Jump to content

Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Did you read your source?

@Jahaza: did you read your source? There is no mention

  • of any group being canonically irregular
  • of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

This looks like an attempt at WP:FICTREF. Putting something randomly at the end of a line does not make any info "sourced", sorry. Veverve (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new source you added says: "The Slaves, who operate the St. Benedict Center on Fay Martin Road, were ordered to stop calling themselves a Catholic organization in January 2019 under the terms of a letter sent to the group by the diocese". This is not being irregular. Veverve (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what irregular means then. Every word doesn't need to be spelled out and defined in every article. Jahaza (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Our Lady of Guadalupe monastery is not recognized by the Vatican or the local Catholic diocese", "were ordered to stop calling themselves a Catholic organization": how is that different from being treated as simply being a random sect? What creates the not-regular-yet-a-bit-regular link with the Holy See? Please define, with reliable sources, what "canonically irregular" means and add sources clearly spelling out why this qualification applies to those goups. Veverve (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, suggesting that I'm putting hoaxes into Wikipedia via WP:FICTREF is quite an extreme allegation that you should immediately strike. Jahaza (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you decided to add a source proves my point. Veverve (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does not prove your point, because you accused me of hoaxing. Providing a source is the opposite of confirming your allegation that I was hoaxing. Please retract your accusation. Jahaza (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then show me in your source what supports those claims. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't read like an attempt to hoax, but rather a good-faith attempt to source the existence of the entity as a traditionalist Catholic group that just failed to account for a somewhat inadequate pre-existing description in the article. It's not that big a deal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Then what am I to make of this new addition whose source (original on CNA) only states "The SSPX continues to have a canonically irregular status"? Veverve (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, what should you make of it? It's an attempt to respond to your insistence on WP:PEDANTRY in referencing relatively uncontroversial statements in articles. Again, you should withdraw your accusation of hoaxing. Jahaza (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I make of it is: this is yet another attempt at saying what a source clearly does not say.
Your source only proves the SSPX is canonically irregular. But you refused to have a section only about the SSPX, you argued the SSPX was in the 'Canonically irregular' category with other groups. And you added your source to support the alleged fact other groups (plural) are 'Canonically irregular'. So I expect you to find sources stating that other communities are considered as 'canonically irregular', not only the SSPX. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this seems like a good-faith effort to source the matter of irregularity. The article is deficient and adding sources piecemeal to at least establish that there is reliable sourcing for certain terminology is perfectly acceptable. It's not sufficient long-term–which is why it would be perfectly fine to tag material as either failing verification or with some other template so that we can come back to it and remove the offending portion after a reasonable amount of time. Prior to today, this article wasn't really being worked on, so mass removal of uncited content was preferable. Now there are editors working on sourcing elements, so tagging is the preferable alternative. If the effort goes cold, wait a month and then resume removal of unsourced material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to come back in one month if no reliable source is added to support the claims discussed in this thread... to remove those claims (the name "Communities viewed by the Holy See as having irregular status", the claim there would be a whole category of groups 'canonically irregular', the mention of the New Hampshire community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the mention of the Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery). I have marked the verification as failed.
The Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery has no business being mentionned in this general article, even if they are part of the SSPX: there are dozens of monasteries affiliated to the SSPX, this one is not special, nor is it notable (it does not even have a WP article). Veverve (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can address the concept of WP:UNDUE for the monastery separately; at present it serves as an example of a traditionalist Catholic institution other than a parish which has a strained relationship with the Vatican. I think it merits inclusion for illustrative purposes until a superior example is found and sourced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like someone wants to have the article for themselves, whatever decision may be taken at talk page... Veverve (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After accusing me of being a fabulist and refusing to retract, you are again violating Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Jahaza (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "decision" here on the talk page. To the extent anyone other than you and I commented at all, it was to say that the example should be included for now. No one else backed up your claim that the source failed verification. Jahaza (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it does not even have a WP article"
This is not a measure of notability. It just means no one has created one yet. Jahaza (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one else backed up your claim that the source failed verification: yet @Pbritti: stated: Again, this seems like a good-faith effort to source the matter of irregularity. The article is deficient and adding sources piecemeal to at least establish that there is reliable sourcing for certain terminology is perfectly acceptable. It's not sufficient long-term–which is why it would be perfectly fine to tag material as either failing verification or with some other template so that we can come back to it and remove the offending portion after a reasonable amount of time.
  • This is not a measure of notability. It just means no one has created one yet: then do it. To the best of my knowledge, it is simply a random, non-notable monastery.
Veverve (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

So recently I made some edits and @Pbritti reverted them. All good, and I'm confident Pbritti was acting in good faith. However, I think it's worth talking them out.

So two issues seemed to come up in the revert summary.

(a) The distinction between RadTrads (sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, or conclavists) and regular Catholics preferring older practices.

I felt that prior to my edits this article didn't make a clear enough distinction between members of the Catholic Church, and non-members styling themselves Catholic. This would be confusing for our readers (as its unclear who is saying + doing what), and we should do our best to prevent such confusion. So an example of this would be where it was talking about 'traditionalist perspectives on V2' and the proceeded to give examples of criticisms from sedevacantists that would not be held by regular Catholics preferring the TLM.
I appreciate the topic itself can be somewhat confusing, and that my edits are not categorically the best/only way to make this distinction clear. I'm happy to work with others to come up with a workable solution.

