Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Traditional vs. Traditionalist

I have removed the picture of the Traditional Mass and hope it can be replaced very soon. The picture would be excellent except for the fact that the priest is shown wearing a chasuble that is not "traditional". Since the acceptable definition of "traditional Catholic" is a person who wants what prevailed before Vatican II, it only makes sense to assure that the picture conforms to traditional usage. We need a picture that shows a priest with a Roman chasuble, not a "gothic" one. I can provide a traditional quote to anyone who disagrees that the gothic type were not the norm and were discouraged by Rome.

More importantly, in my edit for today I reversed the two terms "traditionist" and "traditional" on the first line, and then proceeded to edit almost all of the "traditionalist" words by removing the "-ist". WP insists that articles have some authority behind them, and I have been a very active traditional Catholic for almost 25 years becoming very familiar with all the shades of people who consider themselves "traditional Catholics". When I saw the way it was worded I knew there was something wrong. Instead of making the change and risking a revert for reasons of POV, I decided to look up on Google both terms to see the cold hard statistics of usage. My experience was verified: There were 494,000 hits for "traditional" and only 36,300 hits for "traditionalist". This is a difference of about 92% to 8% in favor of "traditional". Though not important for me to say here, I wager that most of that 8% is comprised of people who have a negative POV of "traditional Catholics".

I don't know how to proceed with it right now, but this article should be entitled "Traditional Catholic" because that is the term that predominates in society. The current title should be reversed so that it will automatically be forwarded to this article with the revised term. - Diligens 16:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Any wholesale change from "Traditionalist Catholic" to "Traditional Catholic" should obtain consensus here before being put into effect. I think most would oppose it. Mainstream Catholics in general certainly consider themselves Traditional Catholics - Tradition is central to Catholic belief - but they do not, again in general, consider themselves Traditionalist Catholics. There really is a distinction. Lima 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lima, what you are doing is reverting based on what you "think", without really knowing. Yet I made the changes based on indisputable, statistical fact of public usage. This is something I know. Are you implying that a "democratic" consensus takes precedence over the truth of statistics and reason? You mean to say that you think 92% usage compared to 8% means nothing? Or, you think you want to wait for, say 5 people, to come here and enter their vote against the statistics, and if it happens, the statistics of usage means nothing? These are serious questions. The WP only considers "consensus" in the absence of solid statistics to be of worth, but not otherwise. We have solid statisitcis that you are ignoring. - Diligens 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not restored the picture of a priest with what used to be called a Gothic chasuble. However, such a chasuble must not be a non-traditional as Diligens makes out: see the cover of a SSPX brochure reproduced at Society_of_St._Pius_X#Present_canonical_status_of_SSPX. Lima 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you are implying that because the SSPX says something, that it is definitively correct? They do not represent all "traditional Catholics" and also have been known to be wrong many times. They can be proven wrong in the snap of a finger by a quote from the Roman Congregation before Vatican II. If you believe the SSPX define what is right always, say so here, and now. - Diligens 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am only implying that what Demas - sorry - Diligens thinks is not the only point of view, nor necessarily the truth. The myriad websites of traditional(ist) Catholics, in line with their notion that they are the only traditional Catholics, naturally use the latter term to refer to themselves. Traditional(ist) Catholics are of relatively minor interest to the general public, Catholic or not, and so are mentioned on other sites less frequently. If Diligens would kindly examine the statistics he quotes, which term would prove to be, in general use (not traditional(ist) Catholic use), the normal one? Try newspaper reports, for instance. Lima 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima, this is a talk page; you can speak to me in first person. I never saw the name Demas before; you apparently think I am someone else. I have only used my current handle on WP.

This is not a matter of POV. I have given you actual statistics which you are gratuitously sweeping aside because they are contrary to your personal POV. You have given nothing solid yourself except wishful thinking, and such does not take precedence to actual statistics. I have proven usage is 92% to 8% in favor of "traditional Catholic". And if you want to argue a margin of error? Fine, I will give you 75% to 25% and say it is still in my favor. Your mention of "myriad" web sites means nothing, and certainly does not mean you have visited thousands yourself to document anything. Nor have you given any statistics from "newspapers"; dropping that word here means nothing without actual statistics. You have failed to produce anything solid that is contrary to my proven statistics of 494,000 web site hits for "traditional Catholic" as opposed to only 34,500 for the -ist.

Furthermore, your previous entry here indicates that you are confusing a term with an adjective. This article is NOT concerned with the use of an adjective. It is concerned with a term as a type. For instance, there is a substantial difference between using a word as a description, such as "blue pen" where blue is merely descriptive, and saying "Blue Pen" which could refer to the name of a Rap Singer or a brand name. I grant you that as a description "traditional" as an adjective is already inherent in the word "Catholic" because Catholics cannot be otherwise. But this Wikipedia entry is concerned with a term, with a pairing of words, that refers to a type. As such, my statistics show clearly the weight of using one over the other, and that the redirect is in the wrong direction. - Diligens 10:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"DEMAS ENIM ME DERELIQVIT DILIGENS" 2 Tim 4:10 Lima 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if you have something to say, say it in English for everyone to know what you are saying, or else go to the Latin Wikipedia. And as for "Demas", I have never seen that name before on the Internet. This is no place for inside jokes between you and yourself.

It should not be too much of an effort for (Demas) Diligens to look at just the first page of links that Google displays for "traditionalist Catholic" and for "traditional Catholic".

Apart from Wikipedia, every site on the "traditional Catholic" Google page would probably be classified as a Traditional(ist) Catholic site.

The sites on the "traditionalist Catholic" Google page are clearly more representative of the wider world outside Traditional(ist) Catholic confines.

So the term in wider use in the world as a whole is "traditionalist Catholic".

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Lima 14:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this, "would probably be classified"?? That is not evidence. Nor did you even say by whom you are referring would do the classifying. Another gratuitous and empty assertion.

Google hits only represent that a site has at least ONE instance of a term. That means that 92% of the WEB SITES have "traditional catholic" whereas only 8% (within that 92% or not) mention "traditionalIST catholic". What presominates is obvious. However, it is fair enough for you to suggest looking into the sites themselves to see how many times a term appears in each. Why you didn't do so and present something here is telling. I have done so:

Among the top twenty sites that Google came up with using "traditional catholic", it is clear that traditional Catholics themselves prefer that term because you can tell by the URL's, which are generally entire dedicated sites. However, the URL's that come up with the search for "-ist" show mostly that they are NOT sites dedicated to that interest, and often just a page or two within the site.

Lastly, and most importantly, when searching through the top 20 URL's for "traditional Catholic" for that same term as opposed to -ists also found there, it is in proportion to the statistics that I have already posted here. For instance, you will see:

111 to 4

420 to 2

364 to 0

7 to 1

7 to 0

50 to 3

6 to 0

65 to 0

2 to 0

19 to 0

28 to 0

101 to 0

9 to 0

28 to 0

33 to 0

67 to 0

All in favor of "traditional catholic". And BELIEFNET.COM that is actually in the top 20 for "traditionIST catholic" hits is overall in favor of "traditional catholic" with 404 to 36. I rest my case. - Diligens 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that Diligens, who is so devoted to Mass in Latin, and who has chosen to take a Latin word as his Wikipedia name, does not understand a quotation from the Latin Bible (the Vulgate), applying to a certain Demas the description "diligens (hoc saeculum)".

If you knew what traditional meant in regard to being Catholic, you would know that the Church never required her lay members to know any Latin. Once again you err. Furthermore, I looked up your quote from the Bible and all you are doing is insulting me out of the blue without letting your purely English readers know what you are saying. Let them now know that out of the blue you ascribed to me the person of Demas who left St. Paul's company and went to Thessalonica - "loving this world" (diligens hoc saeculum) and left. A plain insult to a Catholic. You are showing your colors. My choice was merely from a Latin dictionary, as the adjective "diligens" has the denotation of "painstaking" and "conscientious". (No sense in wasting my time trying to choose English words for my name just to keep finding out they are already taken.)

At least, he is able to recognize that "the URL's that come up with the search for '-ist' show mostly that they are NOT sites dedicated to that interest", i.e. not sites written by Traditional(ist) Catholics, but by journalists etc., representative of the world outside that narrow circle.

Lima 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I looked up the two terms in the New York Times archives for the whole past century until today, and it is 215 to 20 in favor of "traditional Catholic" (or 115 to 13 since 1981). It keeps showing the general 92% to 8% proportion no matter how you slice it. I think I have proven that my handle, by itself, was well chosen. - Diligens 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What do others think? And, by the way, Traditionalist Catholics, in the sense considered in the article, came into existence much less than a whole century ago. Before then, "traditional Catholic" meant what mainstream Catholics, and other people in general, still mean by it, not what Traditional(ist) Catholics want it to mean: a reference specifically and exclusively to themselves, not its obvious ordinary meaning. Lima 12:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already address ordinary meaning, and explained that this article has nothing to do with it. "Traditional Catholic" is a term comprised of two words, and is a proper term. But traditional, as an adjective, didn't exist with the noun Catholic because Catholic is already inherently traditional by its very essence; before Vatican II you didn't find Catholics using that adjective for the Catholic noun. It would have been like saying "round circle". It started with opposition to Vatican II to distinguish those whose considered the changes illegitimate. The two-word term is an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation.

