo. The "Holy See" and the Bishops in almost all dioceses allow it, you know). And as to your third quote from Angelqueen, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain its relevance and relate how The Remnant has anything to do with anything you wrote or quoted. Used2BAnonymous 15:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, Ever hear of a Venn diagram? Good. Now imagine one called "Traditionalist Catholics." With me? OK. Imagine a teeny tiny circle with three people in i, e.g., Dominick, Stephen Hand, and the guy who made the Phatmass page, for ex. Throw in Patrick Madrid if you want. Actually, go ahead and throw in a million people, it doesn't matter. Make it a billion, if you like. These are people who want to restore the sacramental rites "to before the reforms of the 1960s" and who don't have any issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents. Label this circle A: Dominick's Definition.

Now imagine another circle labelled B: Those who are called traditionalist Catholics "the immense majority of the time" and who want to restore the sacramental rites and who, at the least, have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents."

Now have them overlap, and call this intersection "Those who want to restore the sacramental rites."

Why would sedevacantists, who are part of set B, have to be described in terms of A?

And why is no one answering the questions I posed? Used2BAnonymous 15:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions not related to the summary are ignored, by convention.

Lima asked a few questions related to the summary. Among all traditionalists, in a serious Venn diagram, there are a lot of sets of Catholics, schismatics and Sedes. There is a subset of the set that would includes indult Catholics, like the FSSP, ICK, and other groups without a problems with the Holy See that differ by organizations. There are subsets of the larger set that differ by organization with various "beefs" and "axes" that are scattered all over the set of traditionalists. Many intersect with each other and many do not. There is a little circle for you and your pals. That tiny subset doesn't include the whole set of traditionalists. The entire group, in the set of traditionalists, is the subject of the article. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you were making Venn diagrams of cats, you could do lions, tigers, lynxes, bobcats, housecats, cartoon cats, cats with 4 whiskers on each side of their noses, cats with spots, cats who come when you call them, cats who stay indoors, cats who go out, female cats, male cats, baby cats, old cat, cats who've been struck by lightning, cats who've been struck by lightning 8 times and are now really worried -- do I need to go on?

This article is about "traditionalist Catholics." They've been broken into two main categories: A: Those who want to restore the sacramental rites to "as they were before the 60s" but who have no issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II; and B: Those who want to restore the sacramental rites and do have issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II. A is describe in the first paragraph, but the article doesn't focus on them because a) they are already FULLY described in the first paragraph, b) they are not generally referred to as traditionalists, c) they don't generally refer to themselves as traditionalists, d) people seeking information on "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about them, e) the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to describe B "the immense majority of the time," f) there is not a thing to say about them that isn't already said in the summary. If you think there is, then name it. I've asked a thousand times now to come up with something. I've asked you how you would write the article if it were ONLY about such Catholics. You've given nothing. I've asked you what about these Catholics is in your version of the article that is not already included in mine and you've given nothing. That's because there is nothing to give. There's nothing to say. They are mainstream conservative Catholics who want to restore the sacramental rites and who worship in regular parishes inside regular diocesan structures. You are playing a game, Dominick, and that game is to turn this article into a smear job on traditional Catholics of the second definition, the definition used "the immense majority of the time." Your "militant Catholic" nonsense, your lies about trads of the second definition not being "official Catholics", your accusations of "Vatican-bashing," your repeated snipping of discussions in the Talk Pages, your deceptive reverts with lies built into the comments area, your accusations of "sock-puppetry" and "astro-turfing," your tactic of yelling "obstructionist!" with every post you have no decent response to, your describing other such posts as "childish mocking" -- these things prove it. Used2BAnonymous 17:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous should construct his Venn diagrams objectively. He draws a circle and calls it "Dominick's Definition". But what it represents is not Dominick's definition. Dominick's definition can be seen near the top of this page. It is labelled DSL4. It covers sedevacantists. It covers Used2BAnonymous himself. It covers Dominick. Outside the Used2BAnonymous set, Dominick's definition may well represent the more common understanding. Whether it does or does not represent the more common general understanding, it exists. It cannot be wished away.

"Why would sedevacantists, who are part of set B, have to be described in terms of A?" If they belong to both sets, they can and perhaps should be described in terms of both.

Lima 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

By "Dominick's definition" it is meant simply those Catholics who want to restore the sacramental rites to "as they were before the reforms of the 1960s," as I said. (But while we're at it, do you really think Dominick's "views on this matter are less strong"?)

Now, how many definitions do you see in the following? (hint: look to the underlined text for clues!):

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics of this sort generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used —and are used in this entry—to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the Mass liturgy but who want to preserve all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

As to your "If they belong to both sets, they can and perhaps should be described in terms of both": How is it that sedevacantists aren't described in terms of both in my version? Why do you ask why they are not covered by the first definition when there are TWO definitions given, the second of which describes them?

Now, answer the questions posed to you earlier. Used2BAnonymous 19:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Can Used2BAnonymous not understand that Dominick's definition is not to be found in DSU6, which is Used2BAnonymous's, not Dominick's? What else but madness, stupidity or obstinacy would have someone look for Dominick's definition, not in Dominick's draft summary, but in someone else's notions?

What on earth are the questions Used2BAnonymous posted "to me" earlier? The only earlier unanswered Used2BAnonymous questions I find above are: "Ever hear of a Venn diagram?" "With me?" "And why is no one answering the questions I posed?" "Do I need to go on?". Can these questions, which display Used2BAnonymous's habitual politeness and courtesy, be those he means?

Lima 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. No. I can't answer that. No. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Lima understand that that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet? Dominick's most recent version might not string together words in the same way when he describes the "non-Vatican-bashing" "traditionalist Catholics," but he defines them the same way nonetheless -- all throughout the article -- and has the temerity to call them "official traditional Catholics" or "non-militant traditionalists" or some such. If you refuse to think conceptually and insist on playing word games, this will never end.

As to those cleverly hidden questions, you will find them in the post of 11:55, 2 November 2005, right next to Hoffa's body, Waldo, and the Holy Grail. Used2BAnonymous 03:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we or are we not talking about the summary, not about "all through the (future, yet undecided) article"? If Used2BAnonymous pretends a draft summary clearly placed at the top of this page does not exist, if he refuses to see that the definition in that draft, my definition as well as Dominick's, does exist and corresponds to a sincere opinion, if he persists in claiming that his own two definitions are the only ones that exist, this will nevertheless end some time, after years have passed. Truth, not error, is eternal. We must have patience.

I have read through Used2BAnonymous's posting at 11:55 yesterday, and have only found two seemingly rhetorical questions addressed to Dominick. I have failed to find the questions addressed to me. Perhaps I was confused by the direction Used2BAnonymous gave that the questions addressed to me were right next to somebody's body. Perhaps the Hoffa in question is the United States labour leader James R. Hoffa, who disappeared on 30 July 1975, thirty years ago. (I have found him mentioned in the 1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica.) I am unsure who is meant by "Waldo": the writers Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) or Ralph Waldo Edison (1904-1994), who, like Used2BAnonymous, were Americans? Whoever Hoffa and Waldo are/were, they must be quite familiar to the circle within which Used2BAnonymous moves, like his ideas. Not everybody is confined within that circle.

Let us get back to talking about the summary.

Lima 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What other groups do you believe should be included aside from:

1. those "traditionalist Catholics" who want to restore the practices to "as they were before the reforms of the 60s" but who have no qualms with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and
2. those traditionalist Catholics who want to do the above but who also do have qualms with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents?

Perhaps those who are undecided about Vatican II documents? Then we could have an entire sub-section called:

3.5 What non-militant official traditionalist Catholics think of traditionalist Catholics who may or may not be militant and unofficial but who are undecided about the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents

And vice versa! And the same with all the other groups:

3.9 What Catholics who may or may not be militant and unofficial but who are undecided about the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents think about unofficial, militant, Vatican-bashing traditionalist Catholics

Joy!

Or should we include my mother-in-law's definition of "traditional Catholics" which is "Catholics like Ted Kennedy"? Seriously now, who is left out of the above summary?

The questions you assume were directed to Dominick are directed to both of you and are in no way rhetorical. The above question, "Seriously now, who is left out of the above summary?" is also directed to both of you and is non-rhetorical. Used2BAnonymous 09:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The summary is inconsistant and redundant. One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required. So far not a letter has been changed in the summary you proposed in response to any comments. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 10:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Read the following:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics of this sort generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in this entry—to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the Mass liturgy but who want to preserve all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Now:

1. Explain how the above is "inconsistent."
   
2. Explain how the above is "redundant."
   
3. Explain how clarifying which definition is being used in an article (something most people would consider imperative when two definitions are in conflict) violates a rule which goes something like "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required."
   
4. Translate the above rule into English so that others might understand it, and then detail where this rule may be found.
   
5. Explain what sort of "traditionalist Catholic" is not included (aside from my mother-in-law's "Ted Kennedy" types which, I assume, we both agree should not be included)
   
6. Explain how "not a letter has been changed in the summary (I) proposed in response to any comments" when the original read something more along these lines:
   

In the widest sense, the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

In the more restrictive sense used in this article, the terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the liturgical revisions that followed the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner consistent with the beliefs outlined in the following section. Used2BAnonymous 12:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. It ties dissent from the Holy See in with traditionalism.
2. It makes two definitions of the same term in different ways. It presumes the article will be about a subset of traditionalists at the expense of all other traditionalists not involved with dissent with the authority of the Holy See.
3. The article isn't written yet. There is nothing to refer to. A summary is usually done as a stand alone paragraph.
4. This is baiting, your question is made to make a claim.
5. A traditionalist Catholic is the point of the summary. The definition has been offered.
6. You have not changed anything in the summary you proposed, in order to help reach consensus. One would expect there is some give and take among people working in good faith.

Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. How does the fact that it ties one type of traditionalist in with what you call "dissent from the Holy See" make it "inconsistent"?
2. Why wouldn't there be two definitions of the same term if there are two types of traditionalist Catholics (that is, since you insist that those Catholics who fit the first description actually are "traditionalist Catholics" even though they aren't generally referred to as such in the real world)?
3. The article was created to be about traditionalist Catholics of the second sense. Since you arrived on the scene and wanted to change the article's focus (i.e., turn it into a debate and a slam against traditional Catholics of the second sense), your definition has been included. It is found in the first paragraph. What is it about the people who fit your definition that isn't included in that first paragraph?
4. How is asking you to explain the meaning of ""One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required" "baiting" or "making a claim"? You still haven't explained the meaning of the "sentence."
5. You still haven't explained what sort of "traditionalist Catholic" is not included in my summary.
6. Why do you think I have not changed anything in the summary to reach consensus when I presented you with the original version which shows that it has, in fact, been changed? Used2BAnonymous 12:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. It ties two definitions into one term. The second term is not the correct definition of traditionalist.
2. There are more than two types of traditionalist. The two definitions attempt to define one term two different ways.
3. The article is not yet written. This is about summary. As far as the history, this is off topic. Where others tried to do the same thing that Lima and I did, there was a revert war, and those predecessors gave up. This is a serious weakness in wikipedia, the peer review is only as good as the rigor the group decides to use, and as a result many PoV groups can shut out smaller groups. I feel indebted to Lima and Pathos for sticking with this and putting up with the nonsense to get at the truth.
4. That is a simple question. With the inconsistancy of the summary you proposed, there is no point in referring to an unwritten article. The summary should stabnd alone.
5. The way the summary is composed, it excludes traditionalists who do not dissent with the teaching of the Holy See for a yet unwritten article. So indeed while a scrap is tossed to those who hold true to the concept of fidelity to Rome, the framing of the argument is flawed.
6. The changes you have made are minor ones. The first sentence are common to both, that almost suffices as a definition. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If Used2BAnonymous really wants an answer to it, would he please clarify his 10:39 question, which begins: "What other groups do you believe should be included ..." Included in what?

I hope the question, whatever it is, is relevant to what we are supposed to be discussing: DSL4 or DSU6. Otherwise it does not deserve an answer. I will respond to objections to DSL4 and to remarks clearly pertinent to my observations on the inadequacies of DSU6, which should have been withdrawn long since. And if Used2BAnonymous wants me to respond to a particular question, would he please use the name Lima, either in the third person or, at least, as a vocative accompanying "you". It is only because of what went before that I presume that the unclear 10:39 question is addressed to me. If Used2BAnonymous's questions concern an argument of his with Dominick - that is their affair, not mine.

I await from Used2BAnonymous some attempt to justify his ignoring the existence of the many people whose idea of traditionalist Catholics is the inclusive one: "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"; and not anything narrower. Closing his eyes to their existence does not really make them disappear.

Lima 13:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, it lists two definitions. The second definition is the one used "the immense majority of the time." Again, how is this "inconsistent"?
2. Yes, the two definitions define the single term two different ways because we are talking about two different things. Doesn't this make sense? And why is such a thing "redundant"?
3. The summary is supposed to introduce the article. In order to introduce it, you have to know what the article is about. The article is about traditionalist Catholics of the second definition. Why? To save you from having to scroll up to the post of 17:25, 2 November 2005, I will do what I've been doing for a month now and repeat myself: the article is about traditionalist Catholics of the second sense because: a) they are already FULLY described in the first paragraph, b) they are not generally referred to as traditionalists, c) they don't generally refer to themselves as traditionalists, d) people seeking information on "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about them, e) the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to describe B "the immense majority of the time," f) there is not a thing to say about them that isn't already said in the summary.
4. Given that the summary isn't "inconsistent," why else is "there is no point in referring to an unwritten article"? And, again, how is asking you to explain the meaning of "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required" "baiting" or "making a claim"?
5. How does the summary "exclude traditionalists who do not dissent with the teaching of the Holy See" when they are the topic of the very first paragraph?
6. I don't see the changes as "minor," but that you do admit to changes at all shows that you were wrong when you said I "not changed anything in the summary you proposed, in order to help reach consensus." Used2BAnonymous 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, re your question: "What other groups do you believe should be included ..." Included in what?" Answer: The summary.

Now, how am I "ignoring the existence of the many people whose idea of traditionalist Catholics is the inclusive one" when those Catholics are fully described in the first paragraph? Used2BAnonymous 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Answering the questions in the list pales to a real answer to Lima. Please post an answer that does not consist of a question. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 15:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Used2BAnonymous's 10:39 question: I want included in the summary all groups that fit under the definition given in the draft known as DSL4, including the Used2BAnonymous group.

In his 14:31 question, Used2BAnonymous presumably means by "the first paragraph" the first paragraph of DSU6 (he likes to imagine DSU6 as the only draft, closing his eyes to the evident existence of DSL4, which also has a first paragraph). Answer: Used2BAnonymous is ignoring the existence of people whose idea of traditionalist Catholics is the inclusive one, by insisting on a draft summary that makes no mention of that inclusive idea, and that presents instead an idea of traditionalist Catholics that links them exclusively with attendance at "traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures", blindness to any changes whatever in the presentation of Catholic teaching, and the taking of no issue with "the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents".

Will Used2BAnonymous now at last acknowledge the existence of the inclusive idea of what is a traditionalist Catholic by proposing a draft summary that includes it?

Lima 16:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick I did post an answer. You must have missed it. It's easy to see why, since it was posted as:

Answer: The summary

And not as:

Dominick, look HERE for ANSWER: The SUMMARY. Used2BAnonymous 16:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, what about this?:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Most Catholics of this sort try to attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in this entry—to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the Mass liturgy but who want to preserve all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

This should give you fun for days. Used2BAnonymous 16:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Dominick, I know you think that your answering questions I posed at 14:31, 3 November "pales to a real answer to Lima" (which I'd already given), but I still await answers from you. Who was that great theologian who said, "One would expect there is some give and take among people working in good faith"? Used2BAnonymous 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

At present the draft summaries under discussion are DSL4 and DSU6. I will not comment on an additional merely hypothetical text. If Used2BAnonymous wants to have his fun for days, let him first explicitly propose this new text as his draft for the summary. Otherwise, would he please talk to what is, at least at present, under discussion. How does he try to justify his persistent refusal to admit the factual existence of the inclusive understanding of "traditionalist Catholic"? He does not have to adopt that understanding himself; he need only admit that such an understanding of the term exists.

Lima 18:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "fun for days", the insertion of trash in the main article, use of language in change comments, and tactics answers the question about good faith. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, not only was there no "refusal to admit the factual existence of the inclusive understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" (to wit, "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s), but those Catholics were mentioned in the very first paragraph. Also mentioned was the fact that Catholics who fit that description and who don't have any problems with typical interpretations of Vatican II generally attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures, don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed, and take no issue with the typical interpretations of Vatican II document.

The next paragraph talked about the same sort of Catholic (to wit, "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s") and who do have problems with Vatican II. Also mentioned was the fact that this article focuses on them. For reasons why this is so, let me repeat myself as I did at 14:31, 3 November 2005 when I repeated what I'd posted at 17:25, 2 November. The reasons why the article doesn't focus on the Catholics of the first paragraph is because: a) they are already FULLY described in the first paragraph, b) they are not generally referred to as traditionalists, c) they don't generally refer to themselves as traditionalists, d) people seeking information on "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about them, e) the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to describe B "the immense majority of the time," f) there is not a thing to say about them that isn't already said in the summary.

As to, "If Used2BAnonymous wants to have his fun for days": first, I think you misunderstand: I wasn't attempting to give myself fun for days; I was only thinking of you. As to "let him first explicitly propose this new text as his draft for the summary": Consider the new text officially, truly, indubitably, and quite explicitly proposed. Used2BAnonymous 21:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, I think you're projecting again. If fact, I'm sure of it unless you're able to point out the trash inserted into the article by me (I can definitely point out -- and have pointed out out -- the trash you've inserted). However, maybe you should attempt to do this after you've answered the questions posed to you earlier, at 14:31, 3 November 2005. One does expect that there should be some give and take among people working in good faith. (BTW, who had "the question about good faith" anyway? I didn't. Was it you? Do you have other questions about good faith I can answer? We do "aims to please"!) Used2BAnonymous 21:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What I am seeing here is a debate from people who prefer the Latin Mass but have no problem with VII theology and other sacramental changes trying to "reclaim" the term Traditional Catholic. But the fact remains that the term "traditional Catholic" refers to people who want a full return to the faith and practice of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. Those who are active in anti-Traditional apologetics and like to use terms like "rad-trad" might call themselves traditional Catholics, but I doubt most other people who attend diocesan indults would. And in any case, DSU6 not only adequately covers both groups, but is the clearer paragraph. It covers the reality that some people who call themselves Traditional Catholics are people who would like to see the Latin Mass come back, but then directs you to what the majority of the Traditional movement believes, which is what is going to be covered in the article anyways, and what people would be looking for information on. Xylina12

Would Pathoschild please replace DSU6 with Used2BAnonymous's new text. Then I will comment on it. Lima 08:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous-type Catholics obviously do not oppose having the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Nor are Used2BAnonymous-type Catholics neutral on that question. Accordingly, the inclusive definition, "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s", covers Used2BAnonymous-type Catholics, as well as others.

In DSU7, Used2BAnonymous says "most Catholics of this sort" (namely, of those whom the inclusive definition fits) are people that his kind of traditionalists strongly disagree with: people who "generally attend Masses offered by indult ..." In other words, Used2BAnonymous now says that his kind of traditionalists are only a minority among traditionalists in the inclusive sense, exactly the opposite of what I thought he maintained hitherto. Did I misunderstand him in the past, or has he in fact changed his mind?

Lima 13:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, of course I wouldn't change my mind. After all, those who most commonly refer to themselves as traditionalist Catholics and who are, in fact, referred to by others as traditionalist Catholics, are "my kind of trad." The text needs to be clarified, e.g.:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Such Catholics who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in this entry—to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the Mass liturgy but who want to preserve all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as understood in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable. Used2BAnonymous 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A comment by Used2BAnonymous dated 14:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) has been archived because it was considered deliberate provocation with no relation to the discussion at hand. // Pathoschild 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see we're back to the "Meat Puppet" thing, Dominick! When do the cries of "Astroturfing!" begin again? This little blast from the past -- how long has it been? -- is giving me a serious case of the warm fuzzies. Yes indeederoody, I'm getting verklempt again... Wait, I'll give you a topic to talk about amongst yourselves: "traditionalist Catholics" -- they're neither traditional, nor Catholic. Discuss. Used2BAnonymous 14:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New users are not given full vote in the discussion. The possibility of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is thus entirely meaningless; whether by multiple users or a single, the result is precisely the same. As this is obviously a point of contention, please avoid provocative edit summaries or responses. // Pathoschild 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PAthos can we cleanup the personal attacks? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to be quite sure, but I think Used2BAnonymous has proposed yet another draft for Pathoschild to insert in place of DSU7. I will be quite busy for most of the rest of today, but I hope to look in at least once. Lima 14:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There will be no acceptable draft. We will chase a moving target forever. He doesn't exhibit any evidence of a good faith effort. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Before I leave, I think it would perhaps save Used2BAnonymous a further editing of his draft, if he would here and now clarify the expression "Such Catholics who have ..." If it means "Such Catholics as have ..." it belongs to the section about where traditionalist Catholics worship. If "Such Catholics" refers to those mentioned in the first sentence, the "who", I think, is out of place. Lima 14:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I find DSU8 to be clear, concise, and most importantly, accurate. This does not have to be "chasing a moving target". At the end of the day, all that matters is whether or not the article accurately defines traditional Catholics. JLeigh

Used2BAnonymous, Dominick and sedevacantists have in common the fact of being "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s." So "traditional Catholic" is a term that can be and is used by some to refer simply to all of them, without making distinctions.

It is false therefore to say of "such Catholics" that they "have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents", that they "don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed", and that they "attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures." Some of them do have qualms, some of them see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having undergone more than just a change, and some of them object strongly to the so-called indult Masses.

This logical fault should surely be obvious even to Used2BAnonymous, who, before he began to add to the single simple sentence that once formed the whole of the first paragraph of his drafts, used to present draft summaries of a less clearly provocative character with fewer logical faults.

Lima 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section of DSU8 is very ackward: "Such Catholics who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures." However, DSU8, while not as good as DSU6, is still a better representation of what the Traditional Catholic movement actually is. DSU4 takes the emphasis off what the Traditional movement is about- a full restoration of the faith and practice of the pre-VII church- and puts on the liturgical preferences of some. Since DSU6 and 8 both cover what DSU4 is trying to say while emphasizing what the article is covering and where the majority of people who call themselves Traditional Catholics are, I fail to see what the problem is.

Proposal of Operation Cuttlefish

It is meant to be read in the most obvious way:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Such Catholics (i.e., Catholics such as these) who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

But if you think it isn't clear, then what is in the parentheses above can be taken out of the parentheses. I would rewrite the second paragraph to more explicitly include mention of "worship and customs." I would also change the "to before the reforms" since it sounds stupid. I'd beef things up, too, just for clarity's sake. The entire thing put together would be:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used -- and are used in this entry -- to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Instead of referring to this one as DSU-something or other, I prefer to call it "Operation Cuttlefish." And now, being of sound mind and disposing memory, I do here solemnly and explicitly propose Operation Cuttlefish for the consideration of all parties concerned. Thank you so much, and goodnight. Used2BAnonymous 10:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hesitations about calling this latest Used2BAnonymous text DSU9 should be eliminated when it is recalled that a different (short) name was proposed for what Pathoschild decided to call DSL4. Lima 17:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But my plan would pit "Lima" against "the Cuttlefish" -- a scenario that recalls the bad Japanese sci-fi movies of my youth and would raise this endless "back-and-forth" from the depths of ennui to the thrilling heights of Ishiro Honda's best! Please reconsider. Used2BAnonymous 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this is a ridiculous game. I am ready for the mediation board. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Lighten up, Dominick. It's called humor. Used2BAnonymous 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

Used2BAnonymous should long ago have realized that he cannot pass off as identical with a single group that he dislikes a group that is instead defined as including himself and Dominick, sedevacantists and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, who all "would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s."

The "Catholics such as these ..." sentence concerns either all those covered in the preceding sentence (Used2BAnonymous, Dominick, sedevacantists ...) or it concerns only some of them. If it concerns them all, it continues to be the falsehood already made plain. If it concerns only some of them and – as is the case here – is not followed by a statement about the rest of the group identified in the first sentence, it indicates as what is meant by "traditionalist Catholics" a distinct more limited group requiring a definition distinct from that in the first sentence, and calling for a separate paragraph.

I hoped that, in view of the manifest impossibility of making two contradictory things identical, Used2BAnonymous would by now have returned to presenting a first paragraph containing only the first sentence or a variation of it. If he continues at his Sisyphean task, I may have to ask Pathoschild for a ruling on whether, even apart from its lack of logic, a summary with expressions that seem intended to provoke, like "Catholics such as these who have no qualms about ...", meets Wikipedia standards.

(Used2BAnonymous's change from "to before" to "to those in existence before" is a decided improvement. Like the constant changes over the years and centuries in the official presentation of Catholic teaching, it is a praiseworthy change in presentation that is not a change in substance.)

Lima 13:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The new version U2BA is even worse IMHO. I would like a ruling and a resolution, now. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are TWO groups of Catholics who want to see the practices of the Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s: A: those who have no issues with Vatican II, etc., and B: those who do. The article is about B. This isn't rocket science. Used2BAnonymous 13:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is about A and B. Claiming to remove a group from a definition is PoV pushing. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is about B. Devition of POV, Dominick, is changing terms to mean what they don't, cutting out traditionalists you don't like -- e.g., "Feeneyites," etc. You are vandalizing this page to exclude people you don't like. Now STOP. You don't like the present summary? You had THREE days to comment. Used2BAnonymous 13:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No I am afraid this is about the class as a whole. You are welcome to contribute to this article, but you are not welcome to remove all references to the Catholics who attend Mass from the 1962 Missal, and reject dissent. The summary shall reflect A and B traditionalists, and include all groups. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the FIRST PARAGRAPH about, Dominick? Tse-tse flies? Oh, I know: "personal attack, personal attack!" I know your game. Pester, annoy, and act like a fool until people get frustrated with you, and then run off to Daddy to slap them around.

Now, what "class" are you talking about? Used2BAnonymous 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The group of traditionalists as a whole. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer the other question, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 14:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is about "Catholics who attend Mass from the 1962 Missal, and reject dissent." If you have something more to say about them, you should add it there. What is so hard about that? Malachias111 14:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• What is the FIRST PARAGRAPH about, Dominick? A poorly written paragraph what lumped all traditionalists into the incorrect mold.
• Tse-tse flies? No.

You all have unfairly limited my ability to make any edits at all. SO what "Malachias" says is not possible. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A paragraph that lumps all traditionalists into the incorrect mold? How can this be when there's paragraph B? Looks to me as though the summary says that all traditionalists have one thing in common: they are "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." Do you know of any traditionalist relevant to this article that isn't covered by that?

Then it goes on to divide those traditionalists into two groups: those who have issues with Vatican II, and those who don't. Is there another grouping that is being left out?

What you are trying to do is what I've said you've been trying to do from the beginning: you are trying to morph this article into a debate about traditionalists, first by forcing the inclusion of the Catholics mentioned in the first paragraph (Catholics who, is has been proven to you, do not usually go by the term "traditionalist Catholic"), and then by excluding other traditionalists you don't like (sedevacantists, "Feeneyites," etc.), and then wanting to argue throughout the whole thing. Now stop.

What Malachias111 proposes isn't "impossible"; but it won't be put up with if you revert first and then play with the first paragraph such that the entire entry is your rant against those you deem "militants" who aren't "official Catholics." Used2BAnonymous 14:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I never reverted first. I edited what I found. The Insults have be removed from the article. Including Feenyites is not a good idea, since they are not mentioned. The Intro is a topic of debate, you reverted three times exactly, them Malachias reverted three times exactly, now JLeigh is reverting. There is no correction of the edits going on, it is a mass revert in each case. I am editing and making distinct edits, this is not an edit war, since I am trying to make them palitable to you. The problem is that if I make the edits you will revert them. There is no rant added, I am removing the PoV insults with the name calling, and am being prevented by you and your friends. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You lie. Again. You reverted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&diff=27717859&oldid=27706951

"Feeneyites" are not mentioned because you removed them! They belong in the article as "type B" trads ("type B" referring to the second paragraph of the summary).