(b) Removed content.

This was a lot more of a secondary issue. I removed some sourced content which I felt was just reiterating SSPX talking points, or wasn't really notable for an encyclopedia. Pbritti evidently disagreed. To be honest i don't feel as strongly about this, so happy for that to be added back in if others want, but please consider wether it is WP:UNDUE weight on the primary sources on a few orgs.

Sincerely, Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using language like "RadTrad" and "radical" is inherently charged; you have to source it as the common name and as a distinction that explicitly exists. Additionally, the content of this particular article is slide exclusively about organizations considered part of the church. The removal of sourced content is ok when it's unencyclopedic (you think it is) and I'd appreciate you breaking down in more detail why you believe it isn't worthy of inclusion. As a blanket rationale, I feel it is worth providing the organizations' perspectives in light of recent discussions like those immediately above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I partially changed some of what you wrote on the Criticism article but left the general content removals you performed up as I don't feel like I can comment on them beyond a general sense of "I dunno 'bout that". ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying about terminology (though please appreciate that I took that from a RS already in article). If you've got better NPOV labels, I'm happy to hear them.
So you say the content of this particular article is... exclusively about organizations considered part of the church. That's just objectively not the case, even prior to my edits. There's a whole section talking about Sedevacantists and Conclavists (manifestly not part of the Church, they have different pope).
As for the content removal, I felt that including things like the SSPX's views on television isn't really relevant to understanding Traditional Catholicism as a whole. Maybe it's better for their article?
P.S. Happy with what you did on the Criticism article. Let's just leave that now, and see if more consensus develops with other editors.
Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mulled it over for a bit and I think I generally agree with you. If I can come up with a source-supported name that is a tad more NPOV, I'll ping you. Until then, consider this me generally agreeing with you and saying thanks for the clear and complete explanation! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, friend! That is all greatly appreciated, and thank you for being so constructive and willing to talk about things. Also, I saw you're Catholic on your user page, so God bless, brother! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, thank you! I try to stay non-sectarian because I edit a lot of Protestant history stuff, so I do my best to avoid letting my convictions come through, but it's always nice to encounter a kind and friendly fellow member of the faith! Ping me if you ever want a second set of eyes or hands on something you're doing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haldraper Please see this talk section about the content you keep removing. There is consensus to include it currently, you need to change that consensus to remove it.
Also pinging @Pbritti as someone who's been involved on this part of the article. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the back-and-forth editing on the article the last few days, I want to state my preference for Tomorrow and tomorrow's version pending discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version can be criticised on numerous grounds. Firstly, vagueness: who are these offshoots who it is asserted are no longer Catholic, are outside the Church and are now separate religious groups? It is not at all clear. There's also the POV problem: you might think some of them are are, I might think they are too, but presumably they don't. How do we find a reliable source which says that they are? Haldraper (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haldraper:
From one of the sources in the text talking about radical traditionalist Catholics ([1]) "Indeed, the groups... preach a theology specifically rejected by the Vatican, and many have been declared schismatic, or officially separated from the church". This clearly answers that not all traditionalist Catholics are part of the Catholic Church, as indicated by the current version. As for which groups, this is then discussed later in the article in the "different types" section, where it talks about those accepting or rejecting the current pope and the post-V2 Catholic Church. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complimentarian

The fact that male and female are complimentary (whilst equal) is a teaching of the Roman Catholic church (Catechism etc). This article implies that it is a feature of "Traditional Catholics", and the source (America magazine article) doesn't refer to Traditional Catholics but to the Roman Catholic Church in general. I made an edit but PBritti undid it and said "not supported in body". I don't understand what this means. Many thanks and asking out of good natured curiosity. 2A00:23C8:A3E:F201:2271:EDB2:3DFD:41EF (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offshoots/separate groups

I'm not sure what the article means by offshoots and separate groups, or even if the authors of it do (let alone the general reader). SSPX? SSPV? Sedevacantists? Palmarian Church? Some of all of those? It simply isn't clear, and it would be hard to make it so without violating NPOV (which is why I suggested avoiding the whole unnecessary discussion in the lead). I know that the (seemingly) lead author of this article baldly claims that these are facts rather than their own personal opinion, but it is a very large claim to make to say that people are outside the Church, and one that currently rests on very flimsy citation (again, I don't think it is possible to adequately cite such a contentious position without breaching neutrality, and therefore we shouldn't be attempting to do so). Haldraper (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed already. The groups addressed are those typically referred to in reliable sources as "traditionalist Catholic", a term that encompasses groups in full, impaired, and outside of communion with the Catholic Church. Additionally, starting a discussion with such a failure to AGF is unproductive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoblox

We need information box to explain the movement of tradition catholic or polictal party JNOJ1423 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an organized movement, unlike a political party. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the flag from the infobox, based it made it look like this is somehow an organisation. That flag also isn't a common or widespread symbol. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox itself is quite confusing. Headquarters, Vatican City? Formation date, 8 December 1965? Makes it sound like an organisation. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There simply shouldn't be an infobox. Traditional Catholicism is not a formal organization, it's a movement. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholicism&oldid=1255784067"