And, the fact that the New York Times from 1981 to present has "traditional Catholic" 92% more than the -ist proves that your most current comment fails to make a point. The Internet started from about 1991 and shows the same percentage of usage. You are arguing for what you want something to be, not for what plainly is, as demonstrated by the facts. - Diligens 13:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is useless to use google to make arguments here. I think it is a tempest in a teacup. Traditionalist would be the correct term for many groups Catholic and ex-catholic, and as you said traditional would be a more general term for Catholics. Many on the extreme redefine terms as it suits them, and to exclude other Catholics. Wikipedia should use the "traditional" definition, (Traditionalist) even thought neither term is defined by the Church. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, you have made gratuitous statments just as Lima does, with nothing to support them than a show of personal preference. Dismissing Google without reason, means nothing. Throwing in the word tempest means nothing. And you didn't comment on the New York Times either. Unless statistics can be shown to prove my statistics wrong, the rv is necessitated by the facts. - Diligens 13:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one should be very careful in asserting that those who accept Vatican II are in some way not "traditional Catholics". The article has been settled at the current title for some time without it apparently being thought particularly controversial. Traditionalist is almost certainly unambiguous. Bear in mind, too, that sites claiming that it is "traditional" to reject Vatican II are not themselves entirely neutral on the issue. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you overlooked the point about the ordinary adjectival usage and the proper term. The proper term came into existence only when, and through, those who opposed Vatican II. This article is about the proper term, so I would be pleased if people here would stop bringing in the use of an adjective. Does everyone here know the difference between a proper noun & an ordinary adjective describing and ordinary noun? I wonder. Those accepting Vatican II reforms may use the adjective, but it is not the two word term this article is concerned with. In addition, revisions are every day affairs on WP. There is no rule, or even rule of thumb, that says that just because something was arbitrarily allowed to remain for a certain time, or not noticed, that it becomes the de facto truth for ever more. That is silly. Wikipedia is not that famous. There are loads and loads of discerning people who have never visited this article. I myself have been very active on the Internet as a Traditional Catholic since the beginning of the Internet, and I have only just noticed this. Ordinary truth of usage is discerned by statistics primarily. If no statistics can be found, a limited WP consensus is simply used as a tentative method. So far I have showed several consistent statistics of usage that no one else has proven faulty by and other statistics. When one opposes statistics with preference, it is a manifest sign of a biased POV - Diligens 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not confuse failure to accept your argument with failure to understand it. The so-called statistics are not neutral, because (a) they are not from a reliable secondary source (i.e. are original research) and (b) they may well include a bias as stated; those who reject vatican II are withotu question a minority, but they vigorously assert that theirs is the truer form of Catholicism, their self-descriptions are not reliable in this respect. I would want to see much more input from a much wider spectrum of Catholics before making such a change. I would suggest an article RfC linked here and in the talk pages for Roman Catholic, Vatican II and probably other articles such as SSPX. Don't forget, if you look for data with a preconception of what it will show, you are more likely to find the data which supports that preconception. It's a well-known and widely documented problem in statistical research. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no confusion on my part. Discernment of what is behind another person's opinion can only be discerned by details of WHY they think the other argument fails. Without that, they might as well not post anything. It only shows they don't desire what the other person has said, and is the epitome of revealing a bias. We are merely speaking of de facto predominance of usage and that indeed has an historical record. It was absent before Vatican II, created by the objectors and consistently used by them as well as the NYT using it too. I have repeated myself on this, but here goes again - why do you insist on treating the term as a description rather than a proper phrase? Why? Do you know the difference or don't you? As for bias, since you are an Anglican and you believe that you are "traditional" whereas Catholicism says you are not. Naturally you are going to have that bias when you look at what Vatican II did. Can you comment on the parallel case with the Quaker's and the Jesuits article? Please? - Diligens 15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that you hold out the fact that I am not a Catholic as being a bias, in a way that being a traditionalist Catholic presumably is not. In fact, from the exchanges here, it seems you are asserting that only those who agree with you are unbiased - a situation known colloquially in these parts as MPOV. To compare a loose affiliation of dissenters with clearly defined and identified bodies such as the Religious Society of Friends and the Society of Jesus looks like very woolly thinking - apart form anything else those bodies do refer to themselves on occasion as Quakers and Jesuits respectively, just as the Society of St. Francis refers to itself informally as Franciscan. The only formal denomination I can think of which is usually known by a name not of its own making is the Plymouth Brethren, but that is an aside. To reiterate, I do not think such a significant change should be made on the say-so of a very small number of obviously interested parties. Certainly there can be no appeal to a formal name of a denomination, since no such denomination appears to exist. The nearest you have is probably SSPX, and they identify as, well, SSPX. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So far, we have all said the argument you made is spurious. You are claiming articles not about the topic of this article refers to those people. I guess it is how you count the votes. Please read the archive. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the archives were consulted before these edit disputes, with the inevitable personal attacks, were started by others. Google means nothing, in terms of usage. The NYT is not a reliable Catholic source, for two, the NYT archive does not talk about the subject of this article when it uses the terms. The modern lexicon of the "arch-catholic" movements of the 1980s can't be upheld when one goes beyond the surface headlines. The subject of the articles may be traditioanl or traditionalists, all that is proven is that articles about one group are more common than the other. In any case, there is no official Church dividing line, the usage was set long ago by wikipedia convention. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, all you do is dismiss Google without giving any reasons. That means nothing. NYT is reliable precisely BECAUSE it is a neutral source, just as Lima suggested about reporters. I have shown both neutral AND non-neutral statistics and they all consistently show the same heavy weight of usage. There is no such Wikipedia convention against solid statistics. - Diligens 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thse are not solid statistics, those are a survey of headlines. Web hits are not solid statistics. Google is not the same as research. You have shown what you think is proof, and claims it is unassailable, giving the reason "so says I". Every hit will have to be looked at individually, and compared to the group. Moany of those articles will not be about this group in particular. I don't know the content of every hit, and you have not been able to check it. Those who use the terms here have argeed that the term traditionalist is preferred as a title. Unless there is something more than a search engine, I do not think you are going to get consensus. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Dominick, they are not surveys from headlines; they are text searches of the CONTENT of all the articles. Also, if you had read this discussion carefully, the statistics are not just from "hits", they are from the textual content from whole domains. You have a point about hits and headlines in theory, but that is not what my statistics are limited to at all. Searching actual textual content is research. The only time the phrase "traditional catholic" should not be included is when the word "catholic" in the text string is itself used as an adjective and is followed by a noun, for example, "traditional catholic practice". Do you realistically think that the statistics will be lowered in your favor by looking into this? And what happens when I search for this particular aspect and it doesn't lower it? Will this two or three man consensus change?

Your principle of "consensus" is faulty, as I have already pointed out. To reiterate, consensus is necessary only when statistics are not available. Otherwise someone could campaign and gather a majority of people to a consensus that says that "Hitler was a good ruler". What you are promoting is the unCatholic principle that says that democracy determines truth. History shows this to be a disaster. The Communists use it by policy. - Diligens 15:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting thing I found. I decided to look at the history of this article. From the very beginning it was created as "Traditional Catholic" starting in April 2003. For 2 years it remained that way without controversy. Then in April of 2005 a man named Samual J. Howard decided himself that it made more sense with an IST, and immediately did a move and rewrote it. It still wasn't a controversy, just that the man thought it made more sense. No statistical usage data was discussed or considered, which is very poor scholarship. It remained this way for 8 months and then Lima and Dominick arrived in September, apparently accustomed to seeing it this way. So now we have 2 years, as opposed to 1 year with IST. It signifies statistically that twice as long of a time span has gone by with approval and no controversy meaning more people visiting and approving, while only 1 year has gone by with IST and it now reveals a controversy with solid statistical usage to support the edit instead of hasty supposition. - Diligens 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The reality now is that you don't have consensus to move it again. If you like, consult WP:RM Dominick ^(TALK) 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

consensus that ignores the arguments and the statistics does not take precedence because it is a biased, unreasoned consensus. That is the reality. The other reality is that while 2 people have spoken here to agree with you, while I am 1 person, you have a pathetic consensus that can be overturned by 3 more people coming here in my favor, which can easily be arranged. Will you actually be happy when those 3 come? Or will you go get 4 more? Where does it all end? Why don't you just directly address the arguments using reason and statistics instead of ignoring those I have provided? - Diligens 18:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a consensus, and according to you it is unreasoned and biased. Your argument didn't have traction with other editors, and this is no way to be persuasive. If you are right, then there ought to be a better way for you to make a case. You also have to remember that the different editors of this page have different backgrounds, and not agreeing with you does not make any of them wrong. Like I said you are welcome to consult the procedure to move a page and try and form a consensus. Wailing on how stupid we are is not going to cut it. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no wailing or any mention of stupid. You simply have disregarded the statistics and the arguments without getting specific with a counter-reason or statistic. This merely shows you are ignoring them and satisfied to see if you can get what you want by having a majority of 2 people agree with you. If it is as simple as that, it will be interesting to observe how you react were I to get 3 people here to agree with me....will it them be a simple matter of consensus? I don't expect a direct answer from you, considering your track record for answering with specifics. It will have to remain a rhetorical question. - Diligens 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens is absolutely right. Trads refer to themselves, almost always, as "traditional Catholics," not "traditionalist Catholics." The article is about them. The media almost always refer to them as "traditional Catholics," and Google proves it. Should be case closed. Bugzes 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Go try and form a consensus to move it using the process at WP:RM, they live to debate these issues. Like I said if you want this to work you need to learn to persuade people without resorting to threats. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

When you offer a challenge, don't accuse those who take it of threatening you with what you offered!

For the record, I have not communicated with anyone to come here and side with me. I never heard of Bugzes before. Why say a consensus needs to be formed at WP:RM and not here? Do you make up these rules as you go along? You can have a consensus here but the other side must get a consensus in another manner and place? Double standard? - Diligens 19:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Trads refer to themselves, almost always, as 'traditional Catholics,' not 'traditionalist Catholics.'" Of course they do. Nobody disputes that. The question is what does the wider world call them. Good night. Lima 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting more interesting and revealing than I thought it would get! So, what it comes down to is that people who reject the changes of Vatican II should NOT be allowed to call themselves something, and that they must be named by those on the outside who don't agree or understand them! Ah, we are getting somewhere. I can bet that Lima and Dominick and JzGuy are all in the Novus Ordo or Indult, and have a chip on their shoulder and do not want to see the "traditional Catholics" call themselves that, or even BE CALLED that by the world. I have shown that I have something to go on, and it is admitted by Lima. However, what is behind the Dominick position has nothing to support it other than a wish, and a majority of 2 people. Who ever said that it doesn't count if the group itself invented the name in the first place and that those on the outside take precedence for what they decide to call them? Where did this come principle come from? If you look at the "Quakers" here on WP, you will see that the name they chose for themselves takes precedence as the Society of Friends, even though "Quakers" is quite common in society.

Bugzes first edit was today and he was created 12:40, 23 March 2006, predating this dispute. I believe you. You keep threatening to "bring others here" that is what I am saying is not helpful. Like I said before, more than once, appeal to the larger community WP:RM, please put a link here, and make your case there. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You should believe people are in good faith when they say something, not attempt to verify it. And on top of this, what you verified of Bugzes does not prove that I didn't lie. Your reasoning is not well.

It is not threat of mine; you are threatened by your own faulty principle of giving precedence to consensus despite reason and statistics. I was merely showing you the logical outcome of your faulty principle by asking you those questions about consensus. Did you feel threatened? You should, but by your own error and its consequences, not me. - Diligens 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But of course people who reject the changes of Vatican II CAN call themselves whatever they like. If they wish to, they can call themselves Diligentes or Bugzeses or anything else that comes into their heads. But an encyclopedia article will call them what the world calls them. Since "traditional Catholics" means something much broader than their group, they cannot claim exclusive rights to the term, as if nobody else can be described as a traditional Catholic. Lima 04:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how when you fail in reasoning you try to fall back on consensus, and when consensus becomes shaky you try to resort to reasoning. They both look pathetic. The 2.5 man consensus you have is comprised of Lima and Dominick who are already very close having started to participate in this article simultaneously last September, and then there is the .5 opinion of JzG, the Anglican, whom already has a close association with Dominick elsewhere on WP, and really has never participate in this article but all of a sudden pops in to give a weak support in one Talk entry for Dominick. Consensus clique. Lima, nobody is asking here for "exclusive" right to a term, the point here is merely precedence of a term, just like a dictionary can have several denotations for the same word, but in order of precedence.