Your edits are designed to change the entire focus of the artice from traditionalist Catholics to people you insist are traditionalists even though they are rarely referred to as such; to exclude Catholics you don't like; and to turn the entire article into a debate. The "name-calling" you refer to is a simple recounting of what traditionalists call non-trads, and what non-trads call traditionalists. None is presented as fact. Used2BAnonymous 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many ways of dividing traditionalists into two groups. For instance, A: those who have no issues with recognizing Benedict XVI as Pope, and B: those who do. Whatever division is chosen, a single narrower exclusive definition, such as that in the DSU9 second paragraph, is enough to distinguish A from B, but only within the framework of a clear inclusive definition that covers A and B together, and that therefore cannot be identified with either A or B.

DSU9 lacks this clear inclusive definition, since what might seem to be such a definition (its first sentence) is made unclear by what is added to it within the same paragraph.

(Asides. To Dominick: Please be patient. To Used2BAnonymous: Thanks for the presentation of belief example.)

Lima 14:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue whatsoever as to what you are trying to say. Why not give examples as opposed to Siskel and Eberting me to death?

It seems to me that the most obvious way is to make the division between those who think the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents are problematic and who take issue with them, and those who don't. In the first category are those who recognize the Pope, and those who don't. Easy.

What covers both A and B is the simple fact that they "would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." Do you honestly believe that someone would be confused by the Operation Cuttlefish/DSU9 summary? What kind of people do you think use this encyclopedia anyway? Do you think they are they able to feed themselves or should we perhaps call in the Sisters of Mercy?

I truly don't get why this is so problematic. Who is left out? What is not said about Type A that needs to be said? What is so incredibly confusing about saying "Catholics such as these"? If you don't like "Catholics such as these," what would you recommend? Used2BAnonymous 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Many think the most obvious way to make the division is between those who think the Popes responsible for the 1960s and later changes were heretics and those who don't.)

Just above, Used2BAnonymous admits the "simple fact" of the inclusive definition of "traditionalist Catholic". Why cannot he state that simple fact in a simple one-sentence paragraph of his draft summary? Instead, he persists in confusing the "simple fact" by insistently tacking on to it his picture of his group A.

After giving the simple inclusive definition, he could then, separately, draw whatever distinction he wished between a group A and a group B of his own choosing. (It would obviously be more logical to place first the group that fits his narrower exclusive definition, and mention later, if at all, the other group, of which all that can be said is that it does not fit the exclusive definition.)

Lima 17:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Dominick keeps insisting -- in spite of the evidence that I've provided here on these Talk Pages (about 1,000 times) -- that "traditionalist Catholic" refers to Catholics who don't care about the typical interpretations of Vatican II. The only reason these non-traditionalist Catholics are included at all is because he is here insisting on it. So they have their paragraph. The entry, though, is about traditionalist Catholics -- that is, people as described in the second paragraph, people who actually refer to themselves as tradititionalists and are referred to as traditionalists in real life. They're the people Dominick loves to hate, the people he calls "militants" and not "official Catholics." There is a difference between them and him. The article can't be about both any more than an article can be about both about Jews who practice Judaism, and Christians who think they're "Jews," too. They are opposites but for that one commonality: the desire to see the practices and customs as they "were before the reforms of the 1960s." This article was written to be about traditionalists of the second paragraph (those who refer to themselves as trads and are referred to as trads in real life). In fact, not only was the entry created to be about them, it has been about them for years now. Pretending the article is about any person who likes the traditional Mass will lead to a confusing, confused, argumentantive debate-filled Dominick rant in which the Catholics he hates are referred to as "schismatics," "Feeneyites," "militant traditionalists," and not even "official Catholics" -- if they're lucky enough to not be excised altogether, such as is the sad fate of Dominick's "Feeneyites." Everything that needs to be said about Dominick-type "traditionalists" is included in the first paragraph. I ask again: what needs to be said about them that is not already there? No, "unexplained" isn't the case. I've explained it above. And have explained it this way for weeks now. I could do it again in ten minutes, though, if it'd help. Used2BAnonymous 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I object to the terms used, and to U2BA description of my motives. I said this needs to handle everyone in the traditionalist camp, we excides the CCPA and Feeneyites before this dispute. Judging motives and divining outcomes is not fruitful. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Pick a side: you say it needs to "handle" everyone in the traditionalist camp (as if you're in it, BTW), and then want to "excide" the Feeneyites. I am not "judging" your motives; I am describing them; they are quite clear. Used2BAnonymous 18:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't use my name to describe a class of traditionalists. You used the term traditionalists, so now I assume you agree they should be included? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They are included, . Remember the first paragraph? And why can't people be described as "Dominick traditionalists" if you get to call people "Feeneyites"?Used2BAnonymous 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Summed up by: Yet Used2BAnonymous seems to have some unexplained conscientious objection to so simple an operation. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So, it took a little longer than 10 minutes for me to be asked to repeat myself since I've been accused, once again, of not explaining my objection. Here goes!:

The only reason these non-traditionalist Catholics are included at all is because he is here insisting on it. So they have their paragraph. The entry, though, is about traditionalist Catholics -- that is, people as described in the second paragraph, people who actually refer to themselves as tradititionalists and are referred to as traditionalists in real life. They're the people Dominick loves to hate, the people he calls "militants" and not "official Catholics." There is a difference between them and him. The article can't be about both any more than an article can be about both about Jews who practice Judaism, and Christians who think they're "Jews," too. They are opposites but for that one commonality: the desire to see the practices and customs as they "were before the reforms of the 1960s." This article was written to be about traditionalists of the second paragraph (those who refer to themselves as trads and are referred to as trads in real life). In fact, not only was the entry created to be about them, it has been about them for years now. Pretending the article is about any person who likes the traditional Mass will lead to a confusing, confused, argumentantive debate-filled Dominick rant in which the Catholics he hates are referred to as "schismatics," "Feeneyites," "militant traditionalists," and not even "official Catholics" -- if they're lucky enough to not be excised altogether, such as is the sad fate of Dominick's "Feeneyites." Everything that needs to be said about Dominick-type "traditionalists" is included in the first paragraph. I ask again: what needs to be said about them that is not already there? No, "unexplained" isn't the case. I've explained it above. And have explained it this way for weeks now. I could do it again in ten minutes, though, if it'd help.

Let me know if you need to read it again in a few minutes. Used2BAnonymous 19:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You danced all around what Lima asked. I am not asking to add non-traditionalists Catholics, I am saying we have to include all traditionalists. Your exclusion of those who stand for everything anyone else in the Traditionalist movement, except the tactics of dissent is spurious. There is no good dividing line except fidelity to Catholic Tradition of actual obedience and not lip service. There are a lot of SSPX people making the same sort of accusations I do. Big mistakes are being made in fidelity to Rome, and the "resistance" movement you seem to espose is doing more harm than good in getting things changed. The article right now reflects only one PoV, to be NPoV it must express the PoV of all traditionalists. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In what manner was Lima's question not addressed? EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

And try speaking English. Sentences such as, "Your exclusion of those who stand for everything anyone else in the Traditionalist movement, except the tactics of dissent is spurious" make absolutely no sense whatsoever, but you are quite fond of them (your mystifying and yet unexplained "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required" is still my favorite, though. Thanks for that; I will treasure it always.)

I do not wish to discourse with you about "fidelity to Rome," "obedience," and such things as that until you have read and at least seem to understand papal encyclicals written before 1965, and have done the same with the writings of Aquinas. And I most likely wouldn't want to do so even after that, especially if you still write sentences such as the ones above. In any case, there's no point in talking about "fidelity to Catholic tradition" with someone who thinks "tradition" started after John XXIII's little epiphany to thrown open the window so the decade of the 1960s could shed its glorious light inside those awful, musty halls of the Vatican.

The article doesn't reflect only one "POV; your so-called "traditionalist Catholics" are listed FIRST. Again, is there something about these "traditionalists" -- these "traditional Catholics" who think Catholics have always, traditionally prayed in synagogues and worshipped the Muslim Allah -- that needs to be said that already isn't said? That is the golden question that no one ever seems to answer. Used2BAnonymous 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is English. You can't separate Catholics on your whim. Everything you provided to say who is and who is not a traditionalist are poor standards we can't apply universally. I don't think you read any encyclicals if the english I use escapes you. You seem to know what I think, and unless you have some mind reading power I am not aware of, this isn't true. Your statement is a bluff, as I don't think you could debate this clearly, without calling names, because as you get out of your intellectual depth, thats what you seem to do. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 20:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What traditionalists (or "traditionalists") are not included but should be included? EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

What statement of mine is a "bluff"? That I wouldn't want to discuss "fidelity to Rome," "fidelity to tradition," and "obedience" with you? That's no bluff; that is fact. Used2BAnonymous 20:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima said it better than I could:

Used2BAnonymous should long ago have realized that he cannot pass off as identical with a single group that he dislikes a group that is instead defined as including himself and Dominick, sedevacantists and the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, who all "would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." The "Catholics such as these ..." sentence concerns either all those covered in the preceding sentence (Used2BAnonymous, Dominick, sedevacantists ...) or it concerns only some of them. If it concerns them all, it continues to be the falsehood already made plain. If it concerns only some of them and – as is the case here – is not followed by a statement about the rest of the group identified in the first sentence, it indicates as what is meant by "traditionalist Catholics" a distinct more limited group requiring a definition distinct from that in the first sentence, and calling for a separate paragraph. I hoped that, in view of the manifest impossibility of making two contradictory things identical, Used2BAnonymous would by now have returned to presenting a first paragraph containing only the first sentence or a variation of it. If he continues at his Sisyphean task, I may have to ask Pathoschild for a ruling on whether, even apart from its lack of logic, a summary with expressions that seem intended to provoke, like "Catholics such as these who have no qualms about ...", meets Wikipedia standards.

Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The only reason traditionalist Catholics in the inclusive sense are (or at least ought to be) included is that the inclusive sense is in fact used. The entry is about traditionalist Catholics - not about any subsection of traditionalist Catholics, such as Used2BAnonymous traditionalists or sedevacantist traditionalists, for inclusive-sense traditionalists are in fact referred to as traditionalists in real life. No matter how much Used2BAnonymous wants to ignore those traditionalist Catholics who are not Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, they do exist. An article on "traditionalist Catholics" can be about only one subset of traditionalist Catholics, no more than an article on "Jews" can be about Orthodox Jews only.. Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed and atheistic Jews are opposites in many ways, but have the one commonality of being Jews. It would be monstrous if some Orthodox Jews were to say: "This article was written to be about Jews in the sense of Orthodox Jews. Pretending the article is about any person who is merely part of the Jewish people will lead to a confusing, confused, argumentative debate-filled rant. Everything that needs to be said about non-Orthodox Jews can be said in a first paragraph, describing them simply as non-Orthodox Jews, and insistently sidestepping any suggestion that an inclusive definition of what is a Jew could exist."

Lima 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, those "traditionalist Catholics" are INCLUDED. They are mentioned FIRST, in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH. What about them needs to be said that isn't already said? I would almost pay one of you two money if you'd answer that question.

As to your Jewish example, it would be equally monstrous if a Muslim were to show up and insist an article on Jews included him.

Now, Dominick: as I said to Lima in response: "There are TWO groups of Catholics who want to see the practices of the Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s: A: those who have no issues with Vatican II, etc., and B: those who do. The article is about B. This isn't rocket science."

The use of "Catholics such as these" when followed by a WHO, which happens in my summary, isn't confusing to those who read books. Mybe he wants an "AND" in front of the "who," whatever, but there is no reason in the world to make that summary out to be confusing when it is as clear as it could possibly be.

Is this confusing to you, Dominick?:

"Biggus Cattus" is a name used by some to describe cats who are simply larger than normal. Cats such as these that weigh less than 20 pounds are known as "cats grande."

The term "Biggus Cattus" is more often used to describe cats who are not just larger than "normal," but who weigh more than 20 pounds. This entry is about them.

Quit playing around, Dominick. Don't pretend you can't follow that cat summary.

Now tell me: have "Cats grande" been left out of the summary? Have they been "excluded"? Used2BAnonymous 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima made it clear, it is af the article on Jews was hijacked by a gang of Hasidim, who prevented any other Jew from editing it. Traditionalists attending an indult are included. It is just we don't buy into the dissent. Claiming that traditionalists who maintain fidelity to Rome are not to be included is capricious. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What is paragraph one about? What needs to be said about such people that isn't already said? Used2BAnonymous 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And who's "hijacking" what? This article was here for years and was never about people who simply like the trad Mass but think Catholics praying in synagogues is kosher. Not until you showed up. Used2BAnonymous 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S. You say traditionalists attending an indult are included." Yes, they are. They are included already. See Places of Worship 1.1 which talks about trads who attend chapels of:

Priests who offer the traditional Mass by indult (with the permission of their local Bishop) in ordinary parishes within the ordinary diocesan structures (i.e., at regular Catholic parishes). The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, or "F.S.S.P.", is the largest priestly fraternity offering traditional Masses by indult. Used2BAnonymous 07:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Lima, those "traditionalist Catholics Jews" are INCLUDED. They are mentioned FIRST, in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH (of the Hasidim version of the article "Jews"). What about them needs to be said that isn't already said (i.e. that they are non-Orthodox Jews)? I would almost pay one of you two money if you'd answer that question.

As to your Jewish Traditionalist Catholic example, it would be equally monstrous if a Muslim Protestant were to show up and insist an article on Jews Traditionalist Catholics included him.

2. "Biggus Cattus" is a name used by some to describe cats who are simply larger than normal. Cats such as these that weigh less than 20 pounds are known as "cats grande" have no qualms about living in houses, that do not see the position of the sun as having changed from morning to afternoon, eat cat food.

The term "Biggus Cattus" is more often used to describe cats who are not just larger than "normal," but who weigh more than 20 pounds prefer to live in the wild, who spit at humans who approach them, and who behave in a manner that cats not larger than normal find objectionable. This entry is about them (and, to cover up the simple fact that the term "Biggus Cattus" really just describes cats that are larger than normal, it will insist that any such description be closely associated with a description of larger than normal cats that have no qualms about living in houses etc.)

Such is Used2BAnonymous logic.

Lima 09:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been proved to you that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used in the real world to describe Catholics of Type B. You have said that this is true the immense majority of the time.

Now, answer the questions: are "traditionalists" of Dominick's definition left out? What needs to be said about them that isn't said in the first paragraph? Used2BAnonymous 09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. to keep your analogy straight, the "cats grande" also find objectionable the actions of those who, the immense majority of the time, are referred to as "Biggus Cattus" -- even as the "cats grande" are not referred to as "Biggus Cattus" by most. Used2BAnonymous 09:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The thesis of your summary is faulty. "Traditionalists are A and B. We are only going to talk about B." This approach leaves half the definition undone. If traditionalists are A and B, then the article will be about A and B. Nobody in the Church at all have defined what constitutes a traditionalist; on the contrary, the Church tells us NOT to make these distinctions.AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM (1914) num. 24 We make this article to explain the tendacy, you commit the error in trying to raise it to the level of a dogma and an exclusive club. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, traditionalists are A. There are two types: B and C. B is covered FULLY in the first paragraph (if you think they are not fully covered, then explain what needs to be said about them that isn't said about them, as I've asked you to do 1,364 times now). C is covered in the rest of the entry.

No one "in the Church" has to define "what constitutes a traditionalist." This isn't a catechism; it is a Wiki entry. Used2BAnonymous 13:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, all that is to be said can't be said in the summary, by definition, it is a summary. A summary makes an overview statement. We are editing the summary. I would love to resolve this. Lima and I had both asked for a Summary that covers all under your A heading. Then we can move on. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again (take 1,365), what needs to be said that isn't said? Used2BAnonymous 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It has also been proved that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used in the real world to describe a wider class of Catholics, not limited to Type B. When thus used, the term no more distinguishes between Type A and Type B traditionalists, than the term, when used in the Used2BAnonymous sense, distinguishes between sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist traditionalists. Only when used in the Used2BAnonymous sense does the term distinguish between Type A (i.e. non-B) and Type B. But the first paragraph is supposed to be about the inclusive sense, the second about the Used2BAnonymous sense.

What is omitted is a clear admission of the fact that there exists an understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" as encompassing jointly Types A and B. This is one understanding that does exist. There exists an alternative understanding (Type B's self-understanding) of "traditionalist Catholic" as encompassing only Type B. There exists no understanding whatever of "traditionalist Catholic" as encompassing only Type A, and such an imaginary understanding is therefore out of place in a discussion of actual understandings of the term "traditionalist Catholic".

Nothing in DSU9 corresponds to the phrase in Used2BAnonymous's analogy: "Cats such as these that weigh less than 20 pounds are known as 'cats grande'." What DSU9 actually has is a phrase corresponding to "that have no qualms about living in houses, that do not see the position of the sun as having changed from morning to afternoon, eat cat food." As it stands, DSU9 attempts to hide the existence of the clear inclusive understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" by confusing it with a non-existent notion of "traditionalist Catholic" as limited to those who are not Type B. The above variant on Used2BAnonymous's analogy was formulated (in both paragraphs) to adhere much more closely than the original analogy to DSU9 and thus to show up more clearly the curious logic in DSU9.

Lima 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Still no answers? Used2BAnonymous 14:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are asking a question to avoid "answering the mail" on Lima's and my objections. The summary must include A and B traditionalist Catholics. Your fantasy that we don't answer your question has no purpose except to block consensus. I think a lot more can be said, and a lot more things done to make the article define traditionalists, and not only a type B traditionalist. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Are "traditionalists" of Dominick's definition left out?" They are. Dominick's definition is the inclusive one, without distinctions between B and non-B, sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist, etc. Dominick's definition is not presented in either paragraph of DSU9, both of which presume the Used2BAnonymous definition. "What needs to be said about them that isn't said in the first paragraph?" That they, inclusive-sense traditionalist Catholics, as understood by Dominick (cf. DSL4) exist. Lima 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, the summary does include A and B traditionalists. If you had answered my questions elsewhere, then point those answers out to me. If a "lot more can be said," then list what needs to be said that isn't, as I've asked you to do 1,365 times already and now ask for the 1,376th time. (BTW, how come you get to talk about my alleged motives, but I can't talk about yours without it being a "personal attack"?) Used2BAnonymous 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I am not sure how Dominick's definition -- ""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" -- isn't used in my summary when the first paragraph reads: " Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. " Is it that the phrase "general body" isn't used? If so, I object to that phrase because it makes no ecclesiological sense.

And since the summary is part of the entry, and since you two are claiming that because Dominick-style "traditionalist Catholics" aren't included in "the entry" because they are mentioned in the summary only, and also because you complain that the article doesn't explicity say that Dominick-style "traditionalists" exist (even though it is written in such a way that presumes their existence), I propose now:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures. These Catholics exist.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable. Used2BAnonymous 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The DSU10 first paragraph, which Used2BAnonymous claims presents Dominick's definition, still does not do so. After the first sentence it goes on to limit Dominick's definition to a particular group out of all those that Dominick's definition covers. The group DSU10 chooses to cover is: non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalist Catholics (thus making the first paragraph refer also to the quite different definition given in the second paragraph). The limiting effect would be the same, if DSU10 chose the group: sedevacantist traditionalist Catholics. Or if DSU10 chose: non-conclavist traditionalist Catholics. Or if DSU10 chose any other group whatever.

Is Dominick's definition covered in the following text? Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about Popes who are heretics and who do not see it necessary to select in their place someone who is true to the Catholic faith recognize Benedict XVI as Pope. These Catholics exist.

Or in the following? Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have dark hair and are over six feet tall are likeable people. These Catholics exist.

Dominick's definition covers all "those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s", not just some of them.

Lima 05:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick doesn't get to exclude the people he hates, he doesn't get to change the entire focus of the article, he doesn't get to turn the entry into a debate, and he doesn't get to libel other Catholics. There are two types of Catholics in question, as your side has said. I believe the words your side used was that the two types were "totally different things." The first type is covered in full in the first paragraph, which defines Dominick-style "traditionalist Catholics":

"Traditional Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

I have no idea whether all or most of these have dark hair and are over six feet tall as I've not seen Dominick, Stephen Hand, or the guy who wrote the Phatmass page, but if these three do have dark hair and are over six feet tall, and if you drop the "likeable," either definition would cover Dominick-style "traditionalist Catholics." Used2BAnonymous 07:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't say that this person is acting is good faith. I never said or tried to do any of these things. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you have and you do --

• excluding people you hate: Your removal of mention of "Feeneyites" and your attempted removal of mention of sedevacantists
• changing the entire focus of the article: Your moving traditionalist beliefs down into the "relations with other Catholics" section, which makes no sense whatsoever unless you are trying to minimalize traditionalists' beliefs (real trads, that is, not Stephen Hand, et. al.) and change the focus of that entire section -- said section being the most important one
• turning the entry into a debate: ditto above + fighting words
• libeling other Catholics: your calling traditionalist Catholics "militant," your saying they are not "official Catholics," your putting them outside the Church with language such as "they don't agree with the 'general body' of the Catholic Church," etc.Used2BAnonymous 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to say to you not related to the current section we are working on. Your characterizations are tiresome, and I prefer to eat ground glass than engage in a little war with you over what I had done or said. Your personal hatred for me has blinded you to reality. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As always when you have no real response, you turn my post into a "personal attack." Instead of ground glass, though, have a bowl of Frosted Flakes; they're not only grrrrrrrrreat, they're much easier to digest. Used2BAnonymous 13:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Most posts are a personal attack from you. Again this is not about summary. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has claimed that Dominick's definition of "traditional Catholic" is presented in DSU10. Used2BAnonymous should have a very clear idea whether all of those whom Dominick considers to be traditionalist Catholics have dark hair or are over six feet tall. It is obvious that, though they are all covered by Dominick's definition, not all of them have dark hair and are over six feet tall. And it is self-contradictory to limit Dominick's definition to people thus described. Just as it is self-contradictory to limit Dominick's definition to non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, as the first paragraph of DSU10 does. I repeat: Dominick's definition covers all "Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s", not just some of them. For instance, not just those of them who "have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed." As it stands, the DSU10 first paragraph is about something other than Dominick's definition. Where then is Dominick's definition presented in DSU10? Lima 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And I repeat: we are talking about two different types of Catholics who have to be differentiated from one another. Unless Dominick wants people to believe that his beliefs are those outlined in the section "Traditionalist beliefs," he'd better go along with a version that talks about the TWO different types of Catholics. Used2BAnonymous 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more than two different kinds of traditional Catholics. The beliefs section does not cover all traditional Catholics. It fails to cover universally the beliefs of the FSSP, ICK, all sedes, and many other non-U2BA catholics. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more than those who have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II and those who don't? Are you referring to those who perhaps have never heard of Vatican II? Used2BAnonymous 16:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has not this time repeated what he previously said, that Dominick's definition (cf. DSL4) is presented in DSU10. Has he withdraw that claim? If not, would he explain: Where is Dominick's definition presented in DSU10? Lima 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't I who came up with defining "traditionalist Catholics" as those "who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." You can see that in TWO paragraphs. What, does he want to repeat it all throughout? Used2BAnonymous 16:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind who came up with what idea. Does DSU10 present the inclusive definition of "Traditionalist Catholic" (that in DSL4, Dominick's and mine), or does it not? What DSU10 presents seems to be two "definitions", one in each paragraph, neither of which is the inclusive definition. Yet the understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" that is represented by the inclusive definition does exist. Lima 19:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are asking if Dominick's definition is left unqualified in either paragraph, then NO. Why do you think it should be? We are speaking of TWO DIFFERENT TYPES of Catholics here. The unqualified "inclusive" definition is worthless and would force having to clarify allllllllllllllllll throughout the article which sort of "traditionalist Catholic" is being referred to each time the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" is used. All that needs to be said about Dominick-style "traditionalist Catholics" (all three of them) is already covered in the first paragraph. If there is something that isn't covered, then tell me what it is. I've only asked a million times now. Used2BAnonymous 19:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What we are asking in the summary is what distinguishes a traditionalist Catholic from the rest of mankind, not what distinguishes one traditionalist from another. Used2BAnonymous has his idea of what makes a traditionalist Catholic (DSU10, paragraph 2). There does exist a different idea of what makes a traditionalist Catholic, which is not given in DSU10, paragraph 1. An objective article will acknowledge the fact of the existence of that other understanding of what is a traditionalist Catholic. DSU10 does not. It censors it. DSU10 is thus a point-of-view draft, not an objective one. Lima 20:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The summary says what separates traditionalist Catholics from other Catholics; they are those Catholics who want to roll back the reforms to what they were before the 60s or however it is put. This is not hard to figure out. Both subsets -- those described in each paragraph - have that in common. What IS the problem? Used2BAnonymous 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Used2BAnonymous mean what he has just said. Does he really accept that what separates traditionalist Catholics from other Catholics is they want to roll back the reforms to what they were before the 1960s? If he does, we have our agreed definition of "traditional Catholic", which would run something like this: By "traditionalist Catholic" is meant a Roman Catholic who wants to roll back the reforms that the Roman Catholic Church introduced in the 1960s.

After this single agreed definition is given, one or more other paragraphs could be added to speak about subsets of traditionalist Catholics. And then we have our agreed summary.

I should be in bed by now. I just wonder if I am in bed, and dreaming. In any case, when I wake up tomorrow, I will see whether the problem of Used2BAnonymous's apparent refusal to accept just such a definition has really disappeared.

Lima 21:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only do I accept such a definition, I use it TWICE in my summary! What took you so long to figure it out? What was the tell-tale clue that finally made it "click" for you? Used2BAnonymous 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You used it once then you contridicted it in the second paragraph. Lima's proposal is acceptable. Lima, please pen that up when you wake up. I should be on late, tomorrow is Veterans day. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, unless you can tell me how wanting to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, taking issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, seeeing the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and seeking to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable contradicts wanting to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, I will have to conclude you are wrong.

There are two types of Catholics in question: "traditionalists" who have no issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and traditionalists who do. Or is there one of these you think should be left out? Used2BAnonymous 00:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As expected, Used2BAnonymous did not mean it, when he said that the definition of "traditionalist Catholic" (what distinguishes a traditionalist Catholic from everybody else) is "a Catholic who wants to roll back the reforms to what they were before the 1960s."

He says he uses this definition TWICE in DSU10. Note the word "uses". He does not and cannot say his draft summary presents this definition. If DSU10 "uses" this definition, it does so only to negate it.

DSU10 consists of two paragraphs. The second says: The definition Used2BAnonymous formulated at 20:39, 10 November 2005 is not really a definition of "traditionalist Catholic"; it takes more than that to make a traditionalist Catholic; to be a traditionalist Catholic, you must also be one of those who "want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue ..." The first DSU10 paragraph describes traditionalist Catholics as people who "have no qualms ..."; this paragraph too refuses to let the 20:39, 10 November 2005 definition pass without qualification.

If Used2BAnonymous logic were normal logic, his draft summary would state the definition, perhaps as: "By "traditionalist Catholic" is meant a Roman Catholic who wants to roll back the reforms that the Roman Catholic Church introduced in the 1960s." It would then pass on to the separate question of subdivisions of traditionalist Catholics, by starting a new paragraph with something like: "Traditionalist Catholics can be divided into the following subsets: ..."

Unfortunately, Used2BAnonymous logic is not normal logic.

Lima 05:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to explain the fallacies since your summary says "Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong" Used2BAnonymous 07:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Another advance by Used2BAnonymous: admitting that there are fallacies in DSU10. It is up to the author of DSU10 to explain them.

Unlike DSU10, DSL4 presents, in its first paragraph, US2BAnonymous's understanding, as expressed at 20:39, 10 November 2005, of what is a traditionalist Catholic, an understanding that, as he rightly said, "is not hard to figure out." Then, in a separate paragraph, DSL says that a subset of traditionalist Catholics have a particular opinion about the changes that have taken place in the presentation and understanding of the Church's teaching, and that some hold (or at least held until 20:39, 10 November 2005) that the true definition of traditional Catholic is narrower than the one that is not hard to figure out. All of this is (or at least was) verifiable fact.