More to the point, the term "traditional Catholic", as a proper term, didn't existed before Vatican II. This is crucial. It doesn't mean something much broader because it came into existence as one thing. It was created in reaction to Vatican II by people opposed to it, to distinguish themselves from those who don't, and has been consistently and widely used since then. Though you want to gratuitously claim that the world outside of them calls them with an "ist", you have provided no support for it at all. An empty claim. Prove it, otherwise it is a baseless claim. And there is evidence here in what is written that Lima/Dominick will allow no consensus here to be of any worth UNLESS it contains people NOT in the group of people who call themselves "traditional Catholic". That is the logical result of your thinking about who should have a say. Sounds like the modus operandi of the typical news media.

But, let us for the sake of argument say that it is true, that those outside of that group call them "traditionalist Catholics" solely, or at least predominantly. Would it still be a principle on Wikipedia to give precedence to what the world calls them OVER what the group calls themselves? I can prove not: The world calls Quakers -Quakers, but the group themselves call their own the "Society of Friends", and the Wikipedia article on them gives precedence to what they themselves refer to themselves. When you type in "Quaker" it redirects. So too with when you type "Jesuits" it redirects to what the Society predominantly has called itself.- "the Society of Jesus". Will Lima and Dominick complain that most "societies" are comprised of "friends" and argue that the Quakers should not be able to have that proper term?

Every which way you slice it, or turn, it supports the way this article was from its creation and for 2 years following. The change after that 2 years didn't consider any of this. There has to be a standard, and it should be consistent on Wikipedia. Redirects should give precedence to what a group has historically called itself, because that is the official and predominant term. Encyclopedias are supposed to give an official presentation of knowledge, not giving precedence to slang or what people unofficially refer to things as.

Lastly, in researching this I just found a way to help avoid the problem of letting adjectives mix in with the statistics of the New York Times archives, and that is to search for "traditional Catholics" in the plural so that it will avoid those instances where "Catholic" would be an adjective. It turns out that there is basically an equal use of both (also with the Quakers) in the NYT archives. Lima and Dominick will apparently have as their principle that when it is equal, the decision of precedence should only be made by those who are not favorable to that group who invented the proper term. History shows a practice of the opposite. - Diligens 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I am unaware that any but Quakers describe themselves as "The Society of Friends", or any but Jesuits describe themselves as "The Society of Jesus". On the contrary, many who describe themselves as "traditional Catholics" are not Traditionalist Catholics.

2. Where consensus rules, an expression of consensus is needed for a change; and lack of consensus means the status quo remains. I believe Wikipedia is run, generally speaking, on the principle of consensus.

Lima 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are unaware of many things, and seem to like to keep it that way, the way you ignore points being made while taking no effort to support your own gratuitous statements. You last sentence is purely gratuitous and begs the question; circular reasoning. Your first sentence doesn't seem to get the point that Wikipedia recognizes what groups officially call themselves regarding the source of a term. I expect you, to be consistent, to go to those two articles and recommend a move to the other term. See how your same arguments go.

You believe? I have already addressed that and you ignore it. When this article was moved a year ago, after 2 years of status quo, no wide consensus was taken.

(interleaved and unsigned Diligens)

I am pretty much said what needs to be said. I have no desire to further this fruitless discussion. Guy has an opinion that is as valid as anyones Anglican or not. He didn't support me, he supported the consensus. I have an attachment to him only that we worked together on spam projects. If you are not willing to appeal to the wider wikipedia community, then I don't know what you want. As is said in the south, "there ain't no more fight in that dog". Dominick ^(TALK) 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The same with you, Dominick. You ignore points and don't support your claims. Your consensus doesn't even really agree with Lima who thinks a consensus involves reporters while excluding traditional Catholics. You think it has to be a wider WP community consensus, yet that is not what was had a year ago when the title was moved. You also think an Anglican opinion is as good as anyone's? Well, Lima thinks that everyone's is good except for the opinion of the very people who started the term after Vatican II and have consistently been referring to themselves as such. You stand is contrary to the WP situation with the articles on Quakers and Jesuits. No comment on those? Democracy determines truth? - Diligens 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So much for civil debate. See my comment above: this requires much wider consensus than a couple of people and some Google hits. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Right to "traditional Catholic" as a description

Encyclopedia articles are normally supposed to have entries that are proper terms. When an Encyclopedia starts to allow descriptive entries, that is when it goes down hill. Then you start having articles about, for example, what a "saturated log" is, or what a "cloudy sky" is. A waste of bandwidth, disk space and processor time, not to mention the money associated with it all.

But since you three people insist on treating the phrase "traditional Catholic" merely as a description, despite my repeated cautionings of your mistake, I have here created this section to address it as such for your sakes. You apparently want to get into the raison d'tre of the phrase; that is, the appropriateness for why it was historically created a generation ago.

The question then becomes, "Did Vatican II make a break with tradition?" A break with tradition means innovation apart from what was handed down. As an analogy, tradition is like a baton starting to be used in a relay race; the winner would be disqualified if he crossed the line holding a dead chipmunk. : )

If tradition can be shown by a break via comparison of before and after, and better yet, shown by admissions of the two head promoters of Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II, then the right to the description would be proven.

I would like feedback before I continue. Please be specific. - Diligens 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved to correct place) Dominick ^(TALK) 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is that the title of this article is a mistake is a bad assumption. I think nothing you are going to say iabout this is going to be anything but original research. I am afraid that you are far afield in your line of questioning and this is beyond the scope of this talk page. May I suggest you take this discussion to the myriad of Traditionalist websites where this is appropriate. Please consult the pages that discuss what wikipedia is not. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong once again Dominick. Original research is forbidden in articles, NOT in Talk Pages. Discussion pages welcome anything that can bring the truth to light, including reason or authoritative quotes. It most certainly is fitting here because all you three gave as one of your reasons that the description was not fitting solely for those who reject V2 changes. If that was an acceptable opinion, so also is a counter-reason to show it false. This is the counter-reason in this new section. Do you care to know the truth about whether it is fitting or not? - Diligens 16:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are in the wrong place. Please read my earlier response. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Would D., in his immense knowledge and profound wisdom, be so good as to deign to explain to this ignorant person, so "unaware of many things", why "traditional Catholic", the self-description of certain traditionalist Catholics, is not a description. I naively thought that, if D. really considered "traditional Catholic" to be what he calls a "proper term" (presumably on the analogy of "proper noun" or "proper name"), he would have written it with an upper-case initial ("Traditional Catholic"), as he wrote "Quaker" (a "proper term"), not "quaker" (a description).

Another thing this unenlightened person is unaware of is when (if ever) "Traditional Catholic" became a "proper term". I was under the unlearned impression that, though traditionalist Catholics could describe themselves as they wished, they lacked an umbrella organization and the means of establishing an official title. If they wish, I will gladly call them Traditionalist Catholics as a mark of respect, but without intending to imply that this is an official title.

Is Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports, which does officially use the designation "Traditional Catholic", a traditionalist Catholic website? Until D. enlightens me, I remain under the impression that his limiting the term "traditional Catholic" to "a person who wants what prevailed before Vatican II", and his excluding the many whom almost anyone other than the likes of D. would classify as traditional Catholics (to take a non-Catholic source, when Religion and Ethics Newsweekly wrote about "evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics", did it mean traditionalist Catholics?) is, to say the least, curious.

I was also stupid enough to think consensus about altering a Wikipedia article did not mean a "wide" (perhaps even worldwide?) consensus, as the so much better informed D. interprets it. I imagined it only meant consensus among the few people actively discussing the article at the moment of the consensus.

Please do not consider this sarcastic: it is only adoption of the proper attitude for one who has been judged to be ignorant in comparison to the person he is addressing or to whom he is referring, and whose greater understanding he is therefore bound to speak of with astonished admiration. Lima 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly sarcastic, uncalled for and uncharitable. I never said anything about lack of wisdom, ignorance, stupidity, etc. I merely said IN CONTEXT you are unaware of many thing PERTAINING TO THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. Nothing else. You need to read things in context, not get all emotional when you see a phrase like "unaware of many things" and then ignore the context in which I said it. I think you should not use the letter "D" to address me, since it may confuse people as to whether you might mean Dominick. Back to the subject of the section.... - Diligens 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was clear to me to whom he was addressing. You all but called the editors of the group as a mass ignorant, or at least thats how you sound. Long ago the editors decided that interest and attendence at pre-Novus Ordo Mass is a good working dividing line. I think Lima is grouping those Catholics who hold to customary teachings without regard to Mass attendance as indicative of the former group and the Vatican uses traditionalist to refer to those who are the subject of this article, who at least attempt ro atttend "Tridentine" Mass. I think you will find they use the term "traditionalist nature" and maintain there is no division witin the Church. We are very aware of this topic, and it is presumptuous of you to think we are unaware. Disagreement with you does not me we are unfamiliar with what is spread by certain tabloid organs. I don't agree with creation of some neologisms that are promoted by some Catholic and ex-catholic groups associated with extreme traditionalists. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Heart of the Issue

As for the right to refer to only objectors to V2 as "traditional Catholics": Let's represent all Catholics before V2 in the 1950's by two hypothetical people, represented as person A and person B. At that time neither of them, and no Catholic, referred to themselves with the adjective "traditional". It was a characteristic that was implied and need not be said as a common reference.

Vatican II came along and person A disagreed with changes, while person B accepted them all. Person A said that some major changes broke with tradition, while B said they did not. Person A starts to refer to himself as a "traditional Catholic" while person B resents it because it implies that he is not. Person B still considers himself "traditional" as an inherent characteristic, as did all Catholics before V2, but can't really call himself a "traditional Catholic" because that is what the "dissenters" are now explicitly calling themselves. Person B does not approve of people like person A constantly referring to themselves as "traditional Catholic" because it is a standing, public accusation that both V2, and people like person B, are really not characteristically and objectively "traditional" after all.

This is the reason behind person B only wanting to refer to people like A with the word "traditionist". They want to disassociate themselves completely and not have the word "traditional" in common. They want to make them appear, as much as possible anyway, as an IST, which would give the appearance of being sectarian, how they view them. This is not NPOV.

This is what I think is ultimately behind the issue here, as it came out all of a sudden in a protest, and I don't think they want to face the heart of the issue in detail. Wikipedia relies predominantly on authoritative quotes to allow for material in actual articles. The biggest authority among Catholics on earth is a pope. The biggest and most visible aspect of Catholicism is the ritual of the Mass which Catholics are obliged to attend every week. What does Paul VI, as B's top authority, and the Mass itself, reveal as far as there being a break with tradition? Tradition is a whole package and must be whole and entire. You cannot be considered "traditional" merely for still retaining some traditions.