Would the author of DSU10 now either explain the fallacies in DSU10 or remove them.

Lima 09:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, what I've said since I got here this time around is that there are TWO DEFINITIONS BEING USED, there are TWO TYPES of Catholics concerned: Dominick-style "traditionalists" (who aren't usually referred to as "traditionalists" in the real world, as Google search returns have shown), and traditionalists who have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II. That you know these two types exist is clear in that you have said that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used to describe the latter type the immense majority of the time. You have also said (or Dominick has said, or perhaps it was Limanick who said) that we ARE speaking of two totally different things. The latter type does not consider Dominick-style "traditionalists" to be traditionalist at all, and as just said, the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used the immense majority of the time to refer to the latter type Catholic. The entry is about them, was created to be about them, and has been about them for a few years now. All that needs to be said about the former type of Catholic is said or can be said in the first paragraph. I have asked you two to tell me what needs to be said about them that isn't already said and have never gotten an answer.

There is absolutely no fallacy in "DSU10" whatosoever and you know it. Describing "traditionalist Catholics" ONLY as those who want to "roll back the changes of the 60s" or whatever because such is the only thing those two types have in common in such a way that it distinguishes them from other Catholics is not accurate. It does not mean that that commonality leads the latter type of Catholic, the writers of websites that show up in the Google search returns, or the Wiki seeker of information on "traditionalist Catholics" to think that a traditionalist Catholic is only, merely, or simply, some guy who likes the traditional Mass. You are trying to force your definition -- one that, unlike mine, is not used the immense majority of the time --- on everyone, and doing so would make the entire entry extremely sloppy. It would require having to explain which "traditionalist Catholic" is being referred to each time the phrase is used. There is no reason for it. Used2BAnonymous 09:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The inclusive not-hard-to-figure-out definition of "traditionalist Catholic" is not merely mine. It is also Used2BAnonymous's (cf. 20:39, 10 November 2005). There is every reason to include it in a summary, whose essential function is to state what is a traditional Catholic. Information about subdivisions of traditionalist Catholics is permissible in a summary, but not essential. DSU10 omits what is essential. Lima 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In the post you refer to, I did not say that it was a "definition"; I said it was a commonality (cf. 20:39, 10 November 2005). You then asked if I knew what I did, and flustered about as though I made a definition out of ONLY those words. You asked if I agree that that is a "definition." I responded with:

Not only do I accept such a definition, I use it TWICE in my summary! What took you so long to figure it out? What was the tell-tale clue that finally made it "click" for you? (cf. 21:32, 10 November 2005)

I used YOUR "definition" TWICE, each time with a clarification because that "definition" does not suffice for those who are traditionalists as described in the second paragraph. Nor is it the definition that is used the immense majority of the time. There are TWO totally different (your words) things being described, each thing having a commonality with the other, but that commonality not being sufficient as a "definition" for the Catholics of the second group and not being used the immense majority of the time. Quit playing games. Used2BAnonymous 12:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph of DSU10 gives one definition of "traditionalist Catholic". This definition states what, in one particular understanding, traditionalist Catholics have in common, marking them off as a group from others. It has a perfect right to remain in the summary, since it corresponds to some people's genuine understanding of "traditionalist Catholic".

There is another definition that corresponds to some people's genuine understanding of "traditionalist Catholic". That also has a perfect right to be in the summary. Even Used2BAnonymous has stated that "what separates traditionalist Catholics from other Catholics" is that "they are those Catholics who want to roll back the reforms to what they were before the 60s". This is what, in this understanding, traditionalist Catholics have in common, separating them, or marking them off, as a group from others, their definition (from Latin definire, set bounds to).

DSU10 gives one definition of "traditionalist Catholic" in its second paragraph, without obfuscation. Nobody objects to the presence of such a definition. Why does Used2BAnonymous object to the other definition being given a place in the summary without obfuscation? Is it that he just wants a point-of-view article?

There is every reason to include definitions in a summary, whose essential function is to state what is a traditional Catholic. Information about subdivisions of traditionalist Catholics is permissible in a summary, but not essential. DSU10 omits what is essential.

Lima 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make be wiser to use more neutral links to the Church documents? The numerous Kensmen site documents links obviously are more supportive of the traditionalist Catholic mindset. Why not use either Vatican links or Papal Encyclicals Online links where available? Beckmn1 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding signature and date to this contribution by Beckmn1, who forgot to type four tildes at the end. I agree fully, of course, with his contribution. However, I expect that it will be some years before we reach discussion on that part of the article, unless Used2BAnonymous will surprise us by ceasing his efforts to make this article present exclusively his personal point of view.

The number of years may be fewer than I was expecting. Used2BAnonymous has already surprised me by posting a much more reasonable summary text in the article at 22:21 yesterday. Would Used2BAnonymous please let us know if that is his present draft summary. It may not be. I very recently put a similar text in the article, not to propose it as my draft - as Dominick seems perhaps to have thought - but only to show Used2BAnonymous, by a concrete example, that it was possible to modify his draft to make it more reasonable. My draft, here on the Talk page, is, I think, manifestly superior to the text that Used2BAnonymous has now placed in the article; but I am not seeking perfection in the article, nor am I interested in appearing to be a winner. Accordingly, if Used2BAnonymous assures us that what he has placed in the article is now his proposed summary, and if - preferably after Used2BAnonymous has given that assurance - Dominick tells us he finds the text acceptable, then I too will accept it. Lima 09:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of reference, the article summary as it was at the time of Lima's previous comment is blockquoted below.

// Pathoschild 09:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We are right back to my objection, that we should not talk about a whole class of traditionalists. We make a definition and we discard it. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would Dominick refer everyone to Benedict XV's Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum and then insist on being called a traditionalist Catholic?

(Nice deceptive and insulting reverts again, too, Dominick. The "consensus at the moment - please revert with your own account" line was telling.) Malachias111 10:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is off topic. Again. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is five days since Used2BAnonymous last tried to defend DSU10. He has not declared acceptance of what might have been DSU11. Perhaps he had better speak up some day soon: otherwise it will seem that the only draft summary that now has support is DSL4. Lima 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just got back in, how about my objection to the least part of DSL4? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]]13:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would I accept the definition in the present summary? Has something changed in the trad world in the past few months? You are stating, as a fact, that a "traditionalist Catholic" is -- no questions, no quibbles in this ontological statement -- simply a "Roman Catholic who wants to roll back the reforms of the Roman Catholic Church introduced in the 1960s" in a vague sense, as revealed in the description of the first group, that doesn't require believing anything is wrong with typical interpretations of Vatican II's documents (and you do this while saying that I want to make this article present exclusively my personal point of view). Traditionalists of the second definition would not agree with that as a definition. They do not see the commonality of "wanting to roll back the reforms" -- meaning, apparently, only wanting the restoration of the traditional rites -- as enough to make the first group "traditionalist Catholics." They would no more agree with that definition than they would agree to defining "Jew" as those who "call themselves Jews and who wear yarmulkas" simply because that is what separates Jews who practice Judaism and Christians who call themselves "Jews" from other beings and is what those two groups might have in common. This is precisely why I prefer to stick with subjective language: to some it means "this," to others it means "that"; this entry is about "that." For some reason, this is beyond the understanding of some people and seen as incredibly "illogical." Whatever.

And, Dominick, what is up with "Consensus at the moment - please revert with your own account"? There was no consensus and you knew it. Of course, any complaints about your behaviors are deemed "personal attacks" or "off-topic," but you seem to have plenty of time -- in between your snipping discussion from the talk pages and making sneaky reverts -- to accuse others of being "meat-puppeteers" and "astroturfers" and the like.

Speaking of which, it wasn't I who knew whose name should be signed to the post now attributed to Beckmn1. Why aren't you accusing Lima of bringing in "sockpuppets" or "meatpuppets"? Or maybe of "astroturfing"? Or why shouldn't we think that you did so yourself? It seems that you are soliciting such, for ex. Ann_Heneghan, who had to turn you down after you sent her an e-mail apparently asking her to join in the fun over here.

Also, your revert 12:01 11 November has the comment, "two of three active contributors support this." Surely you know that Wiki works by consensus, not majority rule, so what was your point? Not only that, it was another lie: Malachias111 obviously doesn't support it. (Here, I will save you the time of making a response: "Used2BAnonymous is being off-topic and engaging in personal attacks again. Shall we call for mediation?")

Beckmn1, to my knowledge, the encyclicals and other documents listed a) are not all able to be found at the Vatican website or Papal Encyclicals Online, b) are not all linked to at kensmen DOT com/catholic, and c) are not accompanied by commentary at kensmen DOT com/catholic with the exception of the Papal Oath, the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, and John XXIII's Opening Address to Vatican II. What are you worried about? That the web space has trad cooties? Used2BAnonymous 13:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How about your objection to the least part of DSL4? You've been asked a thousand times what it is about "traditionalist Catholics" of your type that isn't said already but that needs to be said, and you've come up with nothing. Used2BAnonymous 13:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again he avoids answering questions by asking other questions. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you avoid answering the question by accusing me of something. Used2BAnonymous 14:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, the "Traditional Catholic" page at Wikipedia is unlocked. PLEASE register at Wiki and help me keep an eye on it!!! Check it every day! Just sign up to make an edit once in a while, to add a link, etc., anything to build up a "history" of being an editor of this page! http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic And, TRUST ME, we'd better establish a history as editors at the SSPX page, too, or it will be destroyed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X He is a sane man who can have tragedy in his heart and comedy in his head.

Post source

Obstruct obstruct obstruct. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 16:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that is sooooooooo revelatory, Dominick. It's almost as if you didn't know that that forum hasn't been referenced here before and it wasn't already voluntarily revealed that this entry was mentioned there:

They are not sock-puppets. They are traditional Catholics who moderate and post at this board: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/mb/apologia Do a user name search that matches their names used here at Wiki. And while here, these two individuals did post about the matter on the appropriate page. Used2BAnonymous 09:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To which you replied:

Astroturfing is simulating grassroots support. Using an outside forum to drive people here to only edit this article is not looked on well here. At this time, I am not so sure that this isn't a simple case of sockpuppetry. Pathos may be right. Dominick 10:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You've been accusing me of bringing in "meat-puppets," "sock-puppets," and of astroturfing for months now, but when you get caught red-handed actually doing it, it's different somehow. Right? Used2BAnonymous 16:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You were the one doing it. As far as I am concerned, you give instruction on how to game the system. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 17:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to discussing the summary, please. "Why would I accept the definition in the present summary?" Used2BAnonymous asks. Almost anyone would think that the fact that he himself wrote the present summary would be a reason.

However, I felt sure that, as soon as I indicated I was prepared to accept what he had written, Used2BAnonymous would reject it. Whenever an agreement seemed imminent on a wording of his, he has backed away from that wording. That was one reason why I confidently offered to accept what he had written, in spite of its evident faults.

It is obvious that an intervention by Dominick is enough to wake up Used2BAnonymous. It has done so in the past. Unfortunately, it does not bring him to address the matter in hand. Rather the contrary. Would Used2BAnonymous now at last respond to my 18:00, 11 November 2005 objection to his DSU10.

Lima 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Do I post again now? The current Draft Summary Lima #4 is acceptable. How is this resolved. So far positions are restated, and stated and restated. Lets give 24 hours, then put the summary in the article. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 20:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't write it; I made what someone else wrote less offensive.

I have no idea what you are talking about re: Dominick "waking me up"; I've been awake every day this week, but not in the mood to waste my time here. Have you been awake these past 5 days? Haven't seen you around. And what's that Dominick been up to? Has he been crashing at your house?

I've already addressed your objections to DSU10. See my post of 13:15, 17 November 2005. If you want to say "some people use the term this way: X, Y, Z" and, in the second paragraph, "Some people use it this way: A, B, X" then that makes sense. That is not what you are doing. You are wanting a POV article that defines traditionalist Catholics, in fact, AS "those who want to roll back the reforms, etc." in such a way that includes those who just want the traditional rites without dealing with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents. That definition will not fly with those who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time.

So, why can't Lima cope with defining the term twice -- once as used by Dominick and -- well, Dominick, and then again as used by most people the immense majority of the time? Is it that he just wants a point-of-view article? Used2BAnonymous 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has simply not answered my 18:00, 11 November 2005 observations on DSU10. He even asks why cannot I cope with defining the same term twice, when it is he who cannot or, to be more exact, will not! To repeat what I said at 18:00, 11 November 2005, the second paragraph of DSU10 defines "traditionalist Catholic", without obfuscation, as used by Used2BAnonymous. Why does not Used2BAnonymous allow "traditionalist Catholic" to be defined, without obfuscation, elsewhere in DSU10 as used by Dominick? (If Used2BAnonymous would only let his eyes wander just a few lines above DSU10, he would find Dominick's way set out in the first paragraph of DSL4. The "want to roll back" definition is in substance the same as Dominick's, though it was formulated by Used2BAnonymous himself, who thus unwittingly showed that it reflects an understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" far more widespread than Used2BAnonymous cares to admit.) Lima 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits to the crap version that is posing as the entry now -- the version that presents as FACT that, in spite of how the phrase is used the immense majority of the time, the phrase "traditional Catholics" includes, without doubt, simply those who want the traditional rites -- has little to do with what I propose, so you can quit with that line of thinking now. The "they want to roll back" definition IS the same as Dominick's because it IS Dominick's, not mine. Just because I made it slightly more tolerable and haven't reverted it doesn't mean I support that version. My proposed summary is DSU10, which is why it is at the top of the page here. I would prefer to drop the "these Catholics exist" line, but that wasn't my idea either.

Now, what is so "obfuscated" in the first paragraph of DSU10? In what manner is the relating of the facts made less clear? Is it that the word "some" is used? Is that what the big freak-out is over? If so, how does use of that word "obfuscate" since it, in fact, clarifies given that it is the second definition that is used the immense majority of the time as indicated by you and as Google searches and the use of the term by the media also indicate? And how would you go about phrasing it since, in fact, some people (i.e., Dominick and Vere and that's about it) use the term that way while, the immense majority of the time, the term is used by others in the second way? On second thought, perhaps the first paragraph would be less "obfuscated" if it were to read:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by about two or three people to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

That certainly is more clear.

If the use of "some" is not the source of this "obfuscation," then what is? The ridiculous insistence on mentioning the fact that "these Catholics exist" is even honored in DSU10. I've asked you and Dominick what else needs to be said about these Catholics that isn't already said, and have gotten nothing. You think it's "obfuscated"? Then clarify it. All you seem to do is nit-pick and complain without offering much in the way of solutions to these huge problems you see, as if you're some sovereign issuing commands. Perhaps this sort of underlying attitude explains why you address me in the second person. Why not go all the way and use the royal "we"? "We are not amused by Used2BAnonymous's version and find it obfuscating! It needs to be changed forthwith! Patience, Dominick! We are sure he will figure out how to read our mind if we keep at this long enough." Used2BAnonymous 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is the summary should mention the general group of traditionalists. What needs to be said is clearly this, this group is more diverse than you make it to be in your version. The article is a winnowing down of who is "traditionalist enough". What needs to be said is that simply traditionalists are not monolithic, and start covering all traditionalists. The source of the obfuscation, as you misunderstood the use, is U2BA and is to be expected from someone who would post on another forum advocating a "Wiki War!". Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 13:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The phrase about rolling back the reforms is Used2BAnonymous's, not Dominick's: at 20:39, 10 November 2005 he said that this description indicates what separates traditionalist Catholics (of all subsets) from other Catholics. There is no essential difference between this description, of Used2BAnonymous's own composition, and Dominick's idea (cf. DSL4) of what distinguishes traditionalist Catholics from other Catholics. Like the "rolling back" description, Dominick's definition too covers all subsets of traditionalist Catholics.

The DSU10 first paragraph does not present this inclusive definition, which covers all subsets of traditionalist Catholics. Instead it obfuscates Dominick's definition by confusing it with the notion of one subset.

If Used2BAnonymous reformulated the first DSU10 paragraph in the way he indicates in his latest contribution to the discussion ("Traditional Catholic is a term used by about two or three people to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s"), the paragraph would indeed lose obfuscation. "That certainly is more clear," Used2BAnonymous quite rightly says. There would be the problem of the paragraph's claim that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used in this inclusive sense only "by about two or three people". This claim is false: Used2BAnonymous has himself used the term in this sense at 20:39, 10 November 2005. But if Used2BAnonymous means his reformulation seriously - which I doubt - he has found that it is indeed possible to cope with defining the same term twice, once in the exclusive Used2BAnonymous way, and once in the inclusive DSL4 or Dominick way. This is the long-obvious solution that I have many times offered in vain to his notice.

Lima 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not and did not define "traditionalist Catholics" as those who simply want to "roll back the reforms"; I said that it is that desire to do so which separate from other human beings both groups who claim to refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" in this article. That commonality is not enough to make a "definition," and if you don't believe me, then go and ask the traditionalist Catholics at various traditional Catholic web forums (which you will recognize by expressed concerns over typical interpretations of Vatican II documents) if they agree that a definition of "traditionalist Catholic" is just someone who wants the traditional rites. They would agree to that insofar as they would also agree that a "definition" of "traditionalist Catholic" is that they are "human," too. I.e., they would not see "human" as enough of a "definition" any more than they would see "they want the traditional rites" as a definition. Do you understand this concept? Is it too much for you? How else may I break it down for you?

Now, explain to me why it is NPOV for you to foist your "exclusive definition" on the world, including on to those traditionalist Catholics of the second definition when they -- who make up those who are actually referred to as traditionalist Catholics the immense majority of the time --- do not agree with that definition? Why is it some hideous affront to humanity to say that "some people define X as V. In this sense, X is A, B, C" and "others define X as Y. In this sense, X is L, M, N, O, P"? Seriously, explain to me the problem with this.

I do not use the phrase in the manner you say except to include the definition in this article as a definition that SOME people use, and that only because you two are here insisting on it, despite all evidence that the term is not used by Catholics of such type unless they are referring to those "rad-trad integrists" they love to hate. If my relating that definition while indicating that some people use it is my "using the definition myself," then fine.

DSU10's paragraph "does not present this inclusive definition, which covers all subsets of traditionalist Catholics" because traditional Catholics of the second definition don't see that as a true definition. We are speaking of TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE, a fact which you have agreed with in the past. Dominick's definition IS a subset, and the second definition is ALSO a subset. They are subsets of all those who claim that this entry refers to them in some way. Used2BAnonymous 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, there is no "general group of traditionalists." There are two groups here claiming the phrase "traditionalist Catholics": those who have no issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and those who do. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? Is there a "traditionalist Catholic" who has no opinion about Vatican II or perhaps has never heard of it?

As you have been asked a MILLLLLLLLLION times before, what is it that is not said about you and Peter Vere that needs to be said?

And, finally, what the hell does the post you link to at the Apologia forum have to do with anything? Used2BAnonymous 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You said it right there. "They are subsets of all those who claim that this entry refers to them in some way." This article will deal with all subsets, if they make a claim to the name then wikipedia can't take sides in this dispute. There is not way to settle the claimants to this name. The wikipedia standard upholds the case for inclusion. There are more than two, but in your case you imagine there are "true" and "false" traditionalists.

There is an abstract group of traditionalists, just like there is an abstract group of baptists. Edits where we changed wording to state that there wasn't 100% compliance with your PoV of "true" traditionalists, were reverted. Even among those at Angelqueen, there is conflict about many of the things you hold as "true" for all traditionalists.

In cutting out other groups, you are bringing a PoV dispute here. If we read the some traditionalist boards, if there were admissable as proof, we can easily see the depth of the dispute which is identical to the one here. I would say there are a lot more people arguing this than Vere, Hand and I. I told you in my post above what was needed to be said, and you maintain it wasn't answered. I said it again here, we need this article to state what groups believe, and that this is not a monolithic group as you did.

My contention is that your "take back the net" campaign doesn't belong here. This is not a battleground where you win by excluding others from the field. You do not have ownership of this article any more than anyone else does, and your lording over it has gone on too long. This article shall cover all traditionalists. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 15:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was created to be about and has for years been about those who, the immense majority of the time, are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics," they being Catholics of the second definition. People seeking information about "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about Dominick who goes to his little neighborhood parish and thinks it is OK for Popes to kiss Qur'ans and worship in synagogues. This fact has nothing to do with any "POV" (after all, your inane definition is included in the first paragraph); it has to do with how the phrase is used the immense majority of the time. And it also has to do with the fact that there is pretty much nothing to say about Dominick-style "traditionalists" except that they have no issues with the typical interpretations of Vatican II and that they worship in regular parishes like any other Catholic. Until and unless you can tell me what it is about your version of "traditionalist Catholics" that isn't said and that needs to be said -- something about which you've been asked repeatedly -- then I can see no reason for you to say anything at all.

Now:

A: Are there any other "traditionalists" other than those who do have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II and those who don't? Who is being "cut out"? Name them.

B: What needs to be said about those who don't have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents other than what is already said?

Speak now, Dominick, or forever hold your peace. Or at the least don't make like a paranoiac and tell me what "campaigns" belong here and which don't. Your agenda is made clear by your slandering as not even being "official Catholics" those who don't fit into YOUR definition of "traditionalist Catholic." Further, you accuse them of being "militant," "Vatican-bashers," etc. And your tactics during all this are evident to all: the nonsensical English and the unwillingness to clarify it when asked, the unresponsiveness to other questions, the "defensive offense" ploy of accusing others of what you do, the snipping of dialogue, the deceptive and out and out mendacious reverts, the astroturfing for meat-puppets, etc. Desist. Used2BAnonymous 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, to answer Used2BAnonymous's 16:40 questions, and get those irrelevancies out of the way:

A: There are no traditionalists other than Used2BAnonymous traditionalists and non-Used2BTraditionalists, just as there are no traditionalists other than fair-haired traditionalists and non-fair-haired traditionalists. In neither case is anyone being cut out. But the summary is about what distinguishes traditionalists from others, not about what distinguishes one traditionalist from another. Accordingly, Used2BAnonymous's question A is irrelevant for the summary.

B. What needs to be said about non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalist Catholics? In the context of a Used2BAnonymous-style article on traditionalist Catholics, many things, including that they do not believe in the existence of a papal oath in the form in which Used2BAnonymous traditionalists present it. This too is a matter for later in the article. It is irrelevant for the summary.

Dominick and I have no intention of "foisting one definition on the world": we accept that there can be more than one definition. Used2BAnonymous manifestly is trying to foist one definition on the world. When Used2BAnonymous writes: "DSU10's paragraph does not present this inclusive definition, which covers all subsets of traditionalist Catholics, because traditional Catholics of the second definition don't see that as a true definition", what else is he saying but: "Only one definition will be allowed"?

There is a "general group" of traditionalist Catholics, distinguished from other Catholics by a characteristic that Used2BAnonymous calls their "commonality". What else is a definition but the statement of a common characteristic distinguishing a group from all others? Precisely what the summary is supposed to be about.

Nobody owns this or any other Wikipedia article. Isn't there a Wikipedia warning to be prepared to see your contribution "mercilessly" edited?

Lima 20:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, you wrote,"there are no traditionalists other than Used2BAnonymous traditionalists and non-Used2BTraditionalists, just as there are no traditionalists other than fair-haired traditionalists and non-fair-haired traditionalists. In neither case is anyone being cut out." Well done, grasshopper. Now let me remind you that "Used2BAnonymous traditionalists" are those who are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time, and "non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists" are not those about whom people seek information when they search for the term "traditionalist Catholics."

You also say that a "summary is about what distinguishes traditionalists from others, not about what distinguishes one traditionalist from another." Each definition does that, as each definition includes the concept of wanting to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. That is what separates the two subsets from other Catholics. That commonality, which separates both groups from the rest of humanity, does not, however, make for a definition that is agreeable to those who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time.

Accordingly, your objections to DSU10 are irrelevant.

So, they don't believe in the existence of a Papal Oath, huh? Do they deny the Holocaust, too? Tell you what -- badabing! -- the problem is now solved. Now what is the matter?

You say that my having said that DSU10's paragraph does not present this inclusive definition, which covers all subsets of traditionalist Catholics, because traditional Catholics of the second definition don't see that as a true definition" means that I am, somehow, saying that "Only one definition will be allowed." And you say this in spite of the fact that there are two definitions given in DSU10, one being Dominick's, the other being the one used the immense majority of the time. Care to explain?

You say that "there is a "general group" of traditionalist Catholics, distinguished from other Catholics by a characteristic that Used2BAnonymous calls their "commonality". But traditional Catholics of the second definition don't consider people like Dominick to be traditional Catholics. So you are foisting your POV again.

As to what makes for a good definition, it is irrelevant, because we are dealing with TWO definitions: group A and group B. We are speaking of TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS, the second of which doesn't consider the first to be "traditional Catholics" at all and, so, wouldn't be satisfied with a single definition meant to convey the idea that "traditionalist Catholics" are, in FACT, simply those who want to "roll back the reforms" or what have you.

Yes, I am sure that there is a Wikipedia warning to be prepared to see one's contribution mercilessly edited. I'm not sure how that warning, though, should pertain to Catholic "in-house" disagreements, though, given Luke 6:36, Matthew 5:7, and other such verses. Used2BAnonymous 12:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Used2BAnonymous Traditionalists (a.k.a. Kensmen Traditionalists) do believe in "a Papal Oath, huh",DOT com/catholic/papaloath.html [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] even if Used2BAnonymous himself seems to have lost his faith in that part of his tradition and accordingly removed it from his list of Traditionalist beliefs.

2. DSU10 does not present without obfuscation Dominick's definition of traditionalist Catholics. The first paragraph of DSU10 speaks not of traditionalist Catholics (what Dominick's definition is about), but of some traditionalist Catholics.

3. Instead of foisting his own definition as the only definition, Dominick, though he "does not see the other definition as a true definition" and even finds that it "is disagreeable", does not object to it being presented in the article. It is Used2BAnonymous who is foisting his personal point of view, by trying to censor any opinion that he finds "disagreeable" and brands as "not true".

4. We are not discussing groups among traditionalist Catholics: we are discussing - or at least, if Used2BAnonymous would only stick to the point, we would be discussing - what distinguishes all traditionalist Catholics from all non-traditionalist Catholics, the object of the summary. Two distinct understandings of what that distinguishing mark is (two definitions) have been put forward; but Used2BAnonymous mercilessly tries to exclude all ideas but his own.

5. Matthew 7:4-5.

Lima 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, "Kensmen traditionalists" (boy, the 43rd Bomb Group members would be pleased to hear about that, esp. the Protestant ones) do believe in the existence of the Papal Oath. And so do I, not having "lost faith" in the existence of the Papal Oath but having removed mention of it from the entry in order to quiet your objections (there is another papal oath, BTW, said to have been written by Pope St. Gregory, which not only repeats the same objections to novelties, but condemns Honorius). Anyway, if you still want to go on, then such objections belong in the section "Relations with other Catholics" section anyway.

2. Dominick doesn't have the luxury of defining all traditionalists any more than I do. Since, contrary to your objections of #3, Dominick's definition is included, if one is a "traditionalist Catholic" at all as described in the summary, one either has issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents or one doesn't. That isn't an "obfuscation"; that is a fact. And since that issue -- interpretations of Vatican II -- is THE dividing line between Dominick and the real traditionalist Catholics (those who are actually considered "traditionalist Catholics," at least the immense majority of the time), it makes sense that that be considered the dividing line here since Dominick is not going away and insists on being considered a "traditionalist Catholic" in this entry.

3. Dominick's type of "traditionalist Catholic" is present in the article, is not "censored," and is, in fact, presented first.

4. What distinguishes both groups from other Catholics is mentioned in each paragraph, each paragraph serving as a definition of each group. Two definitions are needed because they are two groups that are in conflict, neither considering the other "traditionalist Catholics" at all -- and the first group not even considering the second group "official Catholics" even.