I will leave it there for now. - Diligens 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue of right, it is an issue of one group attempting to impose a misappropriation of the term. I showed the Vatican unofficially uses -IST when referring to the subject of this article. They use traditional when referring to custom as did another author when referring to people regardless of Mass preference. No division is intended, and that is a straw man argument. Your insistance on muddying this with a discussion of Vatican II is pointless. If thats what you would like to do, Wikipedia is not the place to do that, perhaps you may want to find a different forum. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens, your statement at the head of this section is wrong on two counts: first, it is wrong in that it asserts that Vatican II alone is the "break with tradition". Every change can be (and usually is) asserted to be a "break with tradition". Tradition is a word which has its very own logical fallacy: appeal to tradition. That appears to be what you are doing here. Second, you assert that there is some unique value of a "proper" term. There is none. There is no single coherent traditionalist catholic Church, just as there is no single coherent continuing Anglican Church. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This certainly is an issue of what is right. Right means true or factual, and Wikipedia cares ultimately for what is factual. Why don't y'all hold your horses because what I have to present is not finished yet. IF the authority that created Vatican II says that it was a break with tradition, then Wikipedia would accept that as an historical fact. Please address the content of my sub-section directly, thus far, and stop vandalizing a perfectly legitimate discussion. This is NOT an article; it is a discussion. The standards for article format don't pertain to discussions, so please stop censoring me. I was not the one who kept bringing into the former discussion about whether traditonal was appropriate as a description. You virtually asked for it, now I am discussing that aspect. - Diligens 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the word right as if there is some single immutable value of right is problematic. Since my principal suggestion is that we seek wider consensus, which is the preferred Wikipedia route to just about everything, and you apparently reject that, may I assume that you are not interested in canvassing wider opinion? If so I will rasie an RfC myself. Just zis Guy you know? 18:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have already expressed that I think that determining truth as a pure result of a small democracy is inanity. It can only be used in a case of last resort, and as a tentative measure. We are hardly at that point. - Diligens 18:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican II is widely perceived -- universally perceived among trads -- to be the vehicle by which the "revolution" took hold in the human element of the Church. No Catholic believes that every change is a "break with Tradition"; there are changes in terms of quality and quantity -- and then there are changes of SUBSTANCE. It is these latter changes, and changes in quality or quanitity that negatively affect how the Faith is understood and passed down, that trads object to.

An appeal to tradition is only fallacious if that Tradition isn't divinely inspired, which Catholics believe it is. But let's assume, arguendo, that it isn't: this entry would be, then, about those Catholics who adhere to that fallacy. This entry is about traditional Catholics, or "the traditional Catholic 'movement'" These terms have definite meaning, and all trads know what it is and what all trads have in common despite the factions (e.g., sedevacantists, SSPXers, "indulters," etc). (WP:RPA)

No one searching for information about "traditional Catholics" is interested in reading about people who adhere to Mahony's view of the world but who like the traditional Mass once in a while. People looking for information about "traditional Catholics" are looking for information about "those people" who make journalists and neo-conservative Bishops squirm. They are the people who are constantly being accused of being "anti-semites," of "rejecting Vatican II" (whatever that means exactly with regard to non-sedevacantists), of being "disobedient" or "rad-trads," etc. There is no need for an entry about neo-conservatives who embrace Americanism, have seder meals, pray in Lutheran "churches," don't mind that JPII kissed the Qur'an -- but who pray the Rosary really hard so that "the Church" can be "unified" again someday (as if She already isn't unified and Catholics don't pray that in the Creed each week). Come on; get real about this entry. (Unsigned User:Bugzes)

(Personal attack removed. Hello U2BA.) Dominick ^(TALK) 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And as I mentioned before, tradition (handing down) must exist from the start. The Church declared in the 16th century that the Tridentine Rite of the Mass was the pristine rite of the holy fathers, after removing (as Bugzes mentioned) non-quantitative and non-qualitative things that were tolerated up to that point. JzG has a stake in this because the Novus Ordo Mass was a radical quantitative and qualitative break with tradition just as was the Anglican "Mass" that broke with the pristine rite of the holy fathers also. Though Dominick and JzG commendably may wish to consider themselves "traditional", the objective fact is that they are not. I will give authoritative proof shortly. Dominick, as a professed Catholic, you must believe that JzG himself is not traditional. - Diligens 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In context of wikipedia, even if Guy were an Animist he has every right to contribute. Do not make assumptions about who can edit an article. Do not make assumption on who is traditional or not. It is not important as far as this article goes, and you are beating a dead horse. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he couldn't contribute or edit. I am merely revealing motives. Dominick, please stop vandalizing the discussion and diverting attention from the issue into a formatting war. Discussions are free, where the rules of articles do not apply. You should know that. Also, I haven't finished my proof so please stop assuming that I am just assuming. - Diligens 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no clue of anyone motives, and show a great deal of arrogance in saying so. I don't care about your proof at this point, I am afraid this article will not be renamed to suit you nor any agenda. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican II came along and person B accepted that Ecumenical Council. Person A rejected some changes that broke with his idea of tradition, and proceeded to appropriate to himself the description "traditional Catholic", which had applied to all mainstream Catholics. Person B, naturally, objected to this as unjustified, and still does.

That is "the heart of the matter": has person A the right to claim "traditional Catholic" as a specific description of himself, in a way that excludes person B?

Tradition is a whole package and must be whole and entire. You cannot be considered "traditional" merely for still retaining some traditions, such as a form of celebrating Mass considerably altered from Justin Martyr's account of how it was celebrated in second-century Rome (see Pre-Tridentine Mass).

The biggest authority among Catholics on earth is a pope. What does Pope Benedict XVI, as B's top authority - and A's too, if he were indeed a traditional Catholic - reveal as far as there really being a break with Tradition?

Tradition, Pope Benedict said last Wednesday, "is not a collection of things or words, like a box of dead things. Tradition is the river of new life that proceeds from the origins, from Christ to us, and makes us participate in God's history with humanity."

Last December he said, quoting Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, that the objective of the Second Vatican Council and of every reform in the Church is "to transmit the doctrine purely and fully, without diminutions or distortions," conscious that "our duty not only consists in guarding this precious treasure, as though we were concerned only with antiquity, but in dedicating ourselves with a firm will and without fear to the work that our age calls for. One thing is the deposit of faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerated doctrine, and another [is] the way in which they are enunciated, preserving however the same meaning and fullness," he said, echoing John XXIII. He insisted that "the Church, both before as well as after the Council, is the same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, journeying through time. Today we can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council."

So, according to "the biggest authority among Catholics on earth", who really has the right to be called a traditional Catholic: person A, who applies to the Second Vatican Council a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture", or person B, who applies to it "the hermeneutics of reform"?

I am not out to change D...s's ideas. All I want is to show that an authoritative opinion different from his exists, which he cannot simply wish away, so as to be free to rewrite this article to fit his own ideas alone.

Lima 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed discussion, no more reverts it all makes sense now and I added where Bugzes forgot to sign (use ~~~~ Dominick ^(TALK) 16:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

THE MAN who officially gave the nod of approval both to Vatican II and to the alteration of the Tridentine Latin Mass into the English Mass of Paul VI is Paul VI. He should know whether the Novus Ordo Mass was a break in tradition. This is the top authority, and if his words mean nothing, you might as well be a person who professes that nothing can be certain in life...nor on Wikipedia.

Here are the words of Paul VI upon promulgating the Novus Ordo in the vernacular. A substantial excerpt from November 26, 1969:

"We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy]. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation."

- Diligens 17:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pius V also made a change in venerable traditions (or a venerable tradition). So did Pius X. So did Pius XII. So did Gregory the Great. So did so many other Popes. But Tradition, as understood by "the biggest authority among Catholics on earth", continued and continues intact. D...s cannot just wish away opinions other than his own. Lima 17:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice assumption, Lima. But I gave an authoritative quote. Do you have a quote from any of those popes you mentioned where they explicitly say they made an innovation in tradition? - Diligens 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to show that the title Traditionalist is not valid. I think the usage of the Vatican that I quoted above is authoratiative. This is a line of discussion that requires NPoV private interpretation. It is also way off topic. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the point is to show weight of usage and predominance. The term itself is not completely objectiionable. If you have it wrong at this point, you need to review the whole discussion. I agreed from the start it is valid, just that it is far less appropriate. You quote from the Vatican only shows that they consider the SSPX as traditionalist. The Vatican also considers "approved" groups such as the FSSP as traditionalist, and that groups has no objection to V2 - just a preference in liturgy. My sub-section is perfectly on topic as I am responding to a claim made by your side in the previous section. - Diligens 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Popes said or did not say they were changing traditions (not Tradition) is immaterial. They did change traditions, as when Pius V (mistakenly) thought he was restoring the Missal to "the original form and rite of the holy Fathers" (Bull Quo primum), as when Pius X "significantly unsettled" clerics with his reform of the Breviary,[1], as when ... But D-s can't seriously believe no Pope but Paul VI ever changed a liturgical tradition, and that the Roman liturgy remained frozen from the year dot to 1969! Lima 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima, that very statement of yours that runs, "They did change traditions...", is purely YOUR claim, which is not authoritative. Show an authoritative quote if you want it to be worth something in this discussion. - Diligens 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Would D-s just go to the slight trouble of looking up the two references I gave here. If he wants more references, let him read Mass of Paul VI, Pre-Tridentine Mass, Roman Rite, or articles on such matters in the Catholic Encyclopedia, or ... But perhaps D-s really does obstinately believe in a Roman liturgy miraculously sprung into existence and frozen until 1969! In that case, good night. Lima 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you have quoted nothing. You need an actual authoritative quote that explicitly says what you yourself are claiming in your own words. So far your side has provided NO AUTHORITATIVE QUOTE that even seemingly oppose the one I have given verbatim from Paul VI. Either WP wants authoritative sources or it doesn't. - Diligens 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to D-s for giving me the opportunity to exercise patience. On the question of Popes changing traditions, does D-s prefer traditionalist Catholic quotations? How about: "The distribution of the psalms in St. Pius X's breviary was entirely new. It only partially took into account the ancient tradition of the Church, for example, abandoning the number of 12 psalms at Matins, a number consecrated by a tradition going back to the Desert Fathers and expressly codified in the Rule of St. Benedict. Another point controverted at the time was the suppression of the immemorial and universally held usage of reciting psalms 148, 149, and 150 at the end of Lauds daily. This amounts to saying that the Breviary of Pius X did not have so much in common with that of his predecessor, and that clerics were significantly unsettled in their habits!"[2] (emphases added)? Were these or were they not innovations, breaks in venerable traditions? D-s will find a list of innovations and changes of traditions by Pope Pius XII at another traditionalist Catholic site, in Liturgical Revolution by Francesco Ricossa. If D-s will not look it up himself and continues to insist on clogging up this page, I will, reluctantly but with patience, cut and paste here part of the list, so as to give him another of the quotations he is demanding. Another traditionalist-Catholic table of innovations and changes of traditions that were made between Pius XI and John XXIII can be found at The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared, by Most Rev. Daniel L. Dolan. This would be far too long for me to cut and paste here: does D-s really need yet another quotation? As for innovations and changes of traditions made long before the twentieth century, how about those referred to in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Liturgy of the Mass, which endeavours to answer the question: "Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon." Does D-s wish any more quotations that show that Popes have, in undeniable fact, repeatedly made changes in liturgical traditions, innovations qualified even as "radical"? There is no dearth of them. But, since the matter is so obvious and clear, it is better to get back to "the heart of the issue": What right have traditionalist Catholics to claim for themselves alone the designation "traditional Catholic"? Lima 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to produce a verbatim quote from authority (pope, Saint, prominient theologian) that states explicitly that there was an innovation that amounted to a break in tradition. Your confusion of any "change" with a "break in tradition" is YOUR CONCLUSION alone, and you are not an authority. Not every "change" is considered a break in tradition. There are also customs. You still have cited no authoritative quote that says so in their words. You have already dismissed, early on, that traditionalist opinion doesn't count in this because you say it is biased, so why are you attempting to use them as an authority now? If your answer is that I don't recognize Paul VI as an authority you would be overlooking the fact that Wikipedia counts it as an authority, and that the very source and creator of V2 innovations is that very man, which makes him the author (etymologically it is based on auctor meaning creator). - Diligens 12:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

D-s is actually asking for an authoritative statement that a Pope has broken with Tradition! There can be no such authoritative statement (though there are many unauthoritative ones by traditionalists). Popes have frequently broken with traditions, even liturgical ones - and there are abundant quotations to show it - but they have never broken with Tradition.

Until now, since D-s gave Pope Paul VI's observations as a model of what he was asking for, it seemed he was looking for something much less than what he now demands, just something analogous to what Pope Paul VI said..

D-s falsely - I presume his good faith, so I use no stronger word - attributes to Pope Paul VI the statement that the 1969 revision of the Roman of the Roman Missal was a break with tradition. What Pope Paul VI actually said was that the revision was a change in a tradition, i.e. a custom venerable because it had gone on for centuries. He referred to it as a change that would affect "the ceremonies of the Mass" - not the Mass in itself.

Pope Paul VI explicitly denied that the revised Missal was a break with Tradition. In the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (seventh paragraph), he said the substance of the rites in the Ordinary of the Mass was probe (Latin for "thoroughly" or "properly") servata (Latin for "preserved" or "kept"). (The ICEL translation is curiously weak: "due care being taken to preserve their substance"; but still speaks of preserving the substance.) Tradition, accordingly, remained solid, though a custom, a tradition, was changed.

Now that we know what an impossible thing D-s is asking for, the only way I know to answer him is to throw the challenge back to himself, and ask him to produce an authoritative quotation that Pope Paul VI (or indeed any Pope) did break with Tradition, rather than just with a tradition or custom.

Lima 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been tending to real life, now I am back.

Paul VI approved of BOTH the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin and afterward in the Vernacular. They are different. The quote I gave pertained to the Vernacular versions. He speaks saying in the same breath that it broke with tradition and was an innovation that would disturb everyone and especially the pious. You will find no such quote anywhere before Vatican II that spoke of innovations and tradition-breaking as if is were good. However, there are plenty of quotes about "innovation" and "tradition" of a scathing and condemnatory variety throughout history and you will also notice that there was absence in those moements about any distinctions being made to prevent anyone from misunderstaind "Tradition" and "tradition". This is a pure invention after Vatican II to attempt to rationalize the changes. Go to Papal Encyclicals Web site and look up "new", "innovate", "innovation", etc. and see the attitude at the mere thought of doing so. Look at the condemnations of St. Pius X of modernism, and the content of the Oath Against Modernism and you will see the ardent desire that modernists had for innovation....and Paul VI got rid of that Oath. Another characteristic of modernists is that they are known to talk out of both sides of their mouths, affirming and denying the same thing in the very same writing. People who fall for that simply choose the affirmation or denial, whichever suits them.

Bottom line, the disctinction about capital T and small t is untraditional fabrication on this issue. And you will not find a quote from a pope or Saint even coming close to mentioning innovation in tradition as being anything other than frightening and sacrilegious. As a matter of fact, it is even a traditional moral principle that customs of a populace existing for generations are not to be abolished if it were viewed as religiously disturbing. Even on the point of custom the Church treats it analogously. Even if you were to replace Paul VI's mentions of "tradition" with "custom", he would be doing something sinful.

Now for my summary on this issue.-Diligens 14:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ds again attributes to Paul VI the statement that he (the Pope) or his revision of the Roman Missal "broke with tradition". Everyone knows that, like many of his predecessors, who made quite radical innovations even in the Canon of the Mass (or does Ds deny this?), Pope Paul VI broke with traditions. But would Ds give the elusive quotation in which Pope said there was a break with tradition. The long quotation above does not, as far as I can see, contain that statement. Am I just too tired, having come back very late tonight? Please, have the response for me tomorrow. Ds need not write "tradition" with an upper-case T: in this context, "tradition" without any article is just the same as "Tradition" without any article. I usually write the word, in its theological sense, with a capital T out of respect, as I write "Bible" and "Scripture"; but I do not insist that others do the same, and have here chosen to write it with a small t to please Ds. Lima 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my call on Ds to come up with some quotation that proves Pope Paul VI broke with tradition, when he changed some traditions. I also call on Ds to say whether he accepts the statement by a renowned expert on the history of the Roman liturgy that the text of the Mass, and particularly of the Roman Canon of the Mass, was radically altered in the period leading up to Pope Gregory I, and, if he does not accept it, to come up with some quotation in support of his denial of that statement. His personal opinion is not proof. Lima 09:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you begin calling me by my full name (Diligens). If you continue otherwise, you will be considered to be provoking me.

All you did was run off and find a word like "radical" but it is not accompanied by the subject of tradition. That is purely YOUR conclusion. Fortesque explains what he meant by that change and it was merely one of omitting some prayers. He says nothing about principle or traditon. The ball is in your court. I gave the top authoritative quote by Paul VI and you are in denial of what it says, flagrantly forcefitting that he didn't mean what he plainly said, and what you can find no other authority saying. Quite the contrary, as all talk of tradition and innovation has always been forcefully condemned, with no concern for people like you who would take "tradition" to mean anything else, (so no qualification was given). To give a little detail of what occured in the innovation of Paul VI - the words of consecration were changed to signify contrary to what Scripture tells us Our Lord said at the Last Supper. A change from "many" to "all" had been EXPLICITLY condemned hundreds of years ago, in no uncertain terms, as being contrary to what Our Lord both said and meant. (Diligens 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

If Ds wishes to call me L, he is free to do, as long as it is clear who is meant. Ds obviously understands who is meant by "Ds", which I use for brevity. I give him leave, if he wishes, to use Find and Replace to change every "Ds" into "Diligens".

I will call anyone what they sign as. I don't care what you would tolerate yourself. I ask for the last time you call me by my full name. There are lots of words you can abbreviate in writing, but you don't, so don't pretend as if you need to do it with my name to save time. (Diligens 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

All Ds did was to run off and find in a talk by Pope Paul VI something about innovations that were breaks with traditions, and then claim that that meant a break with tradition. That is purely Ds's own unconvincing conclusion.

There is nothing deductive about the plain words of Paul VI in general audience while promoting the vernacular new Mass. Read his words carefully, they are authoritative as to what he did to the Church. And all my comments previously about it stand. (Diligens 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

The conclusion does not convince even himself, for he proceeds to advance a new claims that the translation in some languages of "pro multis" as "for all" is a break with tradition. Ds knows no Latin and is unaware that there are no articles, definite or indefinite, in that language, so that "multi" can be equally well translated as "the many" - in Dutch (voor de velen) and French (pour la multitude) - as "many". In this context, the word "(the) many" is opposed to "few", not to "all" — "many" isn't the same as "some". Jesus came to give his life not stingily for a few, for some, but generously for many, for all. Surely Ds does not deny that Christ shed his blood for all. If he does, he contradicts both tradition (cf. Denziger 340, 1523, 2005, 2304) and scripture (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15). In any case, a decision of the supreme authority of the Church is, for Catholics, authoritative; and for those who disagree - if, that is, they are Catholics - the burden of proof lies on themselves. Ds is, to say the least, unlikely to produce the required proof.

It is a lie that I know no Latin. And, no language (not even sign language) can function without distinct concepts of "many" and "all". Try telling a child in any language that he can eat many cookies, or all of them. Quite distinct. Furthermore, every single consecration no matter what rite throughout history, had "many" instead of "all", the same with the passage in scripture that uses "many". Lastly, and most importantly, this is not simply my conclusion. It was declared by the Church long ago (as I already said, but people can forget things that are inconvenient) in the Roman Catechism order by Trent: "When, therefore, Our Lord said: 'for you', He meant either those who were present, or those whom He had chosen from amongst the Jews, amongst whom were, with the exception of Judas, all His disciples with whom He then conversed; BUT WHEN HE ADDS, 'for many', He would include the remainder of the elect from amongst the Jews and Gentiles. WITH GREAT PROPRIETY, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS 'FOR ALL' OMITTED, because here the FRUIT of the Passion is alone spoken of, and To THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. . ." (emphasis added). (Diligens 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Concerning Adrian Fortescue, all Ds has done is to deny the evident fact that that eminent expert described the changes in the Roman Rite in the period leading up to Pope Gregory I as involving not merely omissions, but also additions, variations, re-orderings etc. on such a scale as to be qualified as radical (he uses the word twice). Of course, Fortescue did not say that these breaks with traditions were a break with tradition. They weren't, just as Pope Paul VI's breaks with traditions were not a break with tradition.