5. Matthew 7:6, 13-20; 24:11-24; II Timothy 4:3-4 Used2BAnonymous 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Belief in the quoted websites' "papal oath" is just what could be expected of Used2BAnonymous. Let us leave it for the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

What twisted logic enables Used2BAnonymous to say there is a fair presentation of Dominick's definition in the DSU10 second paragraph, which explicitly says it uses the term in a sense different from Dominick's? What twisted logic enables Used2BAnonymous to say that in the DSU10 first paragraph there is a fair presentation of Dominick's definition, which clearly covers more that those some traditionalist Catholics that the first paragraph describes? So where in DSU10 is Dominick's definition of "traditionalist Catholic" found without obfuscation?

We are talking about Dominick's definition (cf. DSL4), not Dominick's "type".

And we are defining "traditionalist Catholic", not defining something else, such as subsets. Each DSU10 paragraph describes traditionalist Catholics of a certain type; what part of DSU10 is about traditionalist Catholics as such?

"... neither considering the other 'traditionalist Catholics' at all" - this is false, for Dominick considers even Used2BAnonymous to be a traditionalist Catholic.

Lima 21:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

So, unless you are trying to force traditionalist Catholics of the second definition (you know, the ones who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time) to accept the assertion that a "traditionalist Catholic" includes those who only want the traditional rites, you are saying that:

"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.

would be better to describe Dominick-type so-called "traditionalist Catholics" in the first paragraph than

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

Then how about having the first paragraph read:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms used by some 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. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures.

If you still want the ridiculous "these Catholics exist" line tacked on the end, then fine by me.

If you insist on one single definition of "traditionalist Catholic," then I would forget the first paragraph altogether and just use the second paragraph of DSU10, leaving out the words "more commonly" and "and are used in the rest of this entry." That is pretty much how the entry was originally. That definition is what I think a "traditionalist Catholic" is, it's how Google search returns indicate the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used, it is how you agree the term is used the immense majority of the time. That definition describes the people about whom surfers seek information when they search for the term "traditionalist Catholics," etc. That is what "traditionalist Catholics as such" are in the real world.

Not sure where your last paragraph came from, but it seems you're forgetting Dominick's memorable bit about "official Catholics" vs. "militant traditionalists", his saying that the SSPX and sedes aren't Catholic and that they should be left out of the article altogether. Used2BAnonymous 22:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying and have never said that Used2BAnonymous's first indented paragraph above would be better to describe Dominick-type traditionalist Catholics. What I am saying and have been saying is that it is a better definition of "traditionalist Catholic".

The article is about traditionalist Catholics. The article's introductory summary should say what is meant by "traditionalist Catholic". Used2BAnonymous would like the definition in the second paragraph of DSU10 to be the definition of "traditionalist Catholic". No problem. No one objects to having in the article the Used2BAnonymous idea of what a traditionalist Catholic is.

But Used2BAnonymous's idea is not everyone's idea of what a traditionalist Catholic is. He can have his idea, his definition, in the article, as long as the article also reports that there is another idea, another definition, of what a traditionalist Catholic is.

It is not I but Used2BAnonymous who is insisting on one single definition of "traditionalist Catholic", his definition alone, foisting his own idea on the world. Let the article faithfully report the fact that there does exist more than one idea of what is meant by "traditionalist Catholic". If Used2BAnonymous wishes "types" of traditionalist Catholics to be dealt with, that can be done later.

Lima 06:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

How can you possibly accuse me of insisting on "one single definition" when I give TWO definitions, to wit:

DEFINITION ONE IN RED: Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures. These Catholics exist.

DEFINITION TWO IN RED: The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Why must there be two? Because Definition Two Traditionalist Catholics -- those who are actually referred to as such the immense majority of the time --- do not believe that Definition One people are "traditionalist Catholics" at all, and they don't believe that the mere "Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s" is a definition any more than "they are Catholic" or "they are human" are "definitions" of "traditionalist Catholic" even though both groups have "humanity" and "Catholicism" as a commonality. This would be true even if they were on Mars among little green men and those two attributes separated them from all other creatures on the red planet. What is it about this you don't get? To use just "Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s" is to state, as a fact, something with which those who are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" in the real world DO NOT AGREE. A characteristic does not a "definition" make.

Test it out: You're Lurlene from Gnawbone, Arizona. You read this as a definition: "Traditional Catholics are simply those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." You meet Dominick. Do you consider him a "traditionalist Catholic" based on that definition? Now, would a trad of the second definition agree with you that Dominick is, in fact, a "traditionalist Catholic"? If not, then your definition is wrong according to those traditionalists, and for you to insist on it is to foist your definition upon them and upon all who read this entry.

You are committing the "fallacy of the undistributed middle," Lima. Is this a true statement?:

All Russians were revolutionaries, and all anarchists were revolutionaries, therefore, all anarchists were Russians.

Does the commonality of being revolutionary make all anarchists Russian? Clearly not. And this is the fallacy you are engaging in. You, on the one hand, admit that we are dealing with two "totally different" groups. And then you are equating those two groups by pointing out a commonality that one of the groups does not see as definitive at all, thereby asserting that your definition is THE definition that all must accept.

Or imagine this: there are no other creatures in the world but you, birds, and butterflies. Is this a true statement?

All birds have wings, and all butterflies have wings, therefore, all winged creatures are birds.

Now substitute:

Those whom Definition Two Catholics consider "traditionalist Catholics want X, and those whom Definition One Catholics consider "traditionalist Catholics" want X, therefore those who want X are those whom Definition Two Catholics consider "traditionalist Catholics."

If this statement is not true (and it isn't true), then your definition is false according to those who are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time. Your defining "traditionalist Catholics" simply as "those who want X" is a false definition according to them because they see people who want X but whom they don't consider traditionalists.

Or, try it even more to the point:

Those whom Definition Two Catholics consider "traditionalist Catholics" must want X, Y and Z. Those whom Definition One Catholics consider "traditionalist Catholics" need only want X. Therefore those who simply want X ARE, in fact, "traditionalist Catholics," in spite of the fact that Definition Two Catholics don't agree. Used2BAnonymous 08:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has identified in red an inclusive definition of "traditionalist Catholic" buried in the first paragraph of DSU10. All I have been asking is that he take this text out of the obfuscation of that first paragraph, and present it as one definition of "traditionalist Catholic", instead of making it, as now, merely part of his description of "Dominick-type traditionalists". Only then will his draft summary include both definitions, not just the Used2BAnonymous definition.

Why must there be two definitions? Because there are two ideas of what is a traditionalist Catholic.

One idea is that traditionalist Catholics are "rolling back" Catholics (not "merely rolling back without taking issue" Catholics). The other idea is that traditionalist Catholics are "rolling back and taking issue" Catholics. In Used2BAnonymous phraseology, the "commonality" (i.e. distinguishing common characteristic) of traditionalist Catholics of the first idea is that they want to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s; and the "commonality" of traditionalist Catholics of the second idea is that they not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but also want to preserve etc., etc.

These are two distinct ideas. There is no undistributed middle. No more than there is with the word "cat", which likewise can be understood in two senses. Idea one: "A cat is an animal of the family Felidae, which includes the lion, tiger, leopard and lynx." Idea two: "A cat is an animal, Felis catus (or Felis domesticus), of the family Felidae, domesticated since early times as a catcher of rats and mice and as a pet, and existing in several distinctive breeds and varieties."

If Used2BAnonymous's friend Lurlene has idea one of a cat, Lurlene will say a panther is a cat. If Lurlene has idea two of a cat, Lurlene will say a panther is not a cat. So too, those who have idea one of a traditionalist Catholic will say Dominick is a traditionalist Catholic; those who have idea two of a traditionalist Catholic will say Dominick is not a traditionalist Catholic. Idea one is inclusive, idea two is exclusive.

Those who prefer idea two of cats or traditionalist Catholics have no right to say that idea one is inadmissible merely because they themselves "DO NOT AGREE" with it.

Lima 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutly right! Thats been the issue all along. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 13:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying is that those who have what you are calling an "exclusive definition" of the phrase have no right to use it as THE definition because those who hold to the "inclusive definition" don't agree to it, but those who have an "inclusive definition" have the right to use it as THE definition simply because they AGREE with it. That is like saying that a Christian who thinks he is a "Jew" can go to the page on Jews and force his definition onto the page as THE definition simply because he believes that Christians are the true Jews. How long do you think an entry like this would last?:

A 'Jew' is, in fact, anyone who refers to himself as "Jew." Some people believe that in order to be a Jew, one must not only define himself as a Jew, but he must have a Jewish mother and/or practice the Jewish religion.

How is it "inadmissible" to make clear that some people -- nay almost all people -- don't consider someone Jewish simply because they go about saying "I'm a Jew"? IS anyone who calls himself a Jew, in fact, a "Jew"? Isn't that a question of fact -- THE question of fact? And don't different people have different opinions on that? That we've been freakin' arguing about it for months now indicates the answer to that last question is YES. Def. II Catholics don't think Dominick is a "trad" and he doesn't think sedes are even Catholic. He thinks the criterion for fitting the label "traditionalist Catholic" is X (and, implicitly, that they are not sedes, either, BTW); Def. II Catholics think the critereria are X, Y, and Z. You are insisting that everyone accept that it is X alone. His opinion is in paragraph one. Definition II Catholics -- the Catholics who are actually called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time -- have their opinion described in paragraph two.

But if you want that specific definition taken "out of the obfuscation of that first paragraph," then this is the summary for you:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

If you want nothing more said about Dominick's so-called "traditionalists" in the summary, that is fine by me, though your side contradicts itself in that before you wanted it to make clear that "these Catholics exist." But no matter what, any paragraph one that says anything to the effect that "traditional Catholics are simply those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s" will not stand. Used2BAnonymous 20:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

At last. Would Pathoschild kindly put DSU11 in place.

DSU11 still needs to be corrected. Paragraph 1 only gives the name "traditional Catholic" to inclusive-sense traditionalist Catholics. That is like refusing to give the name "cat" to inclusive-sense cats and calling them only "felines", while exclusive-sense cats are called both "felines" and "cats". Besides, the title of the article is "traditionalist Catholic", not "traditional Catholic".

Lima 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here it is, Pathos:

"Traditionalist Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Used2BAnonymous 17:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I take the 17:24 version now as DSU11. The major faults I found in the first paragraph have been remedied. I feel no need to comment on the minor ones.

With regard to the second paragraph, I think those who hold an exclusive view should probably be let decide their self-description, even if it is curious, if not downright ridiculous.

However, I do question the objectivity of a phrase in the second paragraph about the definition. claiming that the terms in question "are more commonly used" in the sense given to them in that definition. As alleged proof of this statement, Used2BAnonymous refers to some Internet sites of his persuasion; but these sites are not the world. When people hear someone like Mel Gibson described as a traditionalist Catholic, do they really presume he or she takes issue with typical interpretations - whatever this means - of Vatican II documents and seeks to preserve what he or she considers "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable? I believe most people make no such distinctions and would see Mel Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic whether or not he subscribes to Used2BAnonymous principles. Used2BAnonymous also repeatedly attributes to me a statement that the term "traditionalist Catholic" refers "the immense majority of the time" to definition-two traditionalists; I used this last phrase not about this matter, but about another.

If Used2BAnonymous were a more reasonable person, I would suggest to him to omit the phrase, which adds nothing to the substance of the article. But in view of his usual attitude, all I can hope is that he will modify it so that all can accept it. I previously suggested that it be changed to: "are in controversy more commonly used". The addition of just these two words ("in controversy") would, I think, make DSU11 no longer altogether unacceptable.

Dominick may perhaps think differently. But if Used2BAnonymous agreed to make that little modification and presented as his DSU11 a text revised accordingly, Dominick could then express his view and, if necessary, I would try to persuade him to accept the text - unless, of course Dominick were instead to convince me I am wrong in my judgement about such a modified DSU11. But as long as Used2BAnonymous's proposal remains as it is now, there would be no point in such a Dominick-Lima discussion.

Lima 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, I did not refer to "some internet sites" of "my" persuasion; I referred to internet sites of Dominick's persuasion (e.g., Catholic Answers, EWTN, Crisis, etc.) which use the term "traditionalist Catholics" to refer to definition two Catholics (and do so disparagingly, of course). I also gave a link to Google returns for the phrase "traditionalist Catholics" (duplicated here) which indicate clearly that the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used to refer to "definition two Catholics" and not to (at least not at all commonly to) Catholics who believe what Dominick seems to believe.

As to what people think when they hear that Mel Gibson is a "traditionalist Catholic," the media made it clear that "traditionalist Catholics" belong to a "sect" whose women don't wear veils, but "headdresses" and all kinds of other spooky stuff. Gibson's "traditionalist bent" made him a notorious, rabid, virulent "anti-semite" and everything. Such fun! So, yes, I imagine that since the media have ripped traditionalists a new one, and since conservative Catholics like to go about excommunicating people without a license and harp-harp-harping on poor little traddies while heresy runs amok, those who hear the term "traditionalist Catholic" would likely think "freaky folk who hate the Pope and Vatican II and lil fuzzy kittens, too!"

You want the second paragraph to read:

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are in controversy more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return, etc... ?

I have no idea at all what that means. Used2BAnonymous 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I still have no good reason to think this is progress when we make a definition then discard it. It would be like, "A Motorcycle has two wheels and an engine. More commonly - and used here - are bikes made by Harley Davidson." It faisl to serve the reader, because it is not written clearly. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 12:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that Used2BAnonymous has no idea at all what the addition of two words to his text would mean.

With apologies, I withdraw my "of his persuasion" phrase, which was inaccurate and should have been checked before use. Although Internet sites are not the world, I have gone to the trouble of looking up the first websites given by Used2BAnonymous's Google reference above. To my surprise, I find that by no means all of them are exclusively about traditionalist Catholics in a narrow sense. To use the analogy that Used2BAnonymous seems to find helpful for understanding the difference between the two ideas of what is a traditionalist Catholic, the references are generally, so to speak, about cats in the sense that includes both domestic cats and lions, rather than about domestic cats only. Since Google, I believe, gives precedence to sites referenced by other sites, and so perhaps to sites involved in controversy, I was expecting the Google first-page references to reflect exclusively the narrow "domestic cat only" definition of traditionalist Catholics. Instead, I find I now have to withdraw my statement that the "domestic cat only" definition is more common in controversy. Not for the first time, Used2BAnonymous's intransigence has forced me to study a question more deeply and made me withdraw a statement that I had made merely to accommodate his point of view.

Though Used2BAnonymous was given a second opportunity to modify DSU11 before it is posted above (when, because of insufficient study, I would have accepted the suggested modified DSU11), DSU11 has had to be inscribed with the questionable, unproven and, as I now see it, quite false claim about the way in which the term "traditionalist Catholic" is "more commonly used".

Lima 12:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse the length of what follows. It is required for Used2BAnonymous, even if for nobody else.

The top site referenced by Google contains the following description of the true meaning of "traditionalist Catholic", which is extremely unlike the "domestic cats only" definition:

I have habitually put the word "traditionalism" in quotes because I think it is misused, similar to the ways in which a Catholic would regard "Enlightenment" or "dark ages" (as applied to the high middle ages) as misnomers and grossly inaccurate. This is partially a battle over terminology.

As I refuse to yield any such ground to the humanist or secularist, where it involves denigration of my beliefs as a Catholic and a Christian, or revision or distortion of history, likewise, I won’t yield a perfectly good word to those who distort it, and try to exclusively "claim" it in a way which does violence to Catholic orthodoxy and practice, rightly understood (the parameters and outlines of which have been determined by the Church, not myself or any individual).

The valid use of the word is simply as a synonym for "orthodoxy," as traditionally practiced and developed and believed for 2000 years of Church history, and dogmatically upheld by the authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. In this sense I would classify myself as a (true) traditionalist. I fully accept the Church’s teaching in faith (but not without many corroborating reasons of many sorts), and believe that it has been passed down from the apostles and protected from error by the Holy Spirit Himself (another huge subject in itself, beyond the scope of the present work).

When it is abused, it is a synonym for "traditions of men falsely made out to be the only proper traditions of the Church." It is a faulty and erroneous use of both dogma and private judgment (and often, selective judgment) contrary to orthodox Catholic theology and ecclesiology, and also Christian unity and charity. To describe this dispute over the very word at any greater length would be futile, and too complicated to lay out in brief introductory remarks, meant as an initial stimulus and broad outline only. That is a major task of what follows, in the book proper.

I should make it abundantly clear (for obvious reasons) that I (like the pope) have no problem whatsoever with a devotion to the Tridentine Mass, or traditional liturgical practice and devotion (not to mention traditional morality and catechesis). Quite the contrary: I myself have been a member, for eleven years, of a quite traditional parish, which celebrates the Mass in Latin (Novus Ordo) every Sunday.

This sounds quite like Dominick, though Dominick's attitude seems to be a little closer than this to Used2BAnonymous's.

The second Google reference gives no description whatever of what is meant by "traditionalist Catholic".

The third Google reference does give the Used2BAnonymous definition of "traditionalist Catholic", simply because it is the warped Wikipedia article written by Used2BAnonymous himself.

The fourth Google reference contains the following: "The Second Vatican Council brought about many significant changes in the way the Roman Catholic Church operated. Not enough changes for some, but far too many for others. There are quite a few Catholics who simply ignore the changes in liturgy and belief, continuing to worship exactly as Catholics did in the first half of the twentieth-century. Others even believe that all popes since Vatican II are anti-popes, not worthy of respect. Although these Catholics generally go unnoticed, they have been receiving more attention lately because Mel Gibson and his father are both ultra-traditionalists who reject Vatican II." For this site, people like Used2BAnonymous "who reject Vatican II" (or at least "typical interpretations" of the Council) are not just traditionalists, they are ultra-traditionalists.

The fifth Google site presents a broader understanding of what is a traditionalist Catholic than the Used2BAnonymous understanding: "The movement is as diverse as the many splinter groups it has generated, from moderates who maintain some contact with the Vatican to the more militant who rejected outright the authority of the late Pope John XXIII -- who convened the council -- and every pope elected thereafter."

The sixth Google site says: "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service."

That, surely, is enough. None of the first six sites excludes traditionalist Catholics of the Used2BAnonymous variety (the DSU11 second definition, the domestic cats of the analogy). And, except for Used2BAnonymous's own article, none of the sites excludes the lions and tigers variety. In other words, except for what Used2BAnonymous is forcing on Wikipedia, all accept the first DSU11 definition (the lions and tigers and domestic cats sense), which therefore appears to be more common even on the Internet.

Lima 12:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the first site is from conservative Catholic, Dave Armstrong, who has NAMED the page in question "'Traditionalist' and Schismatic Catholics." Almost every time he uses the word "traditionalist," he puts it in QUOTES because he knows that the people about whom he is speaking ARE, in fact, referred to as "traditionalists" --- but he doesn't like it one bit, NOT because he actually refers to HIMSELF as a "traditionalist Catholic," but because of Catholic protectiveness of the words "Tradition" and "Catholic."

The second site is about flags, not Catholicism.

The third site is moot as it is the Wiki entry.

The fourth site:

"Mel Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, definitely belongs to the absolute fringe of the traditionalist movement, but there's no indication that Mel himself goes quite that far. He doesn't specifically explain what his religious position is, but it's pretty clear that he's part of the traditionalist movement. They aren't a really organized bunch, so there are no clear ties and groups that can be identified and categorized. Fortunately, there are a pretty small in both number and influence - were they more powerful, they would be a genuine threat."

"Traditionalists believe that only Catholicism is the true path to salvation -- and that by adhering to church teaching as it was before the council they are the only true Catholics, according to William Dinges, an expert on traditionalists and a professor at Catholic University of America. "They are the Roman Catholic analog to Protestant fundamentalism," Dinges said. ... There is [an] extreme faction that believes the council was a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to destroy the church. Some go as far as considering all the popes elected since that meeting "precursors to the anti-Christ."

The fifth site you say includes this: "The movement is as diverse as the many splinter groups it has generated, from moderates who maintain some contact with the Vatican to the more militant who rejected outright the authority of the late Pope John XXIII -- who convened the council -- and every pope elected thereafter." Well, the SSPX maintains "some contact," as do those who attend indult Masses, etc. Sedes reject the authority of JXXIII outright. Those are the groups spoken of in the second paragraph of the summary.

It STARTS OFF with these paragraphs:

They attend mass in Latin, using a liturgy Rome abolished. They abstain from meat on Fridays and women cover their heads in church. For more than three decades, a small group of North American Roman Catholics has been quietly worshipping in ways the Vatican told them to abandon.

Now their ultraconservative beliefs are under scrutiny as the man they count as their most famous adherent, actor-director Mel Gibson, prepares to release a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus that's already stirring controversy.

The movement, known as traditionalist Catholicism', grew worldwide from 'opposition to the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings held from 1962-65 that dramatically changed the church.

The council altered Catholic practices and teachings in myriad ways to make it more relevant to the wider world, such as having mass said in local languages after centuries in which it was recited in Latin, having the priest celebrate mass facing parishioners and distributing communion in the hand instead of the mouth.

The council decreed that Christians other than Catholics can be saved. It also declared that Jews were not collectively responsible for Christ's death: The notion of Jewish guilt had fuelled anti-Semitism for centuries.

But traditionalists reject what the council decided.

Traditionalists believe that only Catholicism is the true path to salvation -- and that by adhering to church teaching as it was before the council they are the only true Catholics, according to William Dinges, an expert on traditionalists and a professor at Catholic University of America.

I think you are being COMPLETELY disengenuous here. Just as with the Armstrong site, it is IN-YOUR-FACE that they are not talking about the Dominicks of the world who just like the traditional Mass.

The sixth site: "Another controversy, less often discussed, is that Mel Gibson is a follower of 'traditionalist Catholicism' - an ultra-conservative sect of Catholicism:..." (That sounds like Dominick?) And what of "Also, traditionalists don't believe in reaching out to other Christian faiths and are angry the Second Vatican Council changed its official opinion of non-Catholics from 'heretics' to recognizing them as 'separate brethren.'" or "The actor's father, Hutton Gibson, is a member of the traditionalist Catholic movement, which operates outside the Roman Catholic Church and embraces a 16th-century form of the religion that celebrates Tridentine (Latin) Mass and denies the legitimacy of all popes and church reforms since the start of the second Vatican Council, 1962-65. (That council, among other things, eliminated the belief that Jews, collectively, were responsible for the death of Jesus, and directed the church to seek reconciliation.)"

I mean, did you READ the page or not? What is it about? It isn't about the Catholic who attends his neighborhood parish and has no issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II.

All of the sites you mention that are relevant (that is, all but the flags site and the Wiki sites) are most certainly talking about traditionalist Catholics in the exclusive sense of the word.

What about the 7th site? "While it is hardly surprising that public controversy would arise over an attempt at a literal depiction of Christ’s torture and death, the conflict over The Passion of Christ has been exacerbated by Mel Gibson’s association with what’s known as Roman Catholic Traditionalism. This association has implicitly legitimated allegations of anti-Semitism against the film because of traditionalists’ rejection of the Second Vatican Council, which officially repudiated collective Jewish responsibility for the death of Christ in its declaration Nostra Aetate." It goes on:

Traditionalism is a small, diverse, and global movement that arose primarily in opposition to the Vatican II’s embrace of religious liberty and ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Traditionalist dissent was galvanized internationally with the implementation of liturgical reforms—notably the introduction of a new rite of the Mass and, in 1971, the official prohibition of the Latin Tridentine rite.

Although often portrayed in the media as paleo-Catholics fixated on retaining the old Mass, traditionalists represent a broader and more ideologically driven repudiation of Vatican II aggiornamento in general. Because of its schismatic potential, the movement has been a long-standing and troubling concern to the Vatican.

The flagship of the traditionalist cause is the Society of St. Pius X, a priestly fraternity founded in 1971 by the dissident (and excommunicated) French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Although Lefebvre’s organization represents the most visible threat to Vatican authority, there are other traditionalist organizations and initiatives, including groups of individual priests and laity who have established networks of independent traditionalist chapels.

True to the dynamics of sectarian virtuosi, traditionalists are a contentious and divided lot. Most agree, however, that the Second Vatican Council was “false” and that its fruits have been a catastrophe. The most radicalized traditionalists savor an array of bizarre conspiracy theories, the most striking of which is “sedevacantism”—the conviction that the See of Peter is vacant and that all of the popes since Pius XII have been false ones.

The 8th site is one pointed out by Dominick. It is entitled, "Detection and Overthrow of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called." OK, so what are these Catholics he is talking about CALLED, whether "falsely" or not? The answer is "TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS." Like Armstrong, he doesn't like it because he doesn't think of them as in keeping with"tradition" at all, and doesn't see them as "Catholic." But, by Hell, he has to admit that they are, indeed, called "traditionalist Catholics."

The 9th site consists of the results of a Beliefnet "What kind of Catholic are you?". The first few answer:

You are a traditionalist Catholic: You wish the church would revive the time-honored customs and strong institutional discipline that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council. Your favorite hymn is probably "Immaculate Mary," your favorite pope is Pius X, and your idea of a great Catholic movie is "The Bells of St. Mary's."

The 10th site consists of a letter with these bits:

1. A steadily increasing number of once unsuspecting Catholics are suddenly realizing that, as we predicted more than two years ago, they are gradually, first with subtle and then with increasing bold changes in the liturgy, being ushered into a humanistic rite of a universal brotherhood meal expressive of the existentialist pantheistic concepts of an illuminated "one-world-religion" preparing the way for a communist controlled "one-world-government."

But, not only our liturgical traditions have been destroyed. The very beliefs and morals of our Catholic heritage are now up for grabs in our so-called "Church of the Aggiornamento." Steadily, day in and day out since Vatican II, silt has subversively been shunted in to the minds of the Roman Catholics in America.

2. Your Holiness, we traditionalist Catholics, see the evil visibly extant and reject any portion of that evil!

Your Holiness knows better than any other person how we of the C.T.M have bent backwards to remain loyal and obedient to both the spirit and the letter of the recent Ecumenical Council, including those of its non-doctrinal decisions of which we could understand neither the necessity nor the usefulness. However, taking a closer look at the "Conciliar" church forced upon us in the name of Vatican II, and simply judging the tree by its fruits, we are tempted to agree with one of your own immediate collaborators in Rome who has been quoted as characterizing the recent Vatical Council as "a sinister farce acted out by a number of good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin."

Your Holiness, we were, we are, and we intend to remain members of the CATHOLIC Church, and we refuse to become absorbed into any new CONCILIAR church! WE CONDEMN AND REJECT THE CONCILIAR CHURCH!

End of the entire first page of search returns.

I mean, come ON, man. What kind of games are you two playing? Used2BAnonymous 14:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition one covers Used2BAnonymous traditionalists as well as others (domestic cats as well as lions and tigers). It is admitted and needs no proof that the highest-ranked Google sites do speak about Used2BAnonymous traditionalists, for Used2BAnonymous traditionalists are part of the definition-one people, as well as being all of the definition-two people. But if Used2BAnonymous wants to prove that the sites use, not definition one (cats, whether great cats or domestic cats), but definition two (domestic cats but not great cats), what he must do is to show that the sites never apply the term "traditionalist" to non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists. A difficult task with sites where, for instance, a writer, who is clearly not a Used2BAnonymous traditionalist, explicitly says: "In this sense I would classify myself as a (true) traditionalist."

And remember: the Internet is not the world. This makes it even more difficult to justify the gratuitous claim that definition two is the "more commonly used" one.

Lima 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You must not have read the sites then. I have quoted from them to you above and have shown you that they indicate an exclusive view of the term "traditionalist Catholic." We all know that there are 3 or 4 "Dominicks" out there -- e.g., Peter Vere, David Armstrong) who have pages that could be named "Those Evil So-Called 'Traditionalist Catholics' And How We are the Actual 'Traditionalist Catholics' Even Though We Never Refer to Ourselves as Such Except on Pages Such as This Where We Lambaste Those Who Are Referred to in the Real World as 'Traditionalist Catholics." So what is your point? Even those who want to claim the moniker "traditionalist Catholics" ADMIT that it is the second-definition traditionalist Catholics who are ACTUALLY called such. This is made known by their referring to them as "SO-CALLED 'traditionalist Catholics.'" How can they be "so-called" if they are not called that? YOU said on Dominick's Talk Page at 04:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC):

If you examine the Google references for "Traditional Catholics" and "Traditionalist Catholics", I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" (some 54 800 times)on the Internet.