Bottom line, Fortescue did not say anything about tradition or innovation. Paul VI did, contrary to all past writings that spoke concerning those subjects. (Diligens 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I still await Ds's famous and elusive "authoritative quotes", one to show that Pope Paul VI broke with tradition, and another to show that the changes in the Roman liturgy in the period leading up to Pope Gregory I were not really radical. Lima 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For some reason you keep confusing the concepts of "change" and "innovation in tradition". All the latter are the former, but not vice versa. (Diligens 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

1. "Read his words carefully ..." I have done so. I await the promised indication of the particular part in which it is claimed the Pope admits to having abandoned tradition, rather than traditions. If someone does not understand the difference, I recommend that he read Catechism of the Catholic Church, 83.[3]

2. I rejoice at the claim to know Latin on the part of someone who previously seemed not to understand a short phrase in Latin, though it was accompanied by an indication of its scriptural source. Veniam ergo ab eo peto. I hope he is not a Jansenist. One of the Jansenist teachings that Pope Innocent X condemned on 31 May 1653 was: "Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse" (Denzinger 2005). (I translate for other readers, who unlike him do not know Latin: "To say Christ died or shed his blood for absolutely all men is semi-Pelagian.") The Roman Catechism defended the propriety of "pro multis"; it did not say it would be unorthodox to say Christ died for all. How could it? Contrary to Jansenist opinion, Jesus did die for absolutely all. By the way, "try telling a child in any language that he can eat many cookies, or a few of them. Quite distinct."

3. Fortescue did indeed speak of innovation, innovation that he calls radical - he uses the word twice - innovation that was a departure from "a common Liturgy throughout Christendom, variable, no doubt, in details, but uniform in all its main points," "a rite of what we should now call an Eastern type", which was in use in Rome in the middle of the second century. Paul VI did not speak of innovation of tradition, but only of traditions or a tradition. Quite distinct. And my interlocutor has not shown and cannot show that Paul VI's innovations were at all as radical as those Fortescue spoke of.

Lima 06:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The CCC broke with tradition also as it followed Paul VI. You should know better than to use a disputed source as a premise to try to solve a dispute. It's called begging the question.

2. Discussions are for the public and this is the EN Wikipedia, and you should communicate to the English public. You are also wasting space. It would be well if you could reason properly and comprehend English as well as you like to type in Latin. I never denied that Christ died for all men. I said that WHEN Christ said those words at the Last Supper he ONLY said and ONLY 'meant the doctrine that He died only for the many who effectively made use of the graces. Paul VI falsified Scripture and history, and lied about what Our Lord said at the Last supper in the rite. A sacrilege. A change in meaning in the consecration also invalidates the Sacrament. This is what the Church teaches. That is an innovation of the most severe degree. It is commendable that you do reveal that you believe a pope cannot innovate with tradition, and that is precisely why you are force fitting explanations into Paul VI's words to say he only meant customs. However, you have to realize that the Church's teaching includes the fact that a true pope can cease to be a true pope by going into heresy.

3. Fortescue did not say anything about innovation or tradition. You are inventing your own conclusion. You are doing so also with Paul VI. You need help in English reading comprehension. This Tradition or tradition business was an invention after Vatican II by people trying to cope with the innovations and the apparent break with the past. How could Paul VI use a distinction that didn't exist yet? Catholic statistics in all realms skyrocketed/crashed immediately following these innovations. That is not coincidence. Those are tangible fruits of Vatican II. Just one little statistic - 70% of the Novus Ordo no longer believe in the Real Presence. For that fact alone they are no longer Catholic. That is a whopping 70% off the Catholic population without even touching on other doctrines denied by people. Another fruit? Nuns were taken away by force in their convents if they protested following changes, and they were given shock treatments by order of the upper hierarchy. That barely scratches the surface of the revolution. By their fruits you will know them. (Diligens 17:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

You are begging for shock treatment. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hilarity ensues

1. "The CCC broke with tradition". And "Pope Paul VI broke with tradition" And anyone and anything else that does not fit the ideas of the Great Authority who has appeared in our midst broke with tradition.

2. The Great Authority is, of course, by no means "force fitting explanations into Paul VI's words", when saying the Pope admitted to having broken with tradition. A post-Vatican II invention, this Tradition or tradition business, which Pope Pius XII nonetheless miraculously foresaw, when he prophetically said that to "the Teaching Authority of the Church ... has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted" (Humani Generis, 18). How terrible of Pope Pius XII to write "tradition" with a capital T! And how still more terrible on that prescient Pope's part to say that interpretation of tradition is in the hands of the Teaching Authority of the Church, instead of being, as it really is, in the hands of the Great Authority who has power on earth to declare invalid a Eucharistic formula approved merely by the Teaching Authority of the Church!

3. The Great Authority, who does not invent his own conclusions, has declared that Adrian Fortescue did not really say that the Roman Mass underwent a radical change from its mid-second-century Eastern-type form, a basically uniform style perhaps inherited from the apostles, to something quite new. The Great Authority has also declared that the "upper hierarchy" (perhaps some kind of Anti-Great Authority?) ordered nuns taken away by force "in" their convents "if they protested following changes" to be subjected to shock treatments.

Let us all now bow low before the Great Authority.

Lima 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe now you two can stop the ridicule, personal attack and sarcasm and give a mature rejoinder. Don't forget to include the reason why you are ignoring the result of your own RFC. (Diligens 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

What I wrote was directed against a position, not a person. How else could I respond to a position so ridiculous and silly except by pointing out how ridiculous and silly it is? It deserves all the ridicule it got and more. It is good that hilarity ensued. Lima 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now restored my comments on a extremely funny uproarious side-splitting position, comments which for some curious reason disappeared earlier today. Lima 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. Saying the Church ordered shock treatments is silly. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC/RPA

I didn't say the Church did so. I said that the hierarchy under Paul VI did so. They didn't represent the Church. It is not only silly, it is horrendous, and a fact. Waiting now for why you, Lima and JzG call for RFC and then ignore results. (Diligens 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

I never claimed any authority for myself. The discussion history here proves this. Simply and maturely ask for proof rather that personal attacks mocking someone as a god. I have a close relative whose best friend escaped a convent at that time and testified to the shock treatments of the nuns. An old Latin Mass magazine also did a story on it about 13 years ago. Now please answer why you are ignoring the results of your own RFC. (Diligens 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Also 3rr on this page for removing a comment and claiming it was a personal attack. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the results? What results? The discussion is still going on, and thus far only you and the webmaster of fisheaters have expressed a preference for small-t traditional, while numerous excelelnt arguments against that have been advanced. You've also reverted four times, but the fourth was before the warning saved because I was busy reverting your removal of previous warnings from your Talk. You seem to be actively seeking a block, is that right? Just zis Guy you know? 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Those two RFC people you asked to come over and spent the time reading the discussion and article, said they want the title to be "Traditional Catholic". If Gin want a small t it was for the article, because all titles are capitalized. How long have you been on WP? You don't even know that when someon FIRST makes an edit in violation, any reverts of that initial violation are NOT CONSIDERED TO VIOLATE THE REVERT RULE. Why don't you know this? You have edited the main article and taken something out that was well established status quo for months, by Lima and Dominick. Only you and Dominic have made a violation edit of that article, because you both should not have changed approved status quo. You and Dominick are actively seeking a block. (Diligens 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

I am afraid you are paranoid. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA

Such a tactic can easily be avoided by not reverting three times. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA when there is an RV war, both parties may revert 3 times, but only the person who FIRST made a violation is the one who violates the 3 rv rule. The other person is fixing the violation each time. WP:RPA (Diligens 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

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

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

Request for comment

I have posted this to WP:RFC/PHIL for wider input. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What's done is done. - Diligens 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is inappropriate to canvass wider opinion? If so I think you may be in the wrong project. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. I think thats why he didnt take me up on making a RFM. It brought out a troll as well. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read my recent comment you would know that I am not against it, just that I don't think it is time yet to have our hands held. - Diligens 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No hand-holding involved. RfC is merely an invitation to others to contribute to the debate - this is not mediation. This Talk page displays a singular lack of productive dialogue at present. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Take note, I am waiting for an authoritative quote. Sometimes you have to wait for people to research things. Silence is not necessarily a defect. Also note that you summarized incorrectly in the RFC and Dominick also incorrectly suggested there that I was continuing the debate. The objective here is not under dispute so this is nothing being continued.

Though you have been giving the appearance here that you have a consensus with you 3-to-2 simple majority, the Guidelines on Wikipedia state: "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate". You do not have a consensus just because you have 3 people somewhat agreeing with each other.

Finally, if you want to see some extra talk here, I can add some supplementary material to my Paul VI quote, but I don't want to see your side use that to divert from the fact that you still need to provide an authority.--Diligens 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be reversing the burden of proof, advancind the assertion that traditionalists like to eb called traditional therefore we must use that term unless an authority can be found to refute it. Aside from the Pope, obviously. Or rather, a succession of Popes. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ecclesia Dei and the then Cardinal Ratzinger (Current Pope) used "traditionalist", and I cited the quotation before. As in "...canonical situation of a certain number of religious communities of a traditionalist nature..."[4]. Certain groups have an agenda of misappropriating the term. OF course that isn't quotation enough, it is from the Pope and not an excommunicated Bishop. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the troll? Bugzes? Sounds to me like a person who has greater responsibilities in life that participating here. I don't, at the present moment. - Diligens 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read some of the WP meaning of trolling, and it says, "The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem." That is the way I think you are using it. - Diligens 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could this be an issue of big T vs little t? Most catholics would probably lay claim to being traditional Catholics but only a specific group would describe themselves as Traditional Catholics.Geni 14:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That distinction itself is untraditional. It was invented after V2 because some people needed something to help them deal with the disturbance of their religion.--Diligens 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and? There was not need to make a destiniction between those who acepted VC2 and those who didn't before VC2. Now there is.Geni 14:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the discussion. We all thought an RfC was a good idea, except this person. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. However The RFC is a present about the issues rather than the person.Geni 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not against it. I was against the timing of it because I thought we were mature enough to be able to handle it based on the arguments.--Diligens 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutly right, please look if you see some reason we should overturn consensus of the active editors. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If the groups tend to describe themselves as Traditional catholics we sould say that is how they describe themselves. Mainstream catholics would be unlikely to describe themselves as big T traditional.Geni 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No we all agree the little t is important. It is grouping, traditional would include all Catholics who are more traditional is the leanings, traditionalist, as the Vatican uses, means those who are attached to the pre-reform Tridentine rite. This person is claiming the opposite of what all the other editors claims. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From RfC. I think that "Traditional Catholic" should be the name of the article and the name used through out. However, the opening should reflect that this is just a popular/common term, and that other Catholics do not consider themselves non-traditional by any means. This debate reminds me of pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-choice vs. pro-death/pro-abortion/pro-choice. The solutions seems to be to use the term that the movement itself uses, even if you think the term is problematic (perhaps state these problems somewhere in the article). Also, I don't know why, but I always heard "traditional catholics" called pre-Vatican II catholics (which gets even less google hits than traditionalist).--Andrew c 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And if you look at the original edit I made before the controversy, I kept the opening line to refer to "traditionalist" and even went to far as to keep a couple of them within the article itself.--Diligens 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The assumption is thats what they call themselves. Thats also what Catholcis who do not attend the pre-reform Mass call themselves as well. The term "Traditionalist Nature" referred to the proper subject, of those attached to the Mass In Latin according to the older Missals. In the archives is the original discussion. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You would have a point IF that mention were confined to Catholics who criticized V2. But the phrase "of a traditionalist nature" is also used to refer to the FSSP who don't criticize V2 at all, but merely have a preference of the Latin liturgy and they are approved by Rome. This fact alone disproves your wpoint. Dominick, you are FSSP and they are considered of a "traditionalist nature" by Rome and by Una Voce, so why do you want to isolate that term to those Rome does not approve of and who criticize V2? --Diligens 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like "Traditional Catholic" is the self reference used. "Traditionalist catholic" seems to be employed by the critical POV (and these people). If the former is confusing, make a clarifying statement in the article. If the terms are controversial, mention both and how they are used. However, I don't see how ignoring what these people call themselves is anything besides POV pushing.--Andrew c 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That also include Novus Ordo Catholics. If thats how this article shall read, then thats what we will have to include. All traditional Catholics, and not just Traditionalists. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In normal English, a title, self-bestowed or applied by others, is given a capital letter; but a description is written as an ordinary word. "Traditional Catholic" (upper-case T) would indicate a group or movement, and I personally would accept its use for traditionalist Catholics. But traditionalist Catholics are wrong to seek to appropriate the description "traditional Catholic" (lower-case t) for themselves alone, as if there were no other traditional Catholics in the world. The article could legitimately state that most traditionalist Catholics prefer to refer to themselves as traditional Catholics (with lower-case t) (though the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Inc. does exist.) But the article would make false statements if it spoke of "traditional Catholics" doing this or believing that, when speaking really only of traditionalist Catholics. Other traditional Catholics, those who are not traditionalist Catholics, would rightly object to having such statements made about them.