Here is my challenge to YOU: Find more than a few pages on which a Catholic who fits the first definition but does not fit the second definition actually refers to himself as a "traditionalist Catholic" AND does not proceed to go on about "so-called traditionalist Catholics" (or "rad-trads" or "integrists" or "lidless-eyeds" and so forth) and argue with their beliefs. (Note: you will find on that first page of returns a link to a homosexual self-proclaimed "traditionalist Catholic" who not just struggles with such impulses (as we all struggle with sin), but wants everyone to consider it not sinful to act on them. Recall how you mocked me when I brought up such "Andrew Sullivan type 'traditionalist Catholics'" (as I believe I termed them) when I was asked to name types of self-proclaimed traditionalists who want to "roll back the liturgical reforms" but which neither group as described in the present summary would consider "traditionalist Catholic" at all).

And when you're done with that, why don't you propose a summary instead of orchestrating and complaining like a prima donna. Do you realize how many times you have agreed on an assertion or summary only to retract with your next post? And do you realize that you wrote "Finally!" in some condescending exasperation after getting -- and (finally!) agreeing with -- this as a first paragraph for a summary:

DSU11: Traditionalist Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

-- when, on October 18, I'd proposed this (DSU3)?:

In one sense, the term 'traditional Catholic' is used to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.

-- said summary being one you rejected even though it is even more "lenient" toward "your side" than the one you agreed to just a few days ago (but, of course, are now backtracking on)? How am I not to believe that there is game-playing going on here? What is your goal? Used2BAnonymous 18:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It is silly to make a statement there are only 3 or 4 people who are traditionalist and not at war with Rome. The whole FSSP and ICK fall into the first category and not the second. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This entry isn't about priestly societies. The FSSP and ICK have their own entries. This entry is about traditionalist Catholics, more specifically, those of the second definition. Two groups are mentioned: those who have issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II and those who don't. Some of those who do attend Masses offered by indult. That is mentioned. Used2BAnonymous 18:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You know full well what I am talking about. Many people attending masses offered by those priestly societies are not at war with Rome, they are traditionalist. Some are and some are not. Your rhetorical device of claiming I am in the extreme minority, there is only 3 or 4 of us, is dishonest. Like I stated before the problem is that you assign beliefs to those people, and they don't all hold to what you consider the canon of traditionalism. That is the foundation of this disagreement. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No matter if there were one or a trillion, they are mentioned in the first paragraph. So what is the problem? Used2BAnonymous 20:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The article about traditional Catholicism article doesn't outline the beliefs of traditionalists. It adds a lot of tripe that doesn't belong. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 21:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You must have missed the section entitled "Traditionalist beliefs." The beliefs of the people described in the first paragraph can be found in these entries:

• Catholicism
• Vatican II

Used2BAnonymous 23:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody uses "cats" to mean only great cats. Nobody uses "traditionalist Catholics" to mean only non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalist Catholics. It would be nonsense to look for a website that uses the term "traditionalist Catholic" of the non-Used2BAnonymous variety and refuses to apply the term to the Used2BAnonymous variety. But we have discovered that there are more than just a few sites that apply the term to both varieties. Just as definition one applies the same term to both varieties. Just as definition one of "cat" applies the same term to great cats and domestic cats, not to great cats alone. Used2BAnonymous still has not justified his claim that definition two is "more commonly used". Lima 05:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to look for a website that uses the term "traditionalist Catholic" of the non-Used2BAnonymous variety and refuses to apply the term to the Used2BAnonymous variety. I asked you to find more than a few pages on which a Catholic who fits the first definition but does not fit the second definition actually refers to himself as a "traditionalist Catholic" AND does not proceed to go on about "so-called traditionalist Catholics" (or "rad-trads" or "integrists" or "lidless-eyeds" and so forth) and argue with their beliefs. And I have more than justified my claim. Used2BAnonymous 12:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A website about cats that speaks not only about domestic cats, but also about great cats, uses definition one, not definition two, of "cat". Whether the great cats mentioned on the site do or do not speak disparagingly of domestic cats and argue with their beliefs, the website uses definition one. Lima 13:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

And the small handful of people who claim the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" (even though they don't actually refer to themselves as such UNLESS they are trying to take back the adjectives "traditional" and "Catholic" from definition two traditionalist Catholics -- the ones who ARE called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time) are described in the first paragraph. So what is the problem? Used2BAnonymous 14:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is Used2BAnonymous's unsubstantiated and apparently false claim that the terms "traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" "are more commonly used" in sense two rather than sense one. Used2BAnonymous traditionalists may well "make up the immense majority of those who use 'Traditional Catholics' (rather than 'Traditionalist Catholics') on the Internet"; but that is quite a different matter. Lima 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has for most of two days ceased defending "are more commonly used". On the article page he has now replaced that phrase with "are more exclusively used", a helpful suggestion by Malachias 111. Definition two does indeed use the terms in a more exclusive sense than definition one, and I have frequently referred to it as the exclusive definition. Would Used2BAnonymous kindly let us know whether he really accepts what he has now posted in the article page as his present draft for the summary. Lima 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Used2BAnonymous has been quiet because Lima has for most of two days ceased playing Charlie McCarthy to Dominick's Edgar Bergen (can Lima type while Dominick drinks a glass of water? Just curious).

I don't know where you get off saying I've stopped defending "are more commonly used" in such a manner as to intimate that I no longer believe what I have proved, i.e., that, in fact, "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are used, the immense majority of the time, to refer to the Catholics described in the second paragraph. Read the above posts and every other post I've written for the past two long months, and then consider the possibility that, on the American Thanksgiving, most Yanks prefer to eat turkey rather than argue with one.

Nonetheless, I have no issues with Malachias's use of "exclusive" (why would I?), and I "really accept" the summary as is.

Please let me know what word we will be arguing about for the next two months so I might plan my life accordingly. One wouldn't want to take a day or two off and have others believe one has changed one's mind or something. Used2BAnonymous 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, if you and Lima are in agreement on one side, and Malachias111 and I are in agreement on another (nevermind JLeigh, DominusTecum, etc.), which side has the "majority"? And even if a side were to have the majority, since when does Wikipedia operate on such principles? Given that I've asked as much of you before, why do you persist in these deceptive reverts -- especially since the most recent word regarding consensus on the summary was made by Lima when he said at 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC):

But if Used2BAnonymous agreed to make that little modification and presented as his DSU11 a text revised accordingly, Dominick could then express his view and, if necessary, I would try to persuade him to accept the text - unless, of course Dominick were instead to convince me I am wrong in my judgement about such a modified DSU11.

The version you replaced was much closer than yours to the version referenced above. What do you hope to accomplish with such mendacious reverts? Used2BAnonymous 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild, I beg pardon for having reverted without summarizing at 17:32, 23 November 2005. I realized it too late and didn't think to edit again and leave a "no edit" comment such as you do... Used2BAnonymous 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My warm thanks to Malachias 111 ("from the rising of the sun ..."?) for his help. I interpret Used2BAnonymous's statement that he really accepts "the summary as is" (though there is yet no summary, only draft summaries) as meaning that the text now posted on the Article page is his DSU12. But in case I misinterpret him, I would like to wait for Pathoschild, if he is sure that Used2BAnonymous means what I think he means, to post that text as DSU12. A discussion between Dominick and me may perhaps follow, and I do not want the two of us to discuss (whether we agree or disagree) something that Used2BAnonymous will then say is not really his proposal.

I agree fully with Used2BAnonymous that numbers is not what counts: we must strive for consensus.

DSU12 (if I may call it thus) is highly inelegant and somewhat vague in language; but since Used2BAnonymous is not one to accept well-meant stylistic changes, and since he refuses to give any consideration whatever to alternative draft summaries, DSU12 is all we have to work on, in order to reach a consensus.

I think a consensus can be reached on DSU12, but I must wait for Dominick's views on it. I would, however, strongly recommend Dominick to wait until Pathoschild has posted DSU12 above, before expressing any opinion. I will then examine both DSU12 and Dominick's opinion together, and give my own opinion - which at this moment is in favour of accepting.

Lima 14:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I cant see supporting a summary that portrays a caricature of traditional Catholicism, in the mold of U2BA. He doesn't speak for any traditionalists but himself. Other contributors that only appear to revert are clearly not here to edit wikipedia, but to "PoV-twist" one article. Once again I am renew my call for mediation. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 14:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I no longer oppose mediation, but I abstain from any such vote. // Pathoschild 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand what exactly mediation will do that patience and the guidance of Pathoschild cannot do. I think I looked up "mediation" on Wikipedia in the past and found that, among other things, it excludes decision taking by the mediator. So what will mediation do for us? Lima 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I could support:

"Traditionalist Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. This also refers to a movement of Catholics who also want to preserve all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II.

does this read better? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 21:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in my estimation. Used2BAnonymous 00:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, DSU12 is fine by me. Used2BAnonymous 01:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick's suggested modification of DSU12 is less inelegant than DSU12 itself. I have nothing against Dominick's amendment that I do not already have against DSU12. But, until Dominick indicates concretely what he finds wrong in DSU12, I cannot discuss DSU12 with him, to see who convinces whom.

DSU12 is indeed in need of improvement, and the DSL4 text is clearly superior. But it may perhaps be better, now that DSU12 has been freed of some false claims, to accept DSU12 as it is, with the less essential defects that it still maintains. The choice is between that and spending many more months getting Used2BAnonymous to recognize (hopefully with help again from Malachias 111) what is faulty in it and to remove what is silly. The article will lose as a result, but responsibility will lie with Used2BAnonymous.

Lima 07:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

From recent discussion, might it be safe to assume that the Lima draft summary is abandoned in favour of focusing on improving the Used2BAnonymous draft summary? // Pathoschild 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Basicaly we are going to reward pathologically obstante behavior by abandoning the Lima version, no I stil think the Lima version is logically superior. With fixes we can make DSU acceptable. Lets make those fixes before I can support it.Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove any false claims or defects; Used2BeAnonymous is right in saying that the terms are most commonly used to refer to the people described in the second paragraph and he proved his point. I am just trying to get past the summary. Malachias111 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As Malachias 111, with a flexibility that contrasts strongly with the attitude of Used2BAnonymous, removed a disputed non-essential claim, though believing the claim to be true, I am prepared, if consensus is thereby reached, to accept DSU12, with its silly claims and evident defects, some of which I will point out, after and if it is agreed on.

That consensus has not been reached: Dominick has declared his opposition. For the moment, therefore, my support still goes to DSL4, which has never been seriously criticized by anyone.

At least for some days, we should have the same patience with Dominick that we have had for months with someone who actually said, not once but twice, that a definition that only covers X is wider than a definition that covers not just X, but also Y and Z, who, on reading that there are people who believe in the inclusive definition of "traditionalist Catholics" (great and domestic cats alike), interpreted this statement as meaning that non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists (great cats) "actually exist" and made his draft yet more silly by inserting this interpretation into it ...

[QUOTATION: You ask, "If one definition makes a term cover only X, and another makes it cover X, Y and Z, is the definition that restricts it to X the wider or the narrower definition?" The definition that restricts it to X is the wider definition. Used2BAnonymous 19:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)]

So far, the only concrete objection to DSU12 that I find Dominick to have raised is that DSL4 is better. I agree decidedly that DSL4 is better. But the better is sometimes the enemy of the good or, in this case, of the less bad. Unless Dominick points out something concrete that is truly unacceptable in DSU12, I think DSU12, in spite of its defects, should be let pass. Dominick surely does not want to act like Used2BAnonymous.

Lima 06:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me be concrete. I object to making, then discarding a definition. I don't like the presumption that the rest of the article will be only about the U2BA traditionalists, who are not all and all as far as traditionalists go. This could be handled by one single paragraph. As far as clear writing, the summary is a disaster with paranthetical commas and tortured phrases. Better is often the enemy of good, but deficient is not acceptable. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

On the "They exist" line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=27919556

"Are "traditionalists" of Dominick's definition left out?" They are. Dominick's definition is the inclusive one, without distinctions between B and non-B, sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist, etc. Dominick's definition is not presented in either paragraph of DSU9, both of which presume the Used2BAnonymous definition. "What needs to be said about them that isn't said in the first paragraph?" That they, inclusive-sense traditionalist Catholics, as understood by Dominick (cf. DSL4) exist. Lima 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I am not sure how Dominick's definition -- ""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" -- isn't used in my summary when the first paragraph reads: " Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. " Is it that the phrase "general body" isn't used? If so, I object to that phrase because it makes no ecclesiological sense.

And since the summary is part of the entry, and since you two are claiming that because Dominick-style "traditionalist Catholics" aren't included in "the entry" because they are mentioned in the summary only, and also because you complain that the article doesn't explicity say that Dominick-style "traditionalists" exist (even though it is written in such a way that presumes their existence), I propose now:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. Catholics such as these who have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents and who don't see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed attend traditional Masses offered by indult (permission of the local Bishop) inside ordinary diocesan structures. These Catholics exist.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more commonly used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable. Used2BAnonymous 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous has simply not answered my 18:00, 11 November 2005 observations on DSU10. He even asks why cannot I cope with defining the same term twice, when it is he who cannot or, to be more exact, will not! To repeat what I said at 18:00, 11 November 2005, the second paragraph of DSU10 defines "traditionalist Catholic", without obfuscation, as used by Used2BAnonymous. Why does not Used2BAnonymous allow "traditionalist Catholic" to be defined, without obfuscation, elsewhere in DSU10 as used by Dominick? (If Used2BAnonymous would only let his eyes wander just a few lines above DSU10, he would find Dominick's way set out in the first paragraph of DSL4. The "want to roll back" definition is in substance the same as Dominick's, though it was formulated by Used2BAnonymous himself, who thus unwittingly showed that it reflects an understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" far more widespread than Used2BAnonymous cares to admit.) Lima 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits to the crap version that is posing as the entry now -- the version that presents as FACT that, in spite of how the phrase is used the immense majority of the time, the phrase "traditional Catholics" includes, without doubt, simply those who want the traditional rites -- has little to do with what I propose, so you can quit with that line of thinking now. The "they want to roll back" definition IS the same as Dominick's because it IS Dominick's, not mine. Just because I made it slightly more tolerable and haven't reverted it doesn't mean I support that version. My proposed summary is DSU10, which is why it is at the top of the page here. I would prefer to drop the "these Catholics exist" line, but that wasn't my idea either.

Now, what is so "obfuscated" in the first paragraph of DSU10? In what manner is the relating of the facts made less clear? Is it that the word "some" is used? Is that what the big freak-out is over? If so, how does use of that word "obfuscate" since it, in fact, clarifies given that it is the second definition that is used the immense majority of the time as indicated by you and as Google searches and the use of the term by the media also indicate? And how would you go about phrasing it since, in fact, some people (i.e., Dominick and Vere and that's about it) use the term that way while, the immense majority of the time, the term is used by others in the second way? On second thought, perhaps the first paragraph would be less "obfuscated" if it were to read:

Traditional Catholic is a term used by about two or three people to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

That certainly is more clear.

If the use of "some" is not the source of this "obfuscation," then what is? The ridiculous insistence on mentioning the fact that "these Catholics exist" is even honored in DSU10. I've asked you and Dominick what else needs to be said about these Catholics that isn't already said, and have gotten nothing. You think it's "obfuscated"? Then clarify it. All you seem to do is nit-pick and complain without offering much in the way of solutions to these huge problems you see, as if you're some sovereign issuing commands. Perhaps this sort of underlying attitude explains why you address me in the second person. Why not go all the way and use the royal "we"? "We are not amused by Used2BAnonymous's version and find it obfuscating! It needs to be changed forthwith! Patience, Dominick! We are sure he will figure out how to read our mind if we keep at this long enough." Used2BAnonymous 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

On DSU4 and why it won't work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=28590437

It would require having to explain which "traditionalist Catholic" is being referred to each time the phrase is used. There is no reason for it. Used2BAnonymous 09:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you think a definition that says "A" requires simply "X" is not wider and more inclusive than one that says "A" requires "X, Y, and Z," then there is no hope for you. Used2BAnonymous 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Again ample reasons why we are not working to consensus. Going around the answers to make a poke that there are only two or three people with the definition the way I hold it, when indeed it is the more general definition including all traditionalists of any type. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 19:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said to you from the beginning, Dominick, set up a disambiguation page. Have your own entry on Catholics who like the traditional Mass and have no issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II's documents (such Catholics being known as "conservative Catholics" in the real world). I guess you can only do this, though, if you can come up with anything to say about them other than that they exist. Used2BAnonymous 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Content forking, a secondary article for the inclusive definition may be unjustified. // Pathoschild 20:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And it would be unjustified in a sane world, but we are in Hooterville now, and the entire town is mad. "It should state clearly that they exist!" "Now I think it ridiculous that you say 'they exist'!" "The more inclusive term is a narrower definition than the exclusive one!" "Dominick's definition is ignored even though it's right there in the first paragraph!" "On second thought, don't say anything about those Dominick-type Catholics at all except that they want to 'roll back the reforms'; anything else would be 'obfuscating'!" "The second definition is used 'the immense majority of the time' but you haven't proved it with all those Google search returns because, though Google spiders millions of websites on the World Wide Web, the World Wide Web isn't the world!" "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required" (What?) "Stop with your personal attacks!"

Awaiting Arnold Ziffel for some comic relief. Used2BAnonymous 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The only difference is that your kind of people are railing against Rome. Thats the only thing that is the issue. Loyal traditionalists who don't sing the "we are doomed" song with a heavy dose of schadenfruende towards Rome are a threat. If people think they can worship without your kind of nonsense, then why would they need little websites with tools to bash the Church. Exclusion in this article as it is now is reprehensible. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, no agenda there! I rest my case. (P.S. the word is "schadenfreude," and I don't think you know what it means if you think traditionalists revel in it with regard to the actions of some Vatican hierarchs). Used2BAnonymous 04:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not having been able to get back to this and respond sooner to Dominick, who has raised two concrete points. On the first point, I deny that DSU12 absolutely excludes from the rest of the article the use of the terms in question in senses other than the sense that fits Used2BAnonymous's point of view. On the second, while the rest of the article should be in good English, I think Dominick should be very happy with a definition of Used2BAnonymous types that seems to please them, but that unprejudiced readers will find outrageous. Indeed, the more outrageous and ridiculous it is, the better. Lima 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point Lima, as tempting as it is to let the second confusing definition hang traditionalists, I fear people will associate traditional Catholicism with U2BA's angry form of Catholicism. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 12:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The inclusive non-polemic meaning is given first, even if in a reluctant tone. That is enough, even if only barely so. The real trouble will come when we discuss whether "angry" attacks on what the Baltimore Catechism called the Teaching Church is permissible in a section on Traditionalist beliefs (not disbeliefs) instead of being placed where they belong: Relations with other Catholic groups. Let us just accept Used2BAnonymous's draft summary now, and thus begin the series of years during which he will probably hold to his point-of-view ideas there. Lima 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Angry"? You're just cute as a lil ole button, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 13:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, er, Your Excellency, I knew you'd get around to trying to "excommunicate" traditionalist Catholics sooner or later. That was the goal I said you two had: to turn the article into a debate and to exclude those that you are hilariously describing as "angry" (come on, give us a bit of "Rad-trad, integrist, lidless-eyed Protestant!" trash talk just for fun). Laissez les bons temps rouler! Kissing the Sacred Ring, Used2BAnonymous 13:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, lets plan this out then. Whats reasonable for the article. Are there other changes to the DSU12? Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not see what "we" can plan out. It is easy to see changes that would make DSU12 more reasonable. But the author of DSU12 is Used2BAnonymous, who, from what we know of him, cannot be expected to make his drafts any less unreasonable. Let him present his point of view of what makes a traditionalist Catholic. The rest of the article must, however, be free of personal points of view and be strictly neutral, "excommunicating" neither the Teaching Church nor those who set themselves up in opposition to the Teaching Church. DSU12 is a bit of a rag, but I say accept it and have done with it. Lima 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "cannot be expected to make his drafts any less unreasonable." Is this an unsurmountable problem? Will acceptable of this flawed summary embolden this person to make life tougher farther in?Dominick ^(TALK) 21:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Blockquoted below is a possible compromise based on comments from both sides in the discussion and on the current draft summaries. This is probably not acceptable to either side, but it might become so with constructive modification. Sarcasm and flippancy, or accusing others of being unreasonable, arrogant, et cetera, gets us nowhere excepting regression.

Traditionalist or traditional Catholicism can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the sacramental rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and does not recognize the authority of the Second Vatican Council to modify what they consider the true Catholic teachings.

// Pathoschild 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't go along with this noble effort, Pathoschild, for a few reasons:

1. It would force the rest of the article to have to specify which sort of "traditionalist" is being referred to every time the term is used, something that would make the article very sloppy. And the fact is, the sort of Catholic Dominick is talking about is not commonly referred to as "traditionalist" (they are referred to as "conservatives" and only refer to themselves as "traditionalists" when they are trying to "re-claim" the word "traditional" from Catholics of the second definition. I have asked for a few webpages where Catholics of this type refer to themselves as "traditionalists" AND do not go on rants against Catholics of the second definition. I got no response.). In addition, there is absolutely nothing to say about them: they attend Masses offered by indult but otherwise are like any other Catholic. No problems, no issues. No issues, that is, except with traditionalists of the second definition. I have asked Dominick probably 20 times (literally) what it is about these Catholics that needs to be said, and have, again, gotten NOTHING from him in response. Not a word. Lima came up with: a) "that they exist" needs to be said (which I, thinking it ridiculous, added -- so much again for my lack of "flexibility" -- and which he, just a few posts ago, blamed me for), and b) that "Dominick-style" Catholics don't believe the papal oath is based on an actual, historical oath. Reference to the oath was removed (and any arguments about it should go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section anyway).
2. The line about the traditional Catholic movement not recognizing "the authority of the Second Vatican Council to modify what they consider the true Catholic teachings" begs the question, "Did the Second Vatican Council 'modify' what they consider true Catholic teachings?" First, no traditionalist think that 'true Catholic teachings' even can be modified. Second, different traditionalists see the Council's documents in different ways: some believe that the ambiguities allow them to be read in light of tradition, others think they can't (all agree that the Council was pastoral and that no solemn definitions were promulgated, and ALL agree that typical interpretations of the documents present Catholic teaching as having changed).

As I've said from the beginning, there is an agenda being played out here. The posts above from "the other side" show it clearly. Dominick and Lima are not wanting to write an article about those who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time; they are wanting to write an article to defend what they (wrongfully, in my opinion and in the opinions of others who do call themselves and are referred to as "traditionalists") consider true Catholic teachings. Think back to his calling second-definition trads "militant" and not "official Catholics." I mean, seriously, read this post:

The only difference is that your kind of people are railing against Rome. Thats the only thing that is the issue. Loyal traditionalists who don't sing the "we are doomed" song with a heavy dose of schadenfruende towards Rome are a threat. If people think they can worship without your kind of nonsense, then why would they need little websites with tools to bash the Church. Exclusion in this article as it is now is reprehensible. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a catechism; it's a Wiki entry, and the entry is about those who are called "traditionalist Catholics" in the real world (those whom Lima admits are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time), what they believe, what they do, where they worship, the issues involved.

Finally, all this nonsense about how "angry" traditionalists are is insulting and wrong (really, who seems to be angry here? I'm sarcastic for sure, but "angry"? That's Dominick.). This questioning of traditionalists' "loyalty" and deference to "the teaching Church" (where was that during the Arian crisis?) is ridiculous and a "personal attack" of the sort that Dominick is always going on about. Used2BAnonymous 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First, just to get a red herring out of the way, I never said that Used2BAnonymous types are called traditionalist Catholics the immense majority of the time.

Now to the point. Pathoschild has made a highly commendable effort to produce a draft summary acceptable to all sides. A brave effort too, in view of Used2BAnonymous's reaction to an earlier effort by Pathoschild. If Used2BAnonymous could only look beyond his own creations, he would collaborate by suggesting amendments to the Pathoschild proposal.

Pathoschild is only stating a fact in saying that "traditionalist Catholic" is used in an inclusive as well as an exclusive sense. Even the websites that Used2BAnonymous pointed to use it, at least at times, in a sense that includes more than Used2BAnonymous types. What Pathoschild states is a fact, even if for Used2BAnonymous it is an unpalatable fact.

The final phrase in Pathoschild's text, about the Second Vatican Council, should, I think, be modified, to take account of Used2BAnonymous's ideas. What about "and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by the Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council"?

There is only one amendment I would ask for on my own behalf. But if Used2BAnonymous refuses to collaborate, it is useless to put it forward.

Lima 07:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, Lima, you can explain how the fact that "some people" (e.g., Dominick and Vere, and only when arguing against Catholics of the second definition) use the term "traditionalist Catholic" in the inclusive sense is not covered by DSU12, the first paragraph of which is:

"Traditionalist Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

And then maybe you can explain how Pathoschild's attempt is indicative of "bravery" because of some "reaction" I had to an earlier effort of his. Did I sic my dogs on him? Lop off his head? Assassinate his penguin? Please.

You are correct that you did not say that "Used2BAnonymous types are called traditionalist Catholics the "immense majority of the time"; the exact quote is:

"If you examine the Google references for 'Traditional Catholics' and 'Traditionalist Catholics', I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use 'Traditional Catholics' (some 54 800 times)on the Internet."

Feel better? Used2BAnonymous 07:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not discuss Pathoschild's proposal, at least for a while? Lima 08:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I offered my opinions on it (in what I am sure will soon enough be characterized as a vicious attack of some sort). But, in any case, discussing the specifics of proposals would be much easier if I weren't placed in the position of having to defend traditionalist Catholics from libel, and my own character from intimations that I am "inflexible," "unable to look past" my own "creations," "angry," reveling in, er, "schadenfruende" with regard to hierarchical wrong-doings, "bashing" the Church, "railing against Rome," "disloyal" -- and this is just in the past few posts. Used2BAnonymous 09:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any disparaging comments by Pathoschild about Used2BAnonymous, or of any reason that would justifiably prevent Used2BAnonymous from - to my surprise - politely discussing the specifics of Pathoschild's proposal, incorporating perhaps in it the amendment that I have suggested for its last phrase. Lima 12:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I can accept the changes made by Pathoschild. I am able to compromise to get this going. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Pathoschild made any disparaging comments about me. Where are you getting this? Please, put down the pipe, man. Used2BAnonymous 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think thats pretty non responsive. Think about it. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If I take up just briefly Used2BAnonymous's two points, it might perhaps help him to respond.

Point 1: "It would force the rest of the article to have to specify which sort of "traditionalist" is being referred to every time." To judge by the article as posted by Used2BAnonymous, there is no need. What his text says of positive beliefs of traditionalists holds for all. Only where his text speaks of disbeliefs is it necessary to say that this applies only to traditionalists of the narrow kind. Not a huge problem, surely.

Point 2, about problems with speaking of the Second Vatican Council as "modifying" Catholic teaching. I think my proposed amendment overcomes those problems.

Lima 16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I am not sure what you mean when you speak of "positive beliefs" versus "disbeliefs." Can you list some examples of traditionalist "disbeliefs"? (I am thinking that any "disbelief" entails positive belief and that said disbelief can be stated in a positive manner, e.g., a cat is either in a box or not: one can say that he "disbelieves" the cat is outside of the box, that he "disbelieves" the cat is not inside the box, that he "believes" the cat is in the box, or that he "believes" the cat is not outside the box, and one would be saying the same thing.)