Geni's comment is, I think, perfectly correct; and I notice that Andrew c also writes "Traditional Catholic" with an upper-case T. Diligens, perhaps not unexpectedly, opposes.

Lima 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima, thank you. That was the point I was trying to make, only put much better than I have thus far managed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to say about those Catholics who would in no way be referred to as "traditionalists" but who like to think of themselves as "traditional" anyway. They attend regular parishes, have no gripes except for the most egregious liturgical abuses, maybe they like the traditional Mass once in while or maybe they don't -- but, in any case, there is nothing to say about them. This article is about traditional Catholics (who most often refer to themselves as such and are most often referred to as such by others) who have a set of beliefs in common, whether they are sedes, SSPXers, or attend Masses offered by indult.

The fact is that these Catholics -- and all the "conservative Catholics" know who they are, even if said conservative Catholics like to think of themselves as "traditional" (you know they know who they are because they refer to them as "rad trads" and "integrists" and the like) -- are an identifiable group and they refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" in order to differentiate between themselves and other Catholics (neo-cons, liberals, etc.). That the neo-cons think they are "traditional, too" doesn't mean they are -- and there is still nothing to say about them.

Thought experiment: say there were a disambiguation page in place with two links:

• 1) traditional Catholics A: Catholics who have issues with interpretations of Vatican II documents and who have beliefs no longer widely held by mainstream Catholics (also, less often, called "traditionalists"), and
• 2) "traditional" Catholics B: Catholics who like some traditional practices

What would the entry about #2 be ABOUT? What would it look like? What would it say? What could possibly be said about them? And aren't #2 type Catholics adequately described in a single sentence, such as the one used in the definition for #2 above? Are such Catholics somehow "overlooked" or having their rights deprived because there is not an entry about them given that there is nothing to say about them? Wouldn't such a brief description in the summary be enough disambiguation so that the article could go on to describe traditional Catholics who really are traditional (at least, just to avoid argument, in terms of the definition of "traditional" put out by #1 type Catholics)? Bugzes 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are Catholics traditional enough to believe that Popes such as Paul VI, Pius XII and John XXIII had the same right to revise the Roman-Rite liturgy that Gregory I and Pius V had, who accept as authoritative all the Ecumenical Councils, including the Second Vatican Council, who believe neither in the possibility of women priests nor that, in spite of Saint Ambrose's "ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia", Peter may be in Rome, but the Church is with certain people in a state of separation from Rome. These people, some of whom "like some traditional practices", while others have no special interest in the practices Bugzes has in mind, are more truly traditional Catholics than many (most?) traditionalist Catholics. They may not be "Traditional Catholics", but they are traditional Catholics. Lima 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are being unresponsive to the questions. Let's assume, arguendo, that you are absolutely 100% correct: this article still isn't about them and wasn't created to be about them. It isn't about them because there is nothing to say about them and because people looking for information about "traditional Catholics" aren't looking for information about the people you describe. The happy "trads" you describe, some of whom "like some traditional practices," have an entry, and their claims to the label "traditional Catholic" (which they don't really use to refer to themselves -- unless they are pitting themselves against those who actually do use the label -- and which others don't use to refer to them) can be covered in a blurb somewhere, as can their objections to the use of the label by those "nasty rad-trad integrists." Bugzes 07:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think Lima is being "unresponsive to the questions", I just think you have failed to persuade. That is quite different. It is, of course, perfectly normal for those with strong views to divide the world into those who agree and those who are wrong and must therefore either not understand, or require persuasion. Sometimes this is a correct view, much more often it is not, especially where WP:NPOV is concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How is he not being unresponsive to the questions when he didn't answer any of them? Of course one would fail to persuade someone who won't answer questions that prove the case being made. The questions were:

Thought experiment: say there were a disambiguation page in place with two links--

* 1) traditional Catholics A: Catholics who have issues with interpretations of Vatican II documents and who have beliefs no longer widely held by mainstream Catholics (also, less often, called "traditionalists"), and

* 2) "traditional" Catholics B: Catholics who like some traditional practices

* What would the entry about #2 be ABOUT? What would it look like? What would it say? What could possibly be said about them?

* And aren't #2 type Catholics adequately described in a single sentence, such as the one used in the definition for #2 above? Are such Catholics somehow "overlooked" or having their rights deprived because there is not an entry about them given that there is nothing to say about them?

* Wouldn't such a brief description in the summary be enough disambiguation so that the article could go on to describe traditional Catholics who really are traditional (at least, just to avoid argument, in terms of the definition of "traditional" put out by #1 type Catholics)?

I'll add a couple more--

* When people search the internet for information about "traditional Catholics," are they looking for information about #1 type Catholics above or about Catholics who have no problems with typical interpretations of Vatican II documents, even if some of them "like some traditional practices"? (And nota bene: this question says not a thing about "rejecting" or "accepting" Vatican II, recognizing or not recognizing "the authority of Vatican II" or of the Popes who opened and closed the Council).

* What DO traditionalists of the Catholic world most often call themselves and what are they most often called by others? Diligens answered this one already, but I bring it back to your minds. Bugzes 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment, I'll just add begging the question to the list of fallacious arguments thus far advanced for small-t traditional. It's in good company, we already have appeal to tradition, appeal to authority and burden of proof. No doubt any minute now someone in the trad camp will actually come up with something other than arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Guy, this is the same argument of someone who used to be here. It resulted in a lot of trolling. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we stick, for the moment, to the question at issue: Is it correct to refer to the subject of this article (traditionalist Catholics, or Traditional Catholics) simply as traditional Catholics? I honestly think Bugzes is, wittingly or unwittingly, dragging a red herring across our path. (She reminds me of someone I once knew.) Lima 09:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The question can't be answered until it is determined what people are looking for when they search for the term "traditional Catholics." The question "What IS, in fact, a 'traditional Catholic?" can't be answered in the objective order given Wiki premises and other factors here, so it has to be answered by answering questions such as the above. Bugzes 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to this old story again "Bugzes"? Traditionalist was a good term for just those of the type we have discussed. Traditional is a better term for a larger movement. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to what again? What "larger movement"? How is "traditionalist" a "good term for just those of 'the type' we have discussed" when they most often refer to themselves and are most often referred to by others as simply "traditional Catholics"? Bugzes 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes strongly reminds me of someone. I have no desire to repeat this, like we did before. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The question Diligens stirred up, but that Bugzes is now trying to distract from is: Is it legitimate to make statements about traditional Catholics (lower-case t) that, while applicable to traditionalist Catholics, are false with regard to Catholics who, being totally faithful to the Church's tradition as taught by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, without rejecting any part of it, can rightly be described as traditional Catholics? Diligens who tried to change the article in line with a positive answer, has gone silent, at least for the present. Bugzes refuses to discuss this question, although it is expressed in objective terms, independent of the expectations of any group of people: Diligens did, after all, admit that the description "traditional Catholic" does apply to others than traditionalist Catholics; only as a "proper term" did he equate "Traditional Catholic" with "traditionalist Catholic" (though he forgot to write his "proper term" with an upper-case T). At this moment, therefore, nobody is actually defending the legitimacy of such statements. So please do not follow any of her red herrings. Let her either discuss the question or go away. Lima 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to make statements about traditional Catholics (lower-case T) that, while applicable to traditionalist Catholics, are false with regard to others -- others who don't usually refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" and are not referred to by others as "traditional Catholics" -- when the article is about the first type of Catholic, when the article was created to be about them, when people looking for information about "traditional Catholics" are looking for information about them and not the second type of Catholic, when there is nothing to say about the second type of Catholic anyway, and when any balking about the term by the second group of Catholics can be duly noted in a blurb?

You still haven't answered the questions above.Bugzes 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mu. Your turn to answer the questions I posed. Bugzes 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope but thanks for playing U2BA. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How does one play U2BA and what's the incentive? Nevermind; I don't want to know.

But back to the question Diligens stirred up and that Dominick is now trying to distract from: should this entry's name be changed? The only way I can see how to answer this question is to ask more questions. Those questions, which have thus far been ignored, are:

* What do traditionalists of the Catholic world most often call themselves and what are they most often called by others?

* When people search the internet for information about "traditional Catholics," are they looking for information about people who fit Lima's description above or for information about Catholics Dominick would describe as "militant traditionalists"?

* If this entry were about Lima Catholics, what would it say?

* If Lima Catholics were to feel slighted by what they'd consider the usurpation of the phrase "traditional Catholic," how is it best dealt with? Does their anger change the answers to the first two questions above? Bugzes 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• An amusing exercise in irony, suggesting that offence caused to the majority is not a reason to implement a change occasioned by precisely the same offence allegedly caused to a minority. No, the only way to answer the question is not to ask more questions, it's to review what has already been said. Big T traditional? Unlikely to be ambiguous. Traditionalist? Even less likely. Small t traditional? Ambiguous, misleading, offensive to some, contentious and potentially divisive. Arguments in favour of smal t traditional thus far all appear to be fallacious, either as reversals of the burden of proof or as appeal fallacies of one type or another - special pleading, in other words. Lima is persuasive in a way that you, Bugzes, are not. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone but Bugzes think she is on topic? We can consider at another time any questions she wishes to raise, but the question now under discussion is: Is it legitimate to make statements about traditional Catholics that, while applicable to traditionalist Catholics, are false with regard to Catholics who can also, as Diligens agrees, rightly be described as traditional Catholics?