I maintain that "there is no need" to specify what sort of traditionalist is being referred to every time the word is used in my version of the entry because it says clearly in the summary that the rest of the entry refers to Catholics of the second definition." Not specifying that would entail having to specify with each asserted belief and with each use of the terms "traditional Catholic" or "traditionalist Catholic." It would make the article extremely messy, and there's no need for it because, as I've said (without being countered with examples), there is really nothing to say about Catholics of the first definition (except for the things that were removed to alleviate what has been termed "obfuscation"). Rather, anything that they believe with regard to second definition traditionalists' beliefs/disbeliefs/what have you can be said in the "Relations with other Catholics" section as they would apply to conservative Catholics, liberal Catholics, etc.

As to the last proposed summary and amendments to it, I would have no problem with this:

Traditionalist or traditional Catholicism can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by the Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

(Note that, upon further reflection, I changed "sacramental" to "liturgical" when modifying the word "rites" as it is more accurate in that it includes the Divine Office, etc.)Used2BAnonymous 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(SNIP) Think about it. Used2BAnonymous 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA Dominick ^(TALK) 11:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There he goes snipping again. Dominick, I think thats pretty non responsive. Think about it. Used2BAnonymous 12:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The baiting in pretty counter productive. When do we assume there is no good faith? Dominick ^(TALK) 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just quoted you. Is that a problem? Used2BAnonymous 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I may have to withdraw, with apologies, much of what I have said about Used2BAnonymous: he is indeed discussing Pathoschild's proposal politely and rationally, without sarcasm, and has helpfully accepted the amendment by which an earlier, quite valid, objection of his is responded to.

I cannot agree with the addition of "and as used in the rest of this entry". The fundamental reason why it is unacceptable is that, by excluding the view that "traditionalist Catholic" can have the wider of the two senses mentioned, it imposes a single point of view, a point of view that is controversial, not accepted by all.

Furthermore, avoidance of ambiguity in the rest of the entry has absolutely no need of such an addition. Even a quick read of the present one-sided article shows that, apart from some infelicitous expressions, the part headed "Traditionalist beliefs", down to just before "Traditional Catholics believe, though, that errors ...", could be applied to all traditionalists (cats in the sense of "an animal of the family Felidae, including both lions and domestic cats). It shows too that the article already makes distinctions among traditionalist Catholics, and "differences divide them into two major groups" could quite easily be changed, if necessary, into "differences divide them into three major groups." After that, the part beginning with "Traditional Catholics believe, though, that errors ..." concerns only traditionalists of the second definition, and does not refer to every traditionalist of the first definition, but only to some of them. This is clear without any "and as used in the rest of this entry" and could be made clearer with only minimal retouches.

Lima 13:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Those chages were proposed before and removed in the subsequent edit wars. Perhaps a different tack is in order. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima, I try to only use sarcasm when, given my limitations, there is no other way to express myself without being out and out rude, such as when I am being attacked, when dealing with total illogic and unreadable English, etc. But thanks for the kind words, s'all good.

Now, I maintain that leaving mention of definition one Catholics in the summary is not "excluding them" because they are there in the summary. I mean, they're either there or they're not there, and if they are there, then they are not excluded. But as I've said, everything that needs to be said about such Catholics is easily noted in the summary so that the rest of the entry will not require having to clarify which sort of "traditionalist" is being referred to each time the phrase is used.

You say that the part headed "traditionalist beliefs," down to just before "Traditionalist Catholics believe, though, that errors..." could be applied to all traditionalists, but this is mistaken:

1. Dominick screamed about referring to a "revolution" in the human element of the Church:
   

"Revolution is out. Way over PoV according to editors, and not acceptable to all Traditionalists. Vatican Hierarchs is out, few traditionalists use it, except for the SSPX and the sympathizers to the SSPX. I think we have a strong consensus on this, among contributors. Dominick (Ta?K) 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)"

1. He does not find Vatican II "valid albeit problematic:
   

"This issue is that they both equate traditional Catholicism with a rejection of Vatican II as it were, and not just the over reaching reforms that followed. If we read through the discussion in archives, we see we all agreed, we had a consensus, that the specific problems were not caused by Vatican II per se, but the reforms of the Mass following the council... Dominick 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)"

1. He believes things that "would have been considered 'Modernist' or 'liberal' at the time of the Second Vatican Council":
   

"The problem it that using the assumption forces the conclusion that the teachings of the Church have changed, this is not held by the greater Church, and more importantly is not held by all traditionalists. That some of the traditionalists incorrectly think that Church teachings have changed is irrelevent in the opening.

What is said in the opening should apply to all who are traditionalists, this would include the Indults, independents, SSPX, FSSP, and others. While some independents (includes Sedes) and the SSPX think that unchangable teachings were altered, those who attend Indult Mass, and FSSP mebers do not have this view, as evidenced by attendence and cooperation with the Local Ordinary. That was my point. Dominick 11:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)"

And so on.

You say that "differences divide them into two major groups" could quite easily be changed, if necessary, into "differences divide them into three major groups," but the above shows why this isn't so. The main division between definition one and definition two Catholics is described perfectly in the summary: definition one simply "would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s"; definition two would like to do that AND "want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider 'true' Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable."

This seems the most natural division, and lumping the two definitions together would, as I said, make for a very messy, disorganized entry. And, as I've also said, there is absolutely nothing to say about definition one Catholics. They attend regular parishes, they believe we're in a great new springtime, that the typical interpretations of Vatican II are fine, etc. They simply have "no issues" except with the Sr. Joan Chittisters of the world and with us "rad trad integrist Rome-bashers" (two types they seem to lump together under the label "dissenters"). My challenge to "your side (as it were) to think of something to say about these people has not been met with the exception of "they exist" (which we both agree is ridiculous to mention) and the bit about the papal oath, mention of which has been removed, and any debates about which belonging in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

Further, and as I've also said before, the simple fact is that definition one Catholics are most commonly referred to as "conservative Catholics" (or "neo-conservatives" by definition two Catholics). A preference for the traditional Sacramental rites does not a "traditionalist" make as the phrase is used the immense majority of the time. Frankly, if it were up to me, there'd be no mention of them at all in this article, as this article wasn't created to be about them, the term isn't commonly used to refer to them, and the only reason they even pretend to claim the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" is because definition two Catholics use the phrase, and they object to the idea that we are "traditional" or even "Catholic." The challenge to "your side" (as it were) to come up with a few webpages wherein the phrase is used to describe definition one Catholics AND does not ALSO go on to bitch and moan about definition two Catholics has not been met.

Frankly, I think Dominick's apparent desires would be better served if he would give up on trying to hang on to the "traditionalist Catholic" moniker (unused in the real world by Catholics of his type outside the parameters mentioned), forget the middle section about "Traditionalist beliefs," and jump to the "Relations with other Catholics" section where he can present his arguments and they can be rebutted. Used2BAnonymous 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The conservative Catholic neologism only occurs in the Vatican bashing traditional Catholic web boards. That was a long time ago. Right now the article need to include all traditional Catholics, all those who that belong to the FSSP, ICK and attend those indults like me, allthose those who attend those masses and sympathize with more radical groups like you, and all those sedes and sede like groups. I can'tsee where a NPoV article can be any less. So far this discussion is an attack by you on me personally and not to improve this article. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Google search for "conservative Catholics": [15] Doesn't look like a "neologism" that occurs only on "Vatican bashing traditional Catholic web boards."

Only priests "belong" to the FSSP, ICK, SSPX, etc. This isn't an article about priests or priestly societies; it is about traditionalist Catholics.

A NOPV article would stick to the definitions that people actually use, and the fact is that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is almost always used to describe definition two Catholics, not conservative (neo-conservative) Catholics who like the traditional Mass. Used2BAnonymous 05:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The first definition "encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s", including of course those of the second definition. An article that, apart from a brief mention of the existence of the first definition, treats the second as the only valid definition is, I submit, a point-of-view article banned from Wikipedia.

Yes, there are infelicitous expressions in the not yet discussed text now presented as the article. These can be adjusted. The article can describe traditionalists both in the all-inclusive sense and also in the narrow exclusive sense. Just as the text now posted repeatedly makes room for descriptions of subsets of definition-two traditionalists.

There is no need to say anything whatever specifically about - please excuse the expression - "non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists" (i.e. people who fit within the inclusive definition of "traditionalist Catholic" but are excluded from the other definition of "traditionalist Catholic"), since neither definition is specifically about them. But there is need, for the sake of balance, to say something about traditionalist Catholics of the first definition, in other words, to indicate what traditionalists in this first sense (which includes every second-definition traditionalist who exists) have in common.

The phrase "and as used in the rest of this entry" imposes a single point of view, a point of view that is controversial, not accepted by all. I think Wikipedia rules exclude such a presentation.

Lima 08:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be POV if, in fact, definition one Catholics were actually regularly referred to as "traditionalist Catholics," but they're not. They are most commonly called "conservative" and "neo-conservative." I maintain that even mentioning them in this article is unecessary, and that not mentioning them is as "POV" as not mentioning Gummi bears in an article about the three Magi.

Nonetheless, they are mentioned at Dominick's insistence. Still, and again, there is nothing to say about them that isn't said (or that "your side," as it were, didn't want removed as "obfuscating"). You say that there is a need to say "something" about what "traditionalist Catholics of the first definition" have in common (I am assuming you mean with each other), but what is said in that paragraph says it all -- or, at least, that is all I can think of, and my repeated questioning ("What needs to be said about the first definition Catholics that isn't already said?") has been fruitless aside from the "they exist" thing and the papal oath thing (which, I think, belongs in the "Relations" section if it is to be made an issue). As to what they have in common with Catholics of the second definition, the commonality mentioned in each paragraph of the summary (that they "would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s") says it all as far as I can see. What's there is it. There is nothing more to say about how "similar" two groups are who have nothing in common but the label "Catholic" and a desire to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s. The two groups can't stand each other, with the first considering the second dissident, angry, militant, Rome-hating, Vatican-bashing, lidless-eyed, integrist Protestants (and having a nasty tendency to pretend to "excommunicate" people and call them "schismatic"), and the latter considering the former uneducated but "on-the-warpath" types who haven't studied enough and who need to stop thinking the Church started in 1965 (an aside: to boil it down, they think think that the conservatives need a clearer understanding of the levels of the Magisterium, Christian obedience, and ecclesiastical, or "extrinsic," tradition, and how to recognize what is and isn't infallible).

Anyway, that's the state of things. Sad but true. I mean, we have been debating this thing since 26 September. This is the 67th day -- that's sixty-seven days -- and we are still talking about the same two, tiny paragraphs (and I HATE debate; I can't stand arguing, believe it or not). The two "sides" are at total cross-purposes here, and it all comes down to the question: what, for the sake of this entry, is a "traditionalist Catholic" -- i.e., is it a) anyone who calls himself that at any time for any reason? b) the people who actually refer to themselves and are referred to by others as "traditionalist Catholics"? c) anyone who fits some objective criteria? If so, what criteria and by whose authority are these criteria enumerated?

I go with the second definition because the first would leave any Wiki entry open to anyone at any time (I refer not to editing, but content. I.e., I could horn in on the entry on Muslims by saying "That's me, too!" and then proceed to basically throw crap around that makes no sense to the average man). The third definition doesn't really apply because we are talking about self-defined (and other-defined) groups, not math or a phenomenon of the natural world or even some infallible statement from the Church (which criterion wouldn't last a second in a Wiki article anyway). And this is why I keep returning to the Google search returns which show how the term is used on the World Wide Web, which I consider quite indicative of how the term is used, period.

But going with definition one (which I obviously partially assent to since the first paragraph of my proposed summary is what it is), I am led back to the by now age-old question, "What needs to be said about definition one Catholics that isn't already said?" Further, if what needs to be said can be said in the summary, would it not make for a more coherent article to keep it there? Consider the alternative:

Traditionalist beliefs

A new understanding of collegiality which they claim has weakened the papacy and made bishops' conferences a veritable "second Vicar of Christ" for the Church. They see this as contradicting, among other documents, Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and the Nota Praevia to Vatican II's Lumen Gentium. This doesn't apply to the traditionalist Catholics of the first definition, who believe ...etc.

A new ecclesiology that they claim doesn't equate the Catholic Church with the Church established by Jesus Christ, but treats the Church established by Jesus Christ as merely "subsisting in" the Catholic Church in an undefined way. They claim that the typical interpretation of this "subsistence" contradicts Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi among other papal documents, and leads to false ideas of "ecumenism". This doesn't apply to the traditionalist Catholics of the first definition, who believe ...etc.

A new focus on the natural world coupled with a de-emphasizing of the supernatural and preternatural worlds. This, they say, leads to Deism, Pragmatism, and moral relativism. This doesn't apply to the traditionalist Catholics of the first definition, who believe ...etc.

-- and on and on. Sloppy. The entire entry becomes a debate rather than keeping such arguments in the "Relations" section.

Or, if you're still not "with" me, what I would love to see is how you would write the entire entry if it were left solely to you. I am not being smart-alecky; I am truly curious because I can't see how the inclusive definition can be maintained as the focus of the entry without the entry becoming hopelessly messy and disorganized (not to mention quite nasty). Used2BAnonymous 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition-one Catholics ("all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s") quite obviously are not most commonly called "conservative" and "neo-conservative." They include Used2BAnonymous.

If Used2BAnonymous would only read definition one ("all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s") carefully, he would see that it does not correspond with his idea of it.

Definition-one Catholics ("all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s") are actually regularly referred to as "traditionalist Catholics", and not only by Catholics hostile to Used2BAnonymous types, as Used2BAnonymous repeatedly suggests. Take as an exampleone of the sites to which Used2BAnonymous pointed me (thereby unwittingly making me learn that even on the Internet the more common understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" is an inclusive one). While this site gives examples of traditionalists who fit both definitions (e.g.: "The pope is infected with modernism," complained Eileen Allen, 45, of Oregon who recently attended a women's workshop at the Los Gatos retreat. "By that I mean ecumenism, that all religions are equal to the Catholic Church."), it opens with a description that does accord with the broad inclusive definition, but does not at all accord with the narrow exclusive definition: "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service." Here there is no mention whatever of the essential common characteristics (what Used2BAnonymous calls "commonalities") of second-definition traditionalists, such as taking issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questioning whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by the Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council. Yet this is clearly no Vatican-defending site.

There is no need to add to each of the paragraphs that Used2BAnonymous mentions: "This applies to all second-definition traditionalists, but only to some first-definition traditionalists." It would be enough to state this, or rather a much shorter equivalent, just once, at the start of that long account of criticisms that certain traditionalists direct against the Teaching Church's presentation of Catholic doctrine. Indeed, the two words "Some traditionalists" should be enough.

Lima 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a rough consensus. Are we all supporting Pathos comprimise text, and can we post that here one more time? Dominick ^(TALK) 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The original proposal has been archived, and repeated here at Dominick's request.

Traditionalist or traditional Catholicism can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the sacramental rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and does not recognize the authority of the Second Vatican Council to modify what they consider the true Catholic teachings.

// Pathoschild 16:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lima, you say that definition one includes definition two, as though we are talking about a set and sub-set. But that is not how my summary reads. The word "simply" is there in the first definition. There is group one, and group two. The groups have a commonality -- which is indicated in each paragraph -- but the second group also has characteristics X, Y, and Z not shared with the first group.

You say the page linked to uses the first definition and that there "there is no mention whatever of the essential common characteristics (what Used2BAnonymous calls "commonalities") of second-definition traditionalists, such as taking issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questioning whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by the Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council" -- but the page includes these words:

In the traditionalist Catholic world, there are no shades of gray in the issues of abortion and contraception, and women can't perform liturgical duties. Believing in purgatory is a must. Eating meat on Fridays is forbidden. Women must wear head coverings in church. Strumming a guitar at church or a pastor entertaining the parish with jokes are seen as silly if not sacrilegious.

Also, traditionalists don't believe in reaching out to other Christian faiths and are angry the Second Vatican Council changed its official opinion of non-Catholics from ``heretics to recognizing them as ``separate brethren.

``The pope is infected with modernism, complained Eileen Allen, 45, of Oregon who recently attended a women's workshop at the Los Gatos retreat. ``By that I mean ecumenism, that all religions are equal to the Catholic Church. That's not true. The Catholic Church is the one that Christ founded. Other denominations are man-made.

Although the convictions about abortion, Communion and purgatory are still the official positions of the Roman Catholic Church, the majority of mainstream Catholics hold somewhat more progressive views, scholars say. Also, Dinges said a key difference is that traditionalists often want to ``cast out anyone who doesn't take these religious rules literally.

and

The actor's father, Hutton Gibson, is a member of the traditionalist Catholic movement, which operates outside the Roman Catholic Church and embraces a 16th-century form of the religion that celebrates Tridentine (Latin) Mass and denies the legitimacy of all popes and church reforms since the start of the second Vatican Council, 1962-65. (That council, among other things, eliminated the belief that Jews, collectively, were responsible for the death of Jesus, and directed the church to seek reconciliation.)

The page is incorrect in saying these things, but nonetheless is not referring to people who attend Masses offered by indult AND have no issues at all with Vatican II documents, etc. Used2BAnonymous 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, why do you keep seeing consensus where there is no consensus? Used2BAnonymous 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some of the traditionalist Catholics that the page speaks of fall under the second definition as well as the first. But the page does mention some who qualify for the first inclusive definition, but not for the second exclusive definition. An article about cats that speaks not only about domestic cats but also about lions is an article about cats in the inclusive sense (Felidae), not about cats in the exclusive sense (domestic cats only).

There is no "simply" in the compromise draft summary. Even if there were, it would make no difference: few would agree that "simply" means "NOT wanting to preserve (and restore, where wanting) etc. etc." This would give "simply" an exclusive meaning, though we normally use "simply" in an all-inclusive sense, as when we say something is "simply the best." The DSU12 first definition was: "'Traditionalist Catholic' is a term used by some to refer simply" - i.e. without exception, all-inclusively - "to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s." It too included Used2BAnonymous himself.

Perhaps Used2BAnonymous prefers to speak of DSU12 rather than the compromise draft summary as a way of abandoning his vain attempt to defend his proposed addition of "and as used in the rest of this entry". For the record, I repeat here Used2BAnonymous's proposed revision of the compromise draft summary:

Traditionalist or traditional Catholicism can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by the Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

Apart from "and as used in the rest of this entry", I find Used2BAnonymous's proposal for the second paragraph fully acceptable, though a couple of slight stylistic changes would be good.

Lima 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The way I read that page [16] is that it is about second definition Catholics through and through, but the first characteristic listed is that they "that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service." It then goes on to list their other characteristics, few or none of which describe definition one Catholics. In other words, it's like a page about lions that begins "Lions are African mammals. They belong to the feline family, have whiskers, have babies called 'cubs,' etc." In such a case, the article isn't about all African mammals, though it begins with mentioning that characteristic.

Anyway, my bad with regard to referring to "simply" in a former summary. But inserting a similar word or phrase into the most recently proposed summary is a simple solution, for ex.:

"Traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who merely prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

Changes made:

1. "Traditional" and "traditionalist" put in quotes
2. "Merely" added
3. "Wishes" --> "seeks"

What stylistic changes would you like to see? 152.163.100.202 12:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The fallicy is that traditionalism is not tied to defiance of the Vatican and confrontation with mainstream Catholics. The issue I have in particular is that Catholic who do not beat the drum of "Vatican IIs fault" are to be mentioned at all. What is worse is that the article acts like there is one type on traditionalist who has exactly the same belief, in such techinical detail when that isn't true at all.

The article keeps using the term "as used in the rest of the article", then describes the "confrontational" type exclusivly. In the same way, you describe Lions as an african animal, when they range through asia as well. An article about lions is incomplete without metioning asian lions as well. An even better analogy would be Orthodoxy, we could not have an narticle about the Orthodox without metioning groups that have restored a bond with Rome. I agree with the quote marks, but I think thats a nit. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the new Anonymous user. I appreciate his/her apparent directness and reasonableness.

I agree fully with the replacement of "wishes" by "seeks" - or rather I agree fully with the presence of "seeks" in the text - I have failed to find where it is a replacement. Proposals of stylistic changes can wait for agreement on substance. The problem of the point-of-view character that "and as used in the rest of this entry" would impose on the article has regrettably not been solved. And, unfortunately too, "merely" raises another problem: nobody uses "traditionalist Catholic" to mean people who merely prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s, just as nobody defines "cat" as meaning merely great cats, to the exclusion of domestic cats.

Lima 15:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The "anonymous user" above is me; I forgot to sign my post. "Merely" doesn't raise a problem because Dominick and Peter Vere use the term to describe Catholics who merely prefer the customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s and who have no ideological issues, all while excommunicating or considering "schismatic" Catholics of the second definition. But if you want to go with the whole set/subset concept, then just lay it out. I mean, if this has to be so nit-picked to the point of ridiculousness (well, I guess it's way past that sell-by date), let's go with:

"Traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s, whether or not these Catholics seek to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and question whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement that wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

Can't get any more clear than that. Reads like crap, but, well, this is rocket science. Lives are at stake!

A blessed Advent to all... 152.163.100.202 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous, who again omitted to log in, seems to be at least sometimes a helpful contributor, but still has not removed the problematic "and as used in the rest of this entry" phrase.

I agree with the content of the "whether or not..." phrase added to the first paragraph, but, because it begins with "whether or not", it adds nothing whatever to the meaning of "all Roman Catholics who ..." Though for stylistic reasons it can scarcely be kept, it does, however, make explicit the significance of the word "all".

I think it would be preferable to return to concentrating on the second paragraph, before discussing how to improve the first paragraph.

And best wishes for a blessed Advent also from me to everyone involved now and over the past months.

Lima 16:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice Advent, as well. Lets change the version you proposed Lima, to the one that you can agree to with the changes you made, and then lets look to see if we can live with it. Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate is up for AFD, since it duped several other articles. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is best to wait a while, to see if Used2BAnonymous will still try to defend his proposal of a point-of-view addition to the second paragraph of the compromise draft summary. It is barely 24 hours since his last contribution. In his doubtless accidental other character as Anonymous redivivus he has made an advance, recognizing that the first-paragraph definition is in fact an inclusive one, not just another exclusive definition. Perhaps we can hope for further advances. If we could only agree on the second paragraph, it should be easy to settle the text of the first paragraph. Then would be the time, I think, to propose to Pathoschild an amended version of his compromise draft summary. Until then, it seems best to continue discussing Pathoschild's compromise draft summary, with the changes on which agreement is being gradually reached. So far, these are only my alteration of the final phrase and Used2BAnonymous's improvements of some words elsewhere.

There is no use in "us" looking at something "to see if we can live with it." We must honestly and genuinely try to reach agreement also with Used2BAnonymous and hope that he will reciprocate.

Lima 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Anonymous" above is me. I didn't know I wasn't logged in, assumed I merely forgot to sign my first post, and did the same the second time.

Anyway, I've already defended the use of the exclusive definition -- and have been referring to the "inclusive" and "exclusive" definitions, by those terms, all along so am not sure why you are calling it an "advance." If the first group is characterized as only wanting X, and the second group wants not only X, but Y and Z, the first group is more "inclusive" than the second. But one can group the people involved in various ways, and only by making the first group a superset by including the ridiculous "whether or not" lines does the "set/sub-set" stuff apply. The groups can just as easily be seen as two different groups, which I think makes more sense and would be easier to write about.

For the defense of what you are calling "POV," see the above posts on this page, whether attributed to Used2BAnonymous or an IP address. Used2BAnonymous 18:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous tried to defend his proposed insertion on the grounds that to allow both senses in the article would make it too complicated, and by claiming that few people use "traditionalist Catholic" in the inclusive sense. He has been shown that it would in fact be easy and by no means complicated to speak of the beliefs of traditionalists in the all-inclusive sense first, and then to indicate the specific beliefs of Used2BAnonymous traditionalists. He has also been shown that, even on the Internet, there are many sites that, when speaking of traditionalist Catholics, do not limit them to Used2BAnonymous types*. What other defence of his proposed insertion can he offer?

(*)Used2BAnonymous's attempt at an analogy for the Internet site that begins with "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service" is a complete failure. To build his analogy, he would have had to begin with "What sets lions apart to the average lay person is that they are African mammals", something nobody would say. Instead, he began with the non-analogous: "Lions are African mammals." In any case, whether Internet sites understand "traditionalist Catholic" in an exclusively Used2BAnonymous sense less frequently or more frequently is immaterial. It is quite clear that the Used2BAnonymous sense is not universal. Imposing the Used2BAnonymous sense is therefore an imposition of a particular point of view.

Lima 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to say: Of course second-definition traditionalists are a subset of first-definition ones. The first definition is inclusive, the second is exclusive. The first refers to all, with no need of a "whether or not" clause. Lima 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only have I not been shown how uncomplicated it would be to speak of the "beliefs" of "traditionalists" in the all-inclusive sense, I don't know what these "beliefs" are except that all "traditionalists" want to restore the traditional sacramental rites. What "beliefs" does, say, Dominick have that Fr. Corapi or Mother Angelica doesn't have? What other beliefs does Dominick have that traditionalists of the second definition have? Definition one "traditionalists'" beliefs are conservatively Catholic, they have no issues with typical interpretations of Vatican II, they have no problems with ecumenism as it is practiced, etc. Whatever is said to come from "Rome" is fine by them. Their beliefs can be found in the article on "Roman Catholicism." There is nothing to say about them, and my repeated asking "what needs to be said about them that isn't already said?" has gone unanswered but for "they exist" and "they don't believe that the papal oath attributed to Pope St. Agatho is genuine."

The site I referenced is not a complete failure; it begins with the line, "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service" and then goes on to describe everything Dominick is not. I maintain that the World Wide Web reflects how "the average layperson" perceives things, and what it shows is that the exclusive sense is used almost always. If there is only one person living in a cave somewhere who thinks that Rabbi Schneerson is a "traditionalist Catholic," then neither of the present definitions would be "universal." "Universality" isn't the issue; the principle of least astononishment is. How is the term most often used? That's how it should be used here, with variations noted or, if they are too different, with a disambiguation page in place (which, seeing how the two groups are de facto enemies, I think is worthy of consideration).

You say, "Of course second-definition traditionalists are a subset of first-definition ones. The first definition is inclusive, the second is exclusive. The first refers to all, with no need of a 'whether or not' clause." But this leads back to the first paragraph here. What do the two groups have in common other than that they prefer the traditional sacramental rites? Besides which, the first definition doesn't have to be an "inclusive" one in the sense you mean (i.e., as a set containing a subset). They can just as easily be described as the two separate groups they are. Used2BAnonymous 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"It then goes on to describe everything that Dominick is not." And why shouldn't it, if it is speaking about traditionalists in the all-inclusive sense? Does Used2BAnonymous not understand the word "all"? Does he not understand that "cats" understood as Felidae include domestic cats no less than lions? Does he not understand that "traditionalist Catholics" understood as having the "commonality" he speaks of (this "commonality" is precisely the first definition) include the Used2BAnonymous kind no less than the Dominick kind? Lima 20:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service." This is the description of traditionalist Catholics that causes least astonishment, not the complicated Used2BAnonymous description, which he vainly imagines to be almost universally held. Lima 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A commonality is not a definition, Lima. The page referenced was about traditionalist Catholics of the second definition; it was not about those who only prefer the traditional sacramental rites (and, quite frankly, since the fine work of the media in the wake of the Mel Gibson vs. the world debacle, what actually sets apart traditionalist Catholics in the mind of the average layman is that they are "Holocaust-denying, antisemitic Mel Gibson types whose women wear 'headresses'").

If you are writing a page about domestic cats, it makes no sense to define them by their family name alone. Nor does it make sense to go on about the mating habits of lions. To carry this analogy further, this page is about domestic cats, not all members of the cat family. This entry was created to be about, has been about, and is about traditionalist Catholics of the second definition because it is they who are referred to and who refer to themselves as traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time. It is written to be about them because Catholics of the first definition used in this entry are actually referred to as "conservative" or "neo-conservatives." There is nothing to say about the first definition Catholics that has not been removed at your request after the assertions have been characterized as "obfuscation" (e.g., that they exist, that they worship at Masses offered by indult, etc.). If there is some "belief" of these Catholics that needs to be mentioned that already isn't mentioned or removed at your request, I would like to hear about it.

I recommend breaking out of the set/sub-set paradigm and consider definition one and defition two Catholics two separate groups, which they are, even in spite of their one commonality (said commonality not rising to the level of a "definition"). Used2BAnonymous 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that Used2BAnonymous does not understand the meaning of the word "all": we see in the last paragraph above that he wants it to mean "some" in definition one. By "commonality" Used2BAnonymous means the characteristics common to all members of a group and distinguishing them from others; yet he refuses to recognize that the statement of a group's "commonality" is precisely a definition of the group.

It is on the basis of such bizarre logic that Used2BAnonymous tries to defend his proposal that the phrase "and is used in the rest of this entry" be inserted into the compromise draft summary.

Used2BAnonymous's proposed insertion would impose on the "Traditionalist Catholic" article a single point of view, one that is disputed, one that - it could not be more clear - is not shared by all. If Pathoschild has the authority to give a ruling on whether Used2BAnonymous's proposed insertion violates the Wikipedia neutral-point-of-view norm, perhaps it is now time for him to do so.

This is a fault perhaps even worse than Used2BAnonymous's twisted logic.

Lima 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild, once again I edited the article -- but forgot to note the changes in the summary. I beg pardon. I always remember a few minutes too late; it must drive you nuts... Sorry!

Lima, I defend either:

1. describing only the second definition Catholics for all the reasons I've given above and all throughout these past few months, or
2. describing both but mentioning the "definition one" types only in the summary, and for all the reasons I've given above and all throughout these past few months.

I note that I still have not gotten any answers to my questions. Nothing. And it's been weeks and weeks and weeks of asking for some of them. Unless you can defend my calling myself a Muslim, going to the entry on "Islam," and demanding to be included lest they show themselves to be "POV," I don't see how you can maintain there is something "POV" about wanting an article about "traditionalist Catholics" to be about those who actually refer to themselves and are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics." To want an article entitled "traditionalist Catholics" to be about those who actually are called such is just common sense.

P.S. the questions again, for the record, are:

1. What "beliefs" does, say, Dominick have that Fr. Corapi or Mother Angelica doesn't have? What other beliefs does Dominick have that traditionalists of the second definition have?
2. What needs to be said about definition one Catholics that isn't said in the summary or hasn't been said in the summary but has been removed at your request after the assertions have been characterized as "obfuscation" (e.g., that they exist, that they worship at Masses offered by indult, etc.)?
3. Are there any websites that consistently use the term "traditionalist Catholic" to refer to "definition one Catholics" AND which aren't primarily about arguing with traditionalist Catholics of the second definition?
4. How would you write this entry if it were all up to you and you alone?

P.P.S. Hey, how about this apparent attempt to eradicate Limbo? Makes Baptism a fine waste of time, non? Used2BAnonymous 07:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Compromise? Hey, I've been following this for awhile.. and I have a suggestion.

How about two separate pages? Like:

• Traditional Catholic
• Traditionalist Catholic

The notices could be something like:

This page refers to those groups of Catholics which prefer worshipping in the style of, and with the rites that were, those prior to Vatican II. For those groups of Catholics which wish to return the entire Roman Catholic Church to its state prior to that same council, see Traditionalist Catholic

and

This page refers to those groups of Catholics which wish to return the entire Roman Catholic Church to its state prior to Vatican II. For those groups of Catholics which prefer worshipping in the style of, and with the rites that were, those prior to that same council, see Traditional Catholic

I know a lot is common... but this doesn't seem to really be working so far, this may be the best solution.

Just an idea, I don't understand this case entirely, don't kill me, and I hope this gets resolved. JG of Borg 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought... there could also be a Beliefs common to both Traditional and Traditionalist Catholics page that would be referenced in each article, then differences noted in the text? Maybe that'd save the bulk of repetition? Once again, just an idea JG of Borg 08:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lima: When lacking consensus despite prolonged efforts to attain it, a 'rough consensus' is sometimes sought for instead. Although not official policy so far as I know, the absolute minimum I've seen used is 70% agreement. As Used2BAnonymous comprises 33.3~% of the vote, rough consensus is unattainable. Note that the guidelines applied to any such vote are the same as those applied to WP:RfA or WP:AfD votes, which exclude newer users. Due to this, the other editors who've contributed to the discussion would be able to comment, but not vote.

JG of Borg: I don't think that solution is appropriate for this case. That would be considered POV forking (the splitting of an article into distinct articles for each point of view), which is not permitted. I've just sought second opinions from several administrators, and consensus is that it would not be justified. However, you're welcome to join the discussion to help reach consensus. // Pathoschild 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of that policy, thanks for bringing my attention to it. I'll have a lot of reading to do, but I'd be happy to try to help reach consensus with the above... the views seem so disparate (and cover such different groups) that it may be a difficult article to organize... nonetheless, I'll try to read up (this is so complex!) and add some constructive comments above. Feel free to archive this section. JG of Borg 08:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A noble effort, Jgofborg. Thanks. Aside from what Pathoschild has said, there are two other issues with it, though:

1. "Traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" refer to the same people (in fact, this article was originally entitled "traditional Catholics"; I don't know why it was changed). "Definition one Catholics" are actually most commonly referred to as "conservative Catholics" and (by trads) as "neo-conservatives" or "neo-Catholics."
2. There apparently aren't any "beliefs common to both traditional and traditionalist Catholics" (where "traditional Catholic" refers to "definition one" Catholics of the proposed summaries) which separate them from other Roman Catholics. At least, if there are, it seems I will never know it since my repeated questioning about this has gone unanswered. I've asked a thousand times what needs to be said about them that hasn't already been said and have gotten no responses.

The simple truth is that "definition one" Catholics are average, everyday Catholics who are conservative in their approach, who usually have good intentions and truly want to uphold "Church teaching" as they understand it (misunderstand it, in the opinion of traditionalists), and who like the traditional Mass and attend it, if it's available, in ordinary parishes (if it's not available, they fill the coffers at a Novus Ordo Mass, no big whoop -- especially if it's "reverently offered."). Even though they aren't referred to by others as "traditionalist Catholics," and don't refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" unless they are trying to "steal" the term away from definition two Catholics, they want to be included in this article because they resent the idea that another Catholic group describes themselves with the words "traditional" and "Catholic." Not even satisfied with a mention of the fact that they "consider" themselves "traditionalist Catholics," too (even without clarifying that they only do so when arguing with traditionalist Catholics of the second definition), they want to take over the entire article and turn it into a big debate instead of voicing their objections in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. That's the game here as I see it, and I'm left with no other way of seeing it since my questions go unanswered.

P.S. to Lima: I added another question to the list of questions in my last post. It's not a new one, of course; it's probably only been asked 15 or 20 times. Used2BAnonymous 09:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To Pathoschild: While I fully accept your decisions, I beg leave to point out that I absolutely have not imagined that there is consensus. Instead, I asked whether the proposed insertion of "and as used in the rest of this entry", which would exclude from the article (apart from a brief mention at the start) any interpretation of the topic of the article other than Used2BAnonymous's, contravenes Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view rule. Perhaps it does not. But I would appreciate a statement one way or the other.

To Used2BAnonymous: You do not have to look far for a website that consistently uses the term "traditionalist Catholic" to refer to "definition one Catholics" AND which isn't primarily about arguing with traditionalist Catholics of the second definition. Just take the one that begins with "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service." That website clearly deals with Definition-One traditionalist Catholics ("all Roman Catholics who ..."), and at no point even hints that definition-two people might be the only true traditionalist Catholics.

But, of course, you do not understand Definition One as other human beings do. You think "all Roman Catholics who ..." means "some Roman Catholics who...", and that it refers to non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists alone. Nobody uses "traditionalist Catholic" to mean non-Used2BAnonymous traditionalists alone. It would be vain to look for any website that ever uses the term in that sense.

Lima 11:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The summary up there reads:

"Traditionalist Catholic" is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more exclusively used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

Not seeing "all" in there.

OK, let's "just take the one that begins with "What sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service." Keep reading. Now, who are they talking about? My gosh! You are like a person who sees the word "Christian" on a website about Jews and then go on to claim that the website is "about Christians" or "all human beings in the inclusive sense." Come on, Lima; you have to be smarter than that.

Why don't you tell Pathoschild, since you won't tell me, what it is that needs to be said that isn't already said about definition one Catholics. Used2BAnonymous 11:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When you read the link nothing in there remotely resembles the beliefs and taboos listed in the current article. Like I have said before there are a lot of things added in that and needlessly add that don't belong in a article covering traditionalists. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Dominick. A few quotes:

1. Also, traditionalists don't believe in reaching out to other Christian faiths and are angry the Second Vatican Council changed its official opinion of non-Catholics from ``heretics to recognizing them as ``separate brethren.

1. ``The pope is infected with modernism, complained Eileen Allen, 45, of Oregon who recently attended a women's workshop at the Los Gatos retreat. ``By that I mean ecumenism, that all religions are equal to the Catholic Church. That's not true. The Catholic Church is the one that Christ founded. Other denominations are man-made.

1. ``They are angry that the bishops and the church authority haven't taken a harder line on dissenting Catholics, Dinges said. ``The great irony though, is that they are bucking papal authority. They are holding themselves up as self-appointed watchdogs of Catholic orthodoxy and are in open conflict with the Vatican.

1. In summary, then, what can be said about sectarian Catholicism, Mel Gibson, and The Passion of the Christ? Sectarian Catholicism is rooted in the sixteenth-century Council of Trent and rejects absolutely the twentieth-century Second Vatican Council as an unwarranted betrayal of that root. It is an exclusive sect, blessing its members with the promise of salvation, cursing non-members with the promise of damnation. The sect regards itself as the remnant of the one, true, Catholic Church established by Jesus on Peter the Rock, whose Roman sedia has been vacant since the death of Pius XII.

Puhlease. That article is about you and your kind? Used2BAnonymous 12:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats about one group of many who are called traditionalists. But absurdly, extending one group to be the definition of many has been the hall mark of your work. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous pretends to have forgotten what we have been discussing. I must remind him that he as well as I, since he was proposing amendments, have been discussing the compromise draft summary, which originally ran:

Traditionalist or traditional Catholicism can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, the terms refer to a Catholic movement which wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the sacramental rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and does not recognize the authority of the Second Vatican Council to modify what they consider the true Catholic teachings.

Used2BAnonymous proposed that this be amended (keeping the word "all") to read:

"Traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses all Roman Catholics who prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement that wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

At a later stage, he further proposed that "whether or not these Catholics seek to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and question whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council" be added at the end of the first paragraph, making more explicit the meaning of the word "all". But he surely did not mean this seriously.

His sudden loss of memory about what we are discussing seems to be due to a desire to avoid answering my objections to the point-of-view nature of his "and as used in the rest of this entry" proposal and, more especially, to a realization (at last!) that "all" does not mean "some".

"Who are they talking about (on the website)?" he asks. Obviously, about traditionalist Catholics in the all-inclusive sense, a sense that includes both the Used2BAnonymous kind and the non-Used2BAnonymous kind. The website's first sentence covers both kinds together. Later, the site concentrates on the Used2BAnonymous kind, who, being more controversial, combative, picturesque, startling, provide more abundant material to write about.

The revised Article page shows some of the things that are to be said about Definition-One traditionalists, just some of the things that the Used2BAnonymous kind and the non-Used2BAnonymous kind of Definition-One traditionalists have in common.

Now, would Used2BAnonymous get back to why he thinks "and as used in the rest of this entry" can rightly be inserted in the article, to the exclusion of all other opinions but his own.

Lima 13:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK:

"Traditional" or "traditionalist" Catholic can refer to one of two meanings. The more inclusive use of the term encompasses Roman Catholics who only prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s.

More exclusively, and as used in the rest of this entry, the terms refer to a Catholic movement that wishes to restore the worship and customs of the Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s. This movement further seeks to preserve (and restore, where applicable) all the liturgical rites in use before the reforms, takes issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, and questions whether true Catholic teaching has been upheld by Church authorities since the Second Vatican Council.

Problem solved. Again. How easy it all is, really -- though I imagine you will jump all over the "only": "Is Used2BAnonymous's logic so twisted that he means to say that that is the ONLY thing they want EVER? They never want French toast, bubble baths, or to listen to Beethoven's 7th while driving 100 miles an hour in a Lamborghini?! Surely Used2BAnonymous must be joking!" That is the level of discourse after all.

As to that website, if you think that it is talking about just anyone who merely prefers the traditional Mass but has no qualms with Vatican II, then you are completely mad. Just because a particular characteristic of second definition Catholics (about whom they are writing, and quite obviously so) is what "sets them apart in the average layman's mind," it doesn't mean that that characteristic is a definition or is not a characteristic of other groups. Circumcision might be the thing that "sets apart Jews in the average layman's mind," but others circumcise, too, and "those who circumcise" is not a "definition" of "Jew."

As to your intimation that the use of "and as used in the rest of this entry" is some really strange personal quirk of mine, and that my "sudden memory loss" is a way to "avoid answering" your "objections to the point-of-view nature" of my proposal, OK, I'll do this again and will enjoy it, as repetition is the mother of my happiness:

1. The people described in the second paragraph are the ones who actually refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" and are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" by others. And this is the way it is the immense majority of the time. You have admitted this, and I have proved it.
2. The principle of least astonishment rules. People who do a search for information about "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about Dominick and Vere, and because they don't even refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" and are not referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" in the real world, unless they are arguing with real trads, they should consider themselves lucky to get even an honorable mention in this thing, if you ask me.
3. There is not one thing to say about Catholics of the first paragraph. Nothing. Nada. Zilch, zip, zero. Evidence of this is the fact that the only thing your side could come up with to say about them is "they exist."
4. To include the Catholics of the first paragraph in the body of the entry would make for a messy, ugly, nasty, disorganized article. All of Dominick's "militant, rad-trad, integrist, Vatican-basher, not-official-Catholic" fun stuff should go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

Hey, here's an idea! How about you note the time stamp that will follow this post (assuming I remember to sign it and am logged in har har har!) and call it "Barcelona" (I have a feeling you've been there before). That way, the next time you ask me the same questions (while never answering mine), I will just type "Barcelona!" and you will know to refer to this post for all your answers. (You can even print it out and enjoy it with a plate of French toast or while communing with Mr. Bubble, though I don't recommend you peruse it while driving your Lamborghini. Or anyone's Lamborghini, for that matter. You understand.) Used2BAnonymous 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lima: You ask whether Used2BAnonymous' addition of the phrase "as used in the rest of this entry" is POV, since it explicitly excludes the inclusive-definition point of view from the rest of the article. Used2BAnonymous presents the argument that nothing more need be said about the inclusive-sense definition, since they are presented in full in the summary; the rest of the article would then be devoted to explaining how the exclusive-definition goes beyond the inclusive definition. If he is correct in this argument, then the phrase is justified. Whether or not it will be considered POV is thus dependent on the outcome of the discussion. This is why I seek a rough consensus on the question, rather than making an objective judgement; I apologize if I didn't make my reasons clear in my previous response.

To all: Please observe Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith in your responses. Both negative terms such as those Used2BAnonymous quotes above and the responding mocking flippancy are corrosive to efforts to achieve consensus. // Pathoschild 19:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say this... but I'm seeing a few degrees here, please, help me understand this:

• Conservative Catholic - prefers rites/sacraments etc in their pre-Vatican II form, thinks Vatican II did more harm than good, but recognizes the legitimacy etc of Vatican II and does not mind "respectfully celebrated" "Novus Ordu Masses" - I'm one of these, I think.
• Traditionalist Catholic - prefers the pre-Vatican II rites/sacraments exclusively, does not recognize (though maybe tacitly) the correctness of post-Vatican II docs, etc. worships only at traditional churches, etc.

The question is, what group is article really supposed to be about? Both of those point of views? Wouldn't that be kind of hard since some recognize the validity and some do not? And what really "conservative Catholic" groups are there that are so "far out" that they would be called "Traditionalist" but don't fall under that definition. Please, someone explain what exactly this article is supposed to cover. JG of Borg 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been corrisive to the point where assuming good faith by U2BA is not reasonable. Anyone would reach that conclusion when they read the attack pages aimed at wikipedia,DOT com/catholic/evangelize.html DOT com/evangelize.html on U2BA webpages that are often inserted into wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read everything, and I think I get it now. I would like to add my support to Draft Summary Lima #4 (DSL4). How do I do that? JG of Borg 19:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your support has been added. A new voice in this discussion is greatly appreciated. // Pathoschild 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a Used2BAnonymous falsehood to say that, for anybody, "traditionalist Catholic" means exclusively "Roman Catholics who only" - by the ambiguous word "only" Used2BAnonymous means: not "seeking to preserve ..." - "prefer the customs of the Roman Catholic Church as they were before the reforms of the 1960s". Nobody says that. (Can Used2BAnonymous name even one source that does?) But there are many people who use "traditionalist Catholic" in an all-inclusive sense, to cover even him. He should stop pretending that their understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" does not exist, and cease trying to replace the true statement of the existence of their understanding with the falsehood of a really non-existent idea.

1. The people described in the second paragraph are not the only ones who actually refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics" and are referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" by others. Used2BAnonymous recently had to withdraw his statement that I had "admitted" that "this is the way it is the immense majority of the time"; yet here he is again repeating his same already oft-repeated falsehood. Nor has he proved his own statement.
2. The principle of least astonishment rules. People who do a search for information about "traditionalist Catholics" aren't looking for information about Dominick and Vere and Used2BAnonymous, nor for anything as artful as Used2BAnonymous's definition of a traditionalist Catholic, but for the average lay person's picture of traditionalists, namely those who celebrate Mass in Latin and believe that no other language should be used during the church service.
3. Whether or not there is much to say about the Catholics Used2BAnonymous wants to put the first paragraph, those people correspond to nobody's idea of what is a traditionalist Catholic. But the commonly held idea that the first paragraph actually expresses applies to very many people (more numerous than those who correspond to Used2BAnonymous's narrow exclusive idea of a traditionalist Catholic, since all of the latter are covered also by the inclusive idea) and there is very much to say of them.
4. It has been shown by a concrete example - which Used2BAnonymous reverted, probably without studying it - that to include the Catholics of the first paragraph in the body of the entry does not make for a messy, ugly, nasty, disorganized article. The "Relations with other Catholics" section is also the place for all of Used2BAnonymous's attacks on the Teaching Church.

I finished writing the above before finding Pathoschild's reply to me, which I take to mean that the essential point to discuss is Used2BAnonymous's argument that nothing more need be said about the inclusive-sense definition, since they are presented in full in the summary. After rather long hesitation, I have decided that I will still post the above; but I now see it as non-essential.

As soon as the compromise draft summary appeared I signalled that I wanted it amended on my own behalf too. For me, it is the first paragraph that needs amending. The word "prefer" is much too weak. Long since, I wrote in response to a friend of Used2BAnonymous, who, like Used2BAnonymous himself at the time, objected to the notion that someone who simply preferred the Tridentine Mass could be called a traditionalist: "Nobody says that a liking for 'the traditional Mass' makes a traditionalist Catholic. Being a traditionalist Catholic involves more than a personal liking: it involves wanting the Catholic Church as a whole to return to its pre-1960s ways. Not all traditionalist Catholics agree that the means to be used for that end include declaring the Popes responsible for the changes to be heretics requiring replacement. There are other things on which they do not agree. But they have in common what makes them traditionalist Catholics." That is why, on the Article page, I added at the end of the first paragraph: "and want them fully reinstated."

But even with this addition to the summary, there is much more to say about the people to whom the inclusive-sense definition applies. At the very least, the following must be said of them, to avoid giving a false picture of them as having no distinguishing beliefs:

Traditionalist Catholics believe that, while liturgies and practices can be changed, this should be done "organically", with great prudence; in a manner consistent with natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the Solemn and Universal Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church protected by the charism of infallibility), and never in a revolutionary manner or in a way that harms souls or leads to sin and unbelief.

They believe that, while the Church's understanding of eternal truths may develop, those truths themselves can neither change in substance nor contradict themselves. They believe that what was taught by Christ, his apostles, and their successors 2,000 years ago or 50 years ago must still be true today.

They believe that, while the present beliefs of mainstream Catholics would have been considered "Modernist" or "liberal" at the time of the Second Vatican Council, their own beliefs are consistent with those that at that time were considered "conservative" or "traditional".

According to one website,DOT com/tradmotto.html they take as their "motto":

We are what you once were.

We believe what you once believed.

We worship as you once worshipped.

If you were right then, we are right now.

If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

They differ among themselves on some points. One such point is the correct attitude to take to certain papal decrees and instructions of the Holy See of the 1960s and later. Some see them as lawful, even if misguided.

The following too must be said about them:

The Holy See does not see those who question the wisdom but not the lawfulness of the Holy See's decisions as breaking communion. As for their preference for the Tridentine Mass, Pope John Paul II declared, in his letter Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, that "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition."[17] The Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are examples of how such traditionalist Catholics are in fact accommodated within the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet more could be said, but I think the article is better shorter than long-winded.

I am indeed sorry for the length of this. But I think (wrongly?) that it is necessary.

Lima 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To all: JG of Borg is an eligible voter in this debate, with 239 edits over roughly 11 months. Judging from the positions of the voters at this time, this would result in a rough consensus of 75% in support of DSL4, supported by Lima, Dominick, and JG of Borg. DSU12, supported by Used2BAnonymous, would result in 25%; Malachias111 is ineligible for a vote, having 53 edits.

If there is support from at least half of the current voters, a consensus vote can be called immediately. However, note that the result will be enforced and the alternative proposal rejected. This often leads to dissatisfaction amongst editors who disagree with the vote. I strongly suggest that all editors take this rough consensus into account and attempt to come to an informal agreement without a vote. Next time you comment, please specify whether you support or oppose holding a consensus vote at this time. // Pathoschild 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Your exact "immense majority" quote, Lima, was "If you examine the Google references for 'Traditional Catholics' and 'Traditionalist Catholics', I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use 'Traditional Catholics' (some 54 800 times)on the Internet." That's pretty much the same thing as saying that narrow sense traditional Catholics are the ones who, the immense majority of the time, are referred to on the Internet as "traditional Catholics."
2. Dominick doesn't think that no other language should be used during the Mass (the proper word for "church service" in the Catholic world). If his priest gives sermons in Latin, I'd be very surprised.
3. Since narrow definition Catholics are the ones who make up the immense majority of those who use 'traditional Catholics" on the Internet, why do you think that someone seeking information on "traditional Catholics" would be wanting to find information about wider sense "traditional Catholics" who aren't actually called that in real life?
4. Definition two traditionalist Catholics don't think or agree that the means to be used for the end getting "the Catholic Church as a whole to return to its pre-1960s ways" includes "declaring the Popes responsible for the changes to be heretics requiring replacement." I don't think the Popes have been heretics, and most trads don't think a Pope CAN be declared a heretic but by another Pope, so you and your friend don't know what you are talking about.
5. Paragraph one doesn't have to be "inclusive" in some set/sub-set sense, and your using the terms "inclusive" and "exclusive" in this sense is annoying.
6. And on to the meat now that you've finally answered the questions: you are wrong in believing that the Dominicks of the world take the quoted motto as their "unofficial motto," that they think the present beliefs of mainstream Catholics would have been considered "Modernist" or "liberal" at the time of the Second Vatican Council (they are mainstream Catholics. Witness Dominck's line on the terminology page: "In brief, traditionalists believe that conservatives have at least partially sold out to the liberals, while conservatives believe that traditionalists are extreme and disloyal to the Church hierarchy, or even schismatic."), etc. (And, BTW, you'll find that motto at more than "one" website). While they may assert that they believe that, "while the Church's understanding of eternal truths may develop, those truths themselves can neither change in substance nor contradict themselves," their acceptance and defense of things like Qu'ran-kissing and praying in synagogues shows that they, in fact, accept assertions that are contradictions.
7. The stuff about Ecclesia Dei can go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. The first item in the bulleted list there begs for it.
8. Pathoschild, if you keep admonishing me for using negative terms while saying nothing to those who mock my logic and intentions, and who address me in the third person, who refuse to answer questions until months later -- all while calling me "unresponsive" and such, who call me and other trads "Vatican-bashers" and "not official Catholics" and "militant," who make deceptive reverts, etc., I have to wonder about your sense of fairness. Used2BAnonymous 23:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To Used2BAnonymous: In your comment at 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC), you quoted several negative terms that other editors applied to you. I then responded by requesting that all editors respect Wikipedia:Civility, saying that "Both negative terms such as those Used2BAnonymous quotes above and the responding mocking flippancy are corrosive to efforts to achieve consensus." To clarify that statement, I was requesting that editors refrain from those negative terms used against you (which you quoted) as well as your own flippant tone.

It seems to me that my request was fair and covered all non-civility in the discussion. If you still wish to question my objectivity or fairness as a third party, I can ask several administrators to review my comments and request the opinions of the other main editors. // Pathoschild 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, that sort of thing isn't necessary; I'm sure you're not "out to get me" or anything. Just feeling picked on 'cause it seems to always be my sarcasm that is pointed out rather than the impetus for it (answering the same questions over and over and over and then being accused of being "unresponsive" and not answering them at all, asking questions over and over and over and getting no response until now -- the answers to said questions being absolutely necessary for the "other side" to even begin to make sense, having Dominick sign his reverts with "You can't revert!" as if he's the Wiki god or with "Consensus! See Talk Page!" when there's nothing approaching consensus there, watching as he snips stuff he doesn't like from the Talk pages, being accused of "illogic" by someone who thinks this webpage is about Dominick-type Catholics, etc. I mean, come ooooonnnnnnn, what other sort of response is there?). Used2BAnonymous 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is a major change here, I can see no other thing to do but to call for a consensus vote. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

DSU12 is certainly rejected. Would Used2BAnonymous care to suggest amendments to DSL4? Sensible ones, of course. I would prefer to give him yet more time, rather than move immediately to the rough consensus solution. Lima 05:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would prefer he understands that having other groups in this article in no way dilutes the presentation of his "exclusive" traditionalist groups, if, that makes sense. We also need him to stop blindly reverting the page, get this intro out the door, then work on the other sections, though. We'll see what happens. JG of Borg 05:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Note: Fixed the ridiculous English in my post above.
2. Why the replacement of the link to the Fish Eaters "Being Catholic" section with a link to Ecclesia Dei?
3. Dominick, of course you want to call for a consensus now that there are three of you and all the traditionalists seem to be discounted for not having edited 100 times (most trads have 9 kids or so and are too busy to do what we do. I guess their fate is to be out-edited by the neo-cons who aren't satisfied with having Catholic Answers, EWTN, Crisis, This Rock, Google editors, half the Bishops, CBS miniseries, and most of the Vatican hierarchs on their side, but have to have it all, even little Wiki entries entitled with monikers they don't actually use in real life. Alas. But we're used to losing; it's what we do. Ah well, they might "have the places..." DOT com/stathanasiusletter.html But pax Christi; have a Christmas present on me: [18]
4. JG of Borg, I didn't blindly revert anything. My comments as to why Lima's latest entry won't work are above (but I imagine everyone will ignore them only to accuse me of being unresponsive and forcing me to repeat myself later).

Moving on: I want my mother-in-law's definition included in the entry, too, if the goal is to "leave no definition behind" no matter how few people actually use it and how unhelpful it is to the average man seeking information. I think the Commie CPA should be re-included, too, since the only thing that matters is a preference for the traditional Mass. And, of course, there's the Decadent crowd to concern ourselves with. So how about:

"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms sometimes 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. Others use the term to refer to what others usually call "cultural Catholics," i.e., those baptized Catholics who don't really believe in Catholicism, but who call themselves"Catholic" nonetheless. Many of "them" claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong (whether for or against doesn't matter, apparently. As long as one has "strong feelings" about the matter either way, one is a traditionalist Catholic to these people). Others consider this definition too "exclusive" and quote prominent traditionalist Catholic and gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan as he waxes poetic about the traditional Mass:

I remember the feelings of my childhood, when my local Catholic church was the only place I felt connected to something truly profound. I recall the first time I went, as an altar boy, into the sacristy where the priest vested himself. I felt as if I were entering the most sacred place on Earth. The smell of incense, the touch of candle wax, the overly starched cotton of my surplice as I knelt before the sacred mystery of the Eucharist: in the words of the poet Philip Larkin, "a serious house on serious earth" this was, a refuge and a beacon, a rebuke to the chatter and trivia and destabilizing noise of the world outside and beyond. And the knowledge that these rituals, these words, these miracles, had been going on for centuries and centuries, reaching back to small groups of confused followers in the aftermath of the Resurrection, only intensified the awe I felt and still feel.

Some include the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association in this definition because they, too, worship using the Mass prevailing before the reforms of the 1960s.

Does this cover everyone? Used2BAnonymous 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if Used2BAnonymous can do no better than that, we shall have to move on to the rough consensus solution. Lima 08:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing me, Lima. First you say that, to the average layman, "what sets traditionalist Catholics apart to the average lay person is that they celebrate Mass in Latin," but now you are wanting to exclude Andrew Sullivan and other traditionalist Catholic gay rights activists? And there are some people in this world who think "traditional Catholic" means what most others call "cultural Catholics." And the CPA was mentioned in this entry for a long time (see the earliest Talk Pages for debate about that). If the article is to be about "traditionalist Catholics," then it should be about everyone anyone considers such. Anything else would be "POV." At least that seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Used2BAnonymous 08:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The CCPA is a red herring. Sullivan is a red herring. Traditionalists being too busy to edit is a red herring. Them losing is a red herring. The mother in law is a red herring as well.

Wiki has a policy on what should be and not be in an entry. A group that makes up a considerable minority should get inclusion. Let me make one important caveat. Traditionalism is not a dogmatic constitution, there is no traditional Creed. My objection is the same as it was, traditionalism is not a monolithic belief system. People can have traditional tendencies, and that can be extreme to the point of confrontation that risks excommunication down to mimimally traditional where you like to use a little latin. We agreed on a lower limit, and that limit is attending traditional Mass and promoting the same. I

At this point U2BA has provided evidence that he/she is not going to work with us on improvements to the summary with the most support, DSL4. There has been ample invitations, and numerous offers and requests to state a clear case.

I call for a formal consensus vote on DSL4. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The things you call "red herrings" are not red herrings. They are facts. There's one of my mother-in-law, and there's you and Vere. Not much of a numerical difference, really. Traditionalist Catholics do have a rather monolithic belief system: they believe what Catholics had always believed until the revolution called in "the spirit of Vatican II" blew through the halls of the Vatican. The beliefs are explained in the section "traditionalist beliefs." If you don't believe those beliefs, you are not a traditionalist; you are a conservative. People can have "Jewish tendencies," too, but that doesn't make them Jews. I didn't agree on a "lower limit"; you did. I've stated my case clearly; you haven't. Used2BAnonymous 13:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And, no, Dominick, I am not the blind IP reverter. Quit lying and accusing me of crap. I am sick of it. Used2BAnonymous 13:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I call for a formal consensus vote on DSL4. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To all: Dominick has, above, called for a former consensus vote. Due to the resentment this may cause among those who disagree with the likely outcome, at least half of the eligible voters must support holding a consensus vote at this time. Remember that the result will be enforced through the use of admin powers if necessary. Please indicate in your next comment whether you Support, Oppose, or are Neutral about a formal consensus vote. // Pathoschild 15:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support (in case it is not obvious.) Dominick ^(TALK) 15:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I support, with regret, and on condition that Jgofborg also supports. If he does not support, I will reconsider my position on the basis of any observations he may make. So perhaps my position may have to be classified temporarily as Neutral Lima 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry U2B, more than blindly I meant consistently. Before I support, I just want to see if I can get something cleared up - I'm still trying to completely understand this, and from what I see it, there are many groups of people that could go on this page. in order of increasing severity:

• Conservative Catholics - those who prefer "reverent" post-Vatican-II style Masses, with some Latin service music, and using, basically, a conservative interpretation of Vatican II.
• Traditional Catholics - those who prefer to go to pre-Vatican II Masses, recognize the validity (if barely) of the "new" Masses, sacraments, Vatican II, etc, but doesn't wish to partake in them - faithful to the Pope, attend Indult Masses, recognize authority of the the Church etc.
• Traditionalist Catholics - those who go to pre-Vatican II style Masses exclusively, believe that the Church's current styles are not appropriate/possibly not valid etc, tries to not associate with the Vatican / other Catholics as much.
• Sedevacantist - extreme end of traditionalist.

Am I correct that this article is to encompass mostly the 2nd and 3rd types, with the 4th tacitly mentioned but more under sedevacantism? If so, I'd like U2B to realize that this is the scope of the article and he accept the draft without a vote, because it'd be nice if we could just reach a consensus (and I realize I am muddling the line between the 3rd and 4th def). JG of Borg 20:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please vote if you would like to take a consensus vote. There are no conservative Catholics, what you describe are just Catholics any Parish could conduct Mass that way, without an indult to permit "latin" or 1962 Missal Mass. The issue was including people who attended the 1962 Missal mass, that were wrongly labeled as not-traditionalist because of intentions that U2BA and his pals would "just know". One thing about 2nd and 3rd types, the SSPX and the FSSP operate under very different terms. The SSPX operates despite the lack of official permission, and under the excommunication of the Bishops who run it. This makes a gulf to the two organizations that separate them. Even at that the SSPX claims to recognize the Pope, but does not obey him.

This article is about traditional Catholics, all types. There are a number of people who can enjoy the 1962 Missal Mass, and not defy Rome, like me, like the FSSP and like the ICK. I think we can all agree what the "defy Rome" term would mean, regardless of the "not me!' cries. Included here are sedevacanists, and conclavists. The primary problem is that the current incorrect verion excludes people who do not subscribe to the more radical verion of traditionalism. I plan to continue to revert to this version. If more edits were done to this verion, I would make that the new "this". Dominick ^(TALK) 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am familiar with, and agree that, the FSSP, etc, must be contained in this article. I must Support a consensus vote. JG of Borg 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This entry is not about the SSPX, the FSSP, or ICK, etc. It is about traditionalist Catholics, the movement characterized by the beliefs listed in the "Traditionalist beliefs" section. It is not about priestly societies, so whether the SSPX, FSSP, or ICK would fit into the entry or not is neither here nor there. Each of those groups has its own entry.

Trads worship at the Masses offered by any or all or none of the above. Some go to an FSSP-offered Mass one week, and to an SSPX-offered Mass the next. Some are sedes, some are not. Some work inside ordinary diocesan structures (some priests of the FSSP and ICK, the laymen who attend their Masses), and some don't (e.g., priests of the SSPX and the laymen who attend their Masses. My version of the entry makes all this clear.

There are many "conservative Catholics," like Dominick, who prefer the traditional Mass. Mass preference is not the only thing relevant to who is and is not a traditionalist Catholic.

I am against the call for consensus, obviously. Used2BAnonymous 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lima, your last post summarizes it all: your attitude, apparently, is that anyone who accepts the beliefs outlined in the section "traditionalist beliefs" -- beliefs which ALL Catholics believed until Vatican II and its wake -- are people who "defy Rome." Well, a Pope's personal opinion isn't "Rome," and this is the very heart of the problem: conservative Catholics (even if they prefer the traditional Mass) blow infallibility all out of proportion and defend the inexcusable (the praying in synagogues,the kissing of Qur'ans, the joint declarations with Lutherans that basically sell Catholic theology down the river). People who twist themselves into pretzels defending nonsense like that are "conservatives" (or "neo-conservatives"), and they spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with trads (so much for your "what you describe are just Catholics any Parish could conduct Mass that way, without an indult to permit "latin" or 1962 Missal Mass. The issue was including people who attended the 1962 Missal mass, that were wrongly labeled as not-traditionalist because of intentions that U2BA and his pals would "just know." I debate these people ALL DAY LONG. For the love of Christ, read "The Great Facade," "Iota Unum," The Remnant Newspaper, etc. It is you who "just knows" what a traditionalist is without knowing a thing about it.). Used2BAnonymous 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

JG, a few links:

• A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
• Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism article from Latin Mass Magazine
• The Great Facade review
• Review: The Great Facade
• Differing from other Councils...
• Vatican II in the Dock

Used2BAnonymous 01:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I read a couple of the links... I understand what you're saying, and I think that POV is definitely presentable in the article - but I think it can share the space with other less "extreme" (though I hesitate to use that word) positions. Personally, I believe that Vatican II did a huge disservice to the Church. I sincerely applaud you for your purpose and intent, and I believe your POV (one I hope to be able to one day share in action) will be properly presented in the article. Let us ask God to bless this discussion, calm all involved, and bring us together to create a page that accurately presents all of the beliefs intrinsic to the title phrase accurately in this article. Oh, and for Ratzinger to roll-back Vatican II, sooner rather than later. Pursuant to that, I additionally think that the title should read Traditional as opposed to TraditionalIST Catholic to clarify the scope of the article... but that's something for later. Does that all make sense?JG of Borg 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No matter the nice links, the method leaves a lot to be desired. Bringing people here to twist an article is wrong. The antics that have been used to edit this article is reprehensible. It isnt about being heard, it is to ensure that the less defiant position is not heard, and is not seen as an option to the constituancy of these groups. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then let's vote and get this over with. I hope I didn't appear ambivalent about my position, I'm not, I really think that all of these positions should be in the article. From the reverting I have seen and what I have read, the only way it seems for this to happen is for us to vote and get something binding to stop this pointless war, when we could be writing a beautiful, responsible, and accurate article about Traditionalist Catholics. JG of Borg 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and Dominick, I know some of it's not Vatican II's fault but for the wide-ranging language used, and is more due to unfortunate mis-translations and mis-interpretations... bah, you know what I mean, let's just voteJG of Borg 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

But that is the key: it is about traditionalist Catholics; that is the very name of the entry.

Your hopes with regard to His Holiness are mine, too, JG. Catholics have to fight for the restoration...

("Bringing people here to twist an article?" Nice, Dominick. ) Used2BAnonymous 02:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

JG, this is where Dominick is wanting to take this entry: [19]. Used2BAnonymous 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This one's even better: traditionalists here aren't even "official Catholics: [20]. Used2BAnonymous 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

U2B, I'm one of the "conservative, neo-Catholics etc) you argue with every day - I think that calling them not official is stretching it... but he isn't doing that, he's just calling "mainstream" catholics - "official" - with quotes - which I would disagree with, as to me, "mainstream" catholic seems to mean more American liberal Catholic (pro-abortion, etc) whereas "official" would mean any Catholic in union with the Vatican with an approved (which Indult counts as) Mass, etc.

Militant traditionalists is also a slightly too agressive-sounding term, but stuff like this can be worked out. We can argue over terms, but let's get the scope of this down. Stuff like that is only in reverts (in my opinion, without looking, and I may be wrong) because you revert them before they can be worked on, changed, etc. We'll work all that out, and we'll make this as clear an article as possible, do not worry.

Let's get this SUMMARY, at least down, then work out the specifics. I think that you need to assume some good faith - no-one here wants to make your POV look bad and their's good, just all presented neutrally and with the fors/againsts. We'll get there, but we need to move forward past this (seemingly-obvious) choice of summaries. JG of Borg 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

JG, you're new here and filled with good intentions (which is a good thing, obviously), but you might want to scan back through the past few months of these Talk Pages to get a sense of what's been going on around here.

In any case, the big question is "What is this entry about?" You said above:

1. Conservative Catholics - those who prefer "reverent" post-Vatican-II style Masses, with some Latin service music, and using, basically, a conservative interpretation of Vatican II.
2. Traditional Catholics - those who prefer to go to pre-Vatican II Masses, recognize the validity (if barely) of the "new" Masses, sacraments, Vatican II, etc, but doesn't wish to partake in them - faithful to the Pope, attend Indult Masses, recognize authority of the the Church etc.
3. Traditionalist Catholics - those who go to pre-Vatican II style Masses exclusively, believe that the Church's current styles are not appropriate/possibly not valid etc, tries to not associate with the Vatican / other Catholics as much.

-- and this entry is entitled "traditionalist Catholics." I am unclear as to what the confusion is about, especially since it is noted that others use the term in a wider sense, and since traditionalists who operate inside ordinary diocesan structures are mentioned (along with the priestly societies that operate inside ordinary diocesan structures). The article was created to be about these Catholics, and had been about them all along until Dominick wanted to change its focus, "excommunicate" half of them, and turn the entry into a debate instead of keeping his arguments in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.

The fact is that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is used to refer to the second type of Catholic described (Google the phrase. The only time you'll see it used to refer to conservatives/neo-conservatives like, for ex., Vere, is when they are trying to re-claim the word "traditional" You will only find it used by them when they are arguing against traditionalists'). It's not commonly used to describe those who just prefer the traditional Mass.

(Note that I disagree with the statement that traditionalists try "to not associate with the Vatican/other Catholics as much"; it is pretty much the other way around). Used2BAnonymous 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the article about traditionalist, not about a particular brand. As it sits. Twisting more conversation and looking at old edits to make some undiscernable point is less productive. Pathos, we are on closute for consensus? Dominick ^(TALK) 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some more reading, and I have to agree, the scope of this article (with regards to traditional/traditionalist) should not be so limited. Again, UB12, do not worry, your side will be presented fairly in the article, as will the others. JG of Borg

The problem is that this person believes that if the inclusive side is presented, then the radical traditionalists are somehow wronged. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Chyeah, OK, Dominick: [21], [22].

And the other problem is that there is nothing to say about average, everyday conservative Catholics (who only call themselves "traditionalists" when arguing against people who actually call themselves "traditionalists"). They believe what every "mainstream orthodox Catholic" believes, they attend regular parishes always, they have no beliefs that cause other "mainstream orthodox Catholics" to call them "rad trads," "militant," "not official Catholics," etc. Used2BAnonymous 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And according to JG's definitions, you are not a "traditionalist" anyway. Used2BAnonymous 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As a new member of Wikipedia, I guess my vote will not matter much. I'm coming to this debate rather late in development. As a traditional Catholic, however, I take issue with Dominick's obvious hostility towards us, and his desire to portray us as outside the Church as much as possible. I'm not sure why there is the denial of the term "conservative" Catholic. What U2BA said is what I've always understood it to mean when it is mentioned in private discussion and periodicals, long before I was a traditional Catholic- and I've been traditional for ten years now. By the reasoning that traditional Catholics can be divided and subdivided into various "camps" then by far, the motley group of Catholics who fill the pews at your typical Novus Ordo parish would be divided into many more groups than us poor traditional Catholics. "Conservative" would be one group, who are in many respects the minority there as our hierarchy of priests and bishops takes us farther away every year from any semblance of what the Church was before VII. Someone who simply likes Latin in the Mass, or attends the traditional Mass once in a while is not a traditional Catholic. We could say that that person has traditional leanings, or it may be that that person is indeed a neo-conservative. As a member of the military, I've attended traditional Masses all over the country- FSSP, SSPX, CMRI, ICK- you name it, and I can tell you, (and I'm not a fish, nor am I red)that Dominick does not represent the majority of the people in attendance.

I would like to see the article reverted to U2BA's latest version, as it seems much more balanced and honest than Dominick's attacks. Then maybe some minor edits can be made to that one for clarification. U2BA has given many articles and sources supporting his position. But then let's not see any more edits, like Dominick's of yesterday, changing the link from fisheaters DOT com to a link for Ecclesia Dei. This is unproductive, and plain mean spirited.Heliotropium 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's being hostile, I think (from the reading) that he is just fed up with the argument. When possible, Wikipedia should be inclusive, and I think that having more than one POV here, as there are more types of Traditionalists than just one, seems obvious and logical. No disresepct is meant, and after this summary gets approved focusing on other specific parts of the article to ensure accuracy will be easier. JG of Borg 04:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept the draft for a consensus vote given at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. Lima 05:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to #4 and vote for #12 Malachias111 07:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we see the RUSH to create users from people on other boards, and the rush to get 100 edits. Dominick ^(TALK) 10:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Used2BAnonymous has begun voting at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. So I have added my vote there. Lima 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a RUSH, Dominick; the vote has a deadline attached, but all is well within Wikipedia Guidelines. Your accusations about "other boards" is wrong and uncalled for. Unless you can find "other boards" where people are being sought out, then you should be quiet. Malachias111 12:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proof I offered before. People are directed here to alter articles, gives a how to on getting credentials to twist PoV DOT com/catholic/evangelize.htmlDOT com/evangelize.html. Furthermore here at your site: [23] the folling post is found by you

Moderator Registered: June 03, 2005 Posts: 472 Oct 23, 2005 at 07:13 AM

---

Please note, too, that you can track Wikipedia revisions w/RSS. Wikipedia's recent changes page generates an RSS feed. Use it.

__________________ "The world has heard enough of the so-called 'rights of man.' Let it hear something of the rights of God." -- Pope Leo XIII

Extraecclesiamnullasalus

Registered: Member deleted Posts: N/A Nov 07, 2005 at 07:36 PM

---

the "traditionalist catholic" articel is biast agianst us trads right now.

I figured RSS was used and I knew you were reverting blindly whenever you see one of my edits. I see the troops are being called out for attack. Like I said before... Dominick ^(TALK) 13:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As noted in the boilerplate on the sandbox page, all votes were discarded. However, the page remains untouched so you are free to copy your vote to this page. // Pathoschild 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary: Rough consensus vote

This rough consensus vote seeks to determine the direction discussion will take by majority decision, where true consensus does not seem forthcoming despite several months of discussion. The vote will be overseen by neutral third-party Pathoschild. 75% of active editors supported holding a consensus vote (Lima, Dominick, and Jgofborg). Used2BAnonymous, representing 25% of the vote, opposed.

Guidelines

The vote will be held over 24 hours, subject to extension upon reasonable request. A minimum of 75% is required to constitute a rough consensus. If there is no rough consensus, the draft summary will be kept by default. Any user may vote if they have been registered for at least one month and have 100 or more edits.

Goal

The primary issue being voted upon is the underlying principle of each draft summary. Draft Summary Lima seeks to equally represent both the inclusive and exclusive definitions throughout the article. Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous seeks to fully describe the inclusive definition in the summary, and dedicate the rest of the article to the exclusive definition. Should a draft summary recieve a rough consensus, that underlying principle will be the guideline for continued discussion.

Voting

Please indicate your position for both draft summaries. Type "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" as appropriate, followed by an optional comment and your signature with timestamp (see the example vote by neutral Pathoschild).

Draft Summary Lima #4

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.

Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.

1. No vote: DSL4 supports equal representation throughout the article. // Pathoschild 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. support Dominick ^(TALK) 13:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Lima 13:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose: It takes more than a love of the traditional Mass to be a traditionalist Catholic. Like Used2BAnonymous has said, Andrew Sullivan is a thorough Modernist and isn't a traditionalist, but he likes the old liturgy. Malachias111 14:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose: Summary #4 says that some "exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong," but this makes no sense. Dominick's views on this matter are strong, but he's wouldn't be "included from the meaning of the two terms" by the traditionalist Catholics that the summary is trying to describe here. The terms are also used, the immense majority of the time, to refer to the Catholics described in the second paragraph of Summary #12. La Minturnesa 14:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose: tx, La Minturnesa Used2BAnonymous 14:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support I believe this summarizes adequately, the rest may be talked about in the rest of the article. JG of Borg 16:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #12

Traditionalist Catholic is a term used by some to refer simply to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s.

The terms "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholic" are more exclusively used—and are used in the rest of this entry—to refer to Catholics who not only would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those in existence before the reforms of the 1960s, but who also want to preserve (and restore, where wanting) all the sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, who take issue with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, who see the presentation of Catholic teaching as having changed since Vatican II, and who seek to preserve what they consider "true" Church teachings in a manner that more "mainstream" Catholics find objectionable.

1. No vote: DSU12 supports full inclusive definition in the summary, with the article focused on the exclusive definition. // Pathoschild 16:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. 'Oppose Problems are peppered through the talk text. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Lima 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support: This summary makes sense, is clear, and won't lead to the confusing entry that is bound to follow summary #4. Malachias111 14:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support: This summary excludes no one that either conservatives or those who are called "traditionalist Catholics" the immense majority of the time would consider even remotely relevant to the entry. It states clearly what the article is about, which is to say, traditionalists, not conservatives/neo-conservatives. La Minturnesa 14:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support For all the sorts of reasons I've described for the past two months. Used2BAnonymous 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose Too exclusive. JG of Borg 16:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

• I asked for a modification that we go to 50% + 1 which is the majority definition. If voting is restricted to the four contributors it will be 75%. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am personally opposed to simple majority. However, I will be consulting with more experienced mediators in the interpretation of this vote. // Pathoschild 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned the rush to "credentialize" will only attract PoV twisters. As a compromise, restrict voting to active contributors. Most all the edits for "credentialization" were one or two words, to get over the magic number of 100, not a bona fide history of editing wikipedia.Dominick ^(TALK) 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again I object to the "credentilizing" of people since 6 December 2005 for this vote. There was not 100 edits on either new person before the vote was called, most of the 100 edits are one word or letter to make the magic number. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Malachias111 and La Minturnesa were here working on this article LONG before you got here, Dominick. And if you think you don't have a "POV," you're blind. Used2BAnonymous 15:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please substantiate

Dominick, — I have not bothered with the rest of your message, or with Kaliz's snivelling, mostly indecipherable rant. I am at this moment merely considering your slanderous allegation:

Everytime a sedevacanist gets heat they appeal to the gnostic principal of secret knowledge.

You claim to be a Catholic. You must therefore be aware of the Catholic law forbidding slander, calumny and the rest. Since what you have written, you have written in response to me, it is obvious that you are speaking of me. Please therefore substantiate this:

1. That I "got heat"

As far I can recall, the exchange on this entry was / is between Used2BeAnonymous on one side and you, with Kaliz jumping in recently, on the other. I was never a part of it. Or maybe I have amnesia and you remember my own actions better. If so, please do remind me.

Remember that this is a strict responsibility according to Catholic law.

Thanking you in anticipation,

WikiSceptic 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dom is but slightly better, once again with apologies; he knoweth not what he speaketh. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just this one statement? What was the importance this statement had to the conflict between you and Used2BeAnonymous? You must also know that it was made after you had hatchetted the Dictionary page. And, even so, this statement does not substantiate what you alleged. One statement does not prove heat. Try again. WikiSceptic 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My alternative suggestion

The term Traditionalist Catholic, alt., traditionalist Catholic, is used to refer to members of the non-monolithic or variegated Traditionalist Catholic movement, the left-wing of which accepts what is understood in secular circles as the "official" Roman Catholic Church and its leaders as Catholic popes, and right-wing which do not, and with several factions in between (e.g., Neo-Conservative Catholicism, Lefebvrism, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Sirianism, etc.).

While most Traditionalist Catholics emphasize the changes in the liturgy as being at the heart of controversy, a smaller number believe that Doctrine matters more, and that Doctrinal changes made since October 1958 (and to an extent those made as part of Pope Pius XII's Easter Week liturgical reforms) should be reversed or rejected as being un-orthodox.

This article attempts to catalog and study the various factions or schools or ideologies and the differences and emphases of their particular beliefs.

My Reasons

1. I do not wish to get sucked into a quarrel with anyone, if I can avoid it, but at the same time, if this is an encyclopedia, then I believe that articles must be encyclopedic, and so I plan to expand the topic by adding new material, but principally new entries to be linked into this entry. One page I am working on creating is my Dictionary of the Catholic Resistance, which I believe, will amplify the scope of the subject matter covered by the present entry (i.e., Sedevacantism). I also wish to import my proposal page, Roman Modernism into this group of entries, although I believe that the text as it stands would need to be modified to be made more acceptable.
2. While it is granted that not all who object (to varying degrees) with the Vatican II reforms accept these descriptive labels, it remains true that several prominent persons who do hold such believe do accept these labels, and that these labels, whether accepted or not, are reasonably descriptive without being prejudicial to the beliefs of those to whom it is applied.

Apologies (if applicable) for adding to this mess....

WikiSceptic 14:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like elements of your comprimise text, but using left and right limits the precision and universal appeal. TO Americans left and right are pretty meaningful, to others they are vague. Like I said before the Neo- prefix is meaningless. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you might want to argue with Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., who writes:

The term “traditionalist” has two different meanings. The first is the heresy condemned by the Church, i.e., a philosophical/religious system that depreciates human reason and establishes the tradition of mankind as the only criterion for truth and certainty. This heresy denies the ability of reason to know the truth and thus maintains that truth must be gained through tradition alone. It is different from the current movement in the Church which clearly recognizes the ability of reason to know the truth but which sees the good of the tradition of the Church and would like to see it re-established.

The term “neoconservative,” on the other hand, refers to those who are considered the more conservative members of the Church. More often than not they hold orthodox positions, but they would not assert that it is strictly necessary to reconnect with ecclesiastical tradition. The prefix “neo” is used because they are not the same as those conservatives in authority in the Church immediately before, during and after the Second Vatican Council. The current conservatives, that is, the neoconservatives, are different insofar as the conservatives of the earlier period sought to maintain the current ecclesiastical traditions that were eventually lost.

Fr. Ripperger is a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. He is in full communion with Rome. You should heed and obey him and not be so militant and unofficial.

You write, too --

"Here is the proof I offered before. People are directed here to alter articles, gives a how to on getting credentials to twist PoV [1][2]. Furthermore here at your site: [3] the folling post is found by you."

Well, all of those "sites" are the SAME SITE, Re. 1 is htaccessed to 2 because it moved to a new domain. 3 is the site's message board. And what is your point, anyway? Do you see dredging for people to edit this entry in any specific way at the thread you reference? This entry is one among many that are listed that may be of concern to traditionalist Catholics (you know who they are). And do you know anything about "VoxClamantis" who runs Fish Eaters? And what is a "folling post"? Used2BAnonymous 15:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think parts of this make up a good suggestion. The more inclusive (within reason) this article can be, the better. JG of Borg 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not "American"

Dear Dominick — I am not American. I am Goan, a subspecie of Portuguese, and I live in Bombay, India. Here, English newspapers routinely use "left" and "right" and Anglophones here understand these terms. Regards. WikiSceptic 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit wars

Why is the page reverted back and forth? Please leave it to the present version that U2B has reverted it to. If necessary, host the other version as an alt or temp page and call for votes over a period of time. Please. WikiSceptic 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not find time to comment on WikiSceptic's proposal before it was archived. The expression could have been improved, and I am confident he would not have insisted on the exact wording he used; but the idea was certainly good, in contrast to that of that of cornering the article for one particular group. Parabéns a ele, and may he not be discouraged. Lima 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus vote" is an oxymoron

Voting is not consensus, and can only ever be used to show where people stand on an issue. Suggest a version, see who opposes it, ask why they oppose it, ask for sources, interpret the sources, ask for more information if necessary, or bring in various mediation such as WP:RFC if they fllibuster. Voting is only as good as the people who happen to be watching the article at the time, and so cannot be taken seriously or upheld as "the final say". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 16:30

The rough consensus vote has drastically failed to achieve any form of agreement, and was apparently a failure in planning on my part. I suggest calling in more experienced mediators to take my place or, if preferred, resorting to official mediation. // Pathoschild 16:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you discount people who made 100 single charater edits in the past 24 hours when the vote was called, we show consensus. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then we need no vote to make changes. Let's just do that. JG of Borg 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to want to let changes stick, I want to avoind the senseless reverting. Frankly, this is a devolving effort to keep this from happening. Nothing I ever said despite the half-headed accusations, even was to remove the radical viewpoint. It was to show that the traditional movement was not monolithic like the article currently reads. This is a direct threat to a lot of people because most people attending traditional Churches do not want the confrontation, they want to worship in peace and the best way they know how. Most reject radical traditionalism out of hand. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Confrontation from whom? Get real. Used2BAnonymous 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)