What the article is about is irrelevant. In an article on Fascist governments, would it be legitimate to declare: "Governments naturally suppress democracy" (rather than "Fascist governments naturally ...")? In an article on polar bears (or on black bears, or on grizzly bears, or on any other kind of bears) would it be legitimate to declare: "Bears are large white-furred animals"? You do not need to ask other questions in order to answer.

Lima 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My Summary

Overall it appears that virtually all people who at least call themselves "Catholic" have a desire to think of themselves as "traditional" as a characteristic. And among those who at least wish to have the Latin Mass and traditional ceremonies, consider themselves both "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist Catholics". Different people will mix and match to varying degrees while others will predominantly use one term and sometimes the other, while still others may just use one of them and dislike the other. But society shows the use of both. I once in a great while will use "traditionalist", and that is why my very first message here allowed for it. You may notice in writings on the Internet that one can use "traditionalist" by itself and it will be understood to refer to a "traditional Catholic", but not so with the word "traditional" by itself. This signifies that "traditionalist Catholic" is somewhat on the redundant side, and is less preferential, for one reason.

As for capital T and small t, both seem also to be used by people in society, right or wrong, with a mix. No reference books contain a capital. There is no definitive significance between the two. But in my research of proper nouns, capitalization and terminology, I find that people overall are attempting to show, at a minimum, that they wish it to be terminology. I have found that terminology, comprised of more than one word, does NOT have to be capitalized in order to properly apply. For instance plaster of Paris is terminology for a unique and proper thing, yet it is not fully capitalized. The term "bar stool" is a dictionary entry and is not capitalized though it pertains uniquely and properly to a TYPE of stool, not merely any stool you place at a bar. In other words, not all terminology is capitalized in order to represent a proper thing. The dictionary is filled with such terminology comprised of more than one word. Opening a dictionary at random I find the term "grease paint" in which those two words paired inseparably together signify the entity of "theatrical make-up". Understood separately they mean something entirely different, and seen together without knowing the meaning one could not figure it out. It is the same with "traditional Catholic". There is also a controversy among Catholics in regard to the baptism of desire, and this is another example of terminology that is not capitalized. The phrase is an entity that properly and uniquely describes a doctrine, but whose words that comprise it do not teach what that doctrine is, and more than someone hearing the phrase bar stool would not learn what one looks like by knowing the meaning of the separate words it is comprised of.

We are here faced with terminology, not necessarily a proper noun; but terminology that is comprised of more than one word and PROPERLY applies to a unique entity with distinct characteristics. Let's face it, using "traditional Catholic" before Vatican II would simply have been a redundant adjectival statement with no specific characteristic apart from saying "Catholic". After Vatican II, the terminology takes on a whole new significance. Hearing it immediately brings to mind predominantly a person not wanting ALL the changes that Vatican II produced, whether by conviction or preference.

Dominick and Lima are the type of "traditionalist", "traditionalist Catholic" or "traditional Catholic" that seem to only want the Latin Mass, not from any objection, but as a personal preference, and accept everything else of Vatican II. I believe that they are considered "Indulters" or affiliates of the FSSP and/or Una Voce. While it is clear they want to disassociate themselves from the "traditionalist" terminology, it appears to be their personal preference, and not what represents their group. Looking on the Una Voce web Site I find they very often refer to themselves as "traditionalist Catholics".

In order to fix up this article, we ought to put ourselves in the shoes of a person who knows nothing and has merely heard or seen the terminology "traditionalist Catholic", traditionalist or "traditional Catholic" and have come to Wikipedia to find out about the subject accurately as it stands within society.

The article needs an overhaul. For example, though it has been maintained by Lima And Dominick for at least the past few months, yet they have been maintaining a contradiction. In an early part of the article it now states:

"Traditionalist Catholics believe that they preserve orthodoxy by refusing to accept certain changes introduced since the Second Vatican Council, changes that some of them describe as "a veritable revolution". "

While later in the article it mentions:

"traditionalist Catholics who do not dispute the authority of the Holy See."

Since it is admitted by all parties here that all Catholics basically consider themselves "traditional" as a characteristic, and the fact that IST tends to convey a sectarian connotation, I move for the more NPOV terminology "traditional Catholic" as the prime title, while all other variations point to this. From there, the very beginning of the article can explain fully to the ignorant, inquisitive visitor about the variations in society. It can also be explained that the body of the article will use that NPOV terminology for the sake of consistency. There should be some rhyme or reason to using it with an -ist or not. And that reason can be stated. I move to use the -ist when referring to an organized group of traditional Catholics, such as the FSSP, SSPX and the CMRI, Una Voce and SSPV, for example. There are too many articles on traditional Catholics things on Wikipedia, and it really needs to be solved here as a reference point, for the sake of consistency. -- Diligens 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article also includes traditional Catholics who also do not attend Tridentine Mass then this aricle should be named traditional Catholic. The former was a compromise. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article only includes those who have a peculiar claim to, and call themselves by, the title of "traditional Catholic" or a variant term. The article never did include anyone less than those who at least make it a preferential cause to promote the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. Seeing how it is usual on Wikipedia for terms that are normally not capitalized, to be capitalized, such as squirrel, I think the title should be "Traditional Catholic" and the article should simply pair "traditional Catholic" throughout, unless it references a group as I mentioned above. This way the mixing and matching as a rhyme and reasons to it, and basically represented the mixing and matching observed in society. The article, however, should concisely explain it all in detail for the ignorant visitor. - Diligens 16:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am currently composing (off-line) a proposed beginning to the article, and just had another idea. How about whenever the term traditional Catholic is used within the article it will be italicized so as to subtly show that it is indeed a term or jargon comprised of those two words? - Diligens 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens - All traditionalist Catholics are traditional Catholics, but not all traditional Catholics are traditionalist Catholics. This article is about the former, not the latter. I think pretty much everyone in the world has a common understanding of what "traditionalist Catholic" means. (Generally, those who accept the changes since Vatican II relative to the Mass, but who oppose the various modern drives for married priests, or birth control, etc, call themselves, and are widely cited in the media as being "traditional Catholics", yet they are NOT called traditionalist Catholics, which is what THIS article is about.) Your citations of google statistics as to the frequency of "hits" on each of the two terms, does nothing whatsoever to support your position that this article should be renamed, since where A (traditionalist) is a subset of B (traditional), there is no logical conclusion that B should be made equal to A, which is what you are trying to make it in seeking a rename of this article. "Traditionalist Catholic" is the term widely used by those both within and without the movement to distinguish themselves from those who claim to be "traditional Catholics" yet who accept most of the post Vatican II changes. We are just summarizing COMMON usage in this encylopedia, not seeking to "change the symantics the world uses". I have re-added the picture of the priest which you deleted, as traditionalist Catholics are not known for rejecting priests for use of such garb.

I find that there was a lot of repetition in the above arguments on this topic, making it difficult to read. I find that adding paragarph numbers helps to keep page length down and to make references and reading easier. See [[5]] for an example of this technique. Perhaps it could be incorporated here. pat8722 18:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is the opposite of what you are saying. The lowest common denominator of these types of Catholics is the Indult type, that of Lima and Dominick. The ones who approve completely of Vatican II, and just squeak by in being considered traditional Catholic by reason of their promotion of the Latin Mass. And if you missed it, this type calls themselves "traditionalist Catholic". You need to read our discussion more carefully. - Diligens 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where have you been for the past 35 years? Let's make this a source war. Although I no longer have my 35 years worth of library documents (countless periodicals and books from countless organizations, spanning more than 35 years), I'm sure I can counter, based on the internet alone, any sources you wish to provide.pat8722 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When someone uses the "proper term" (Ds's terminology) "traditional Catholic", he means what the term describes. When he speaks of a "bar stool", he means what the term "bar stool" describes. "Bar stool" does not mean aluminium bar stools, nor does "traditional Catholic" mean traditionalist Catholics. I oppose Ds's proposal. Lima 09:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima, you need to study the official Thomistic philosophy of the Church. You have blundered both in Ontology and in Logic. The Church teaches that an entity remains that entity despite the color or material it is made from. It is what is called an "accidental" rather than a "substantial" characteristic. Being aluminum, wood, gold, diamond or plastic, the "bar stool" is still a bar stool. Nor does painting an iron bar stool with pink nail polish change it. You also blunder in Logic in what is called Begging the question. That is, you used "tradtionalist" as a premise even though that premise is part of what this dispute is about in the first place. Also known as circular reasoning. It has already been well-established here that traditional Catholics (from Indult all the way to Stay-at-homers) use "traditional Catholic" and "traditionalist" interchangeably to refer to themselves. The two people you got to come over from RFC both agree, after reading the discussion, that "traditional Catholic" is predominant. Geni was the one who dabbled with capital T and small t, but that is refuted. We are speaking of real life, not just literary, but spoken also: 1. The spoken word never makes such a distinction, all that the brain hears is "traditional catholic". 2. The usage on the Net shows that there is no consistent pattern of capital and small T, which signifies by default that it is regarded as Catholic terminology or jargon in a pair, regardless of case. (Diligens 12:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

The term "traditional Catholic" as used by the Vatican means any Catholic regardless of Mass attachment. The barstool analogy applies, as we can't write an article on bar stools and say they are only made of aluminum. Your comments miss the point. We used traditionalist, and I see enough objection to changing the title to make consensus impossible. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think "the Vatican" says because this isn't a catechism; it's an encyclopedia (of sorts), and the entries should be named according to real life use, not with appeals to papal authority unless relevant (e.g., when referring to solemn definition, etc.). There are two groups who claim the label. Only one of these groups actually refers to itself as such and is actually referred to as such by others in any consistent way. Disambiguation could take place in the entry itself or on a separate disambiguation page -- though it is unclear what the second article about "traditional Catholics" of the unused, "we like the traditional Mass sometimes" definition would be about.

How easy it would be to rename the article to honor the most common usage, and then simply say "some Catholics who don't fit the definitions used in this entry also like to refer to themselves as 'traditional Catholics.' These Catholics often prefer the traditional Mass, but have no qualms about typical interpretations of Vatican II documents" -- and then go on with the article about the Catholics people are seeking information about when they search for the phrase "traditional Catholics."

Dominick, you were all behind the move to do an RFC (even trying to make it look like I didn't want to when I simply thought it wasn't time yet), and I didn't argue the move to do so further. Then when two neutral people come here and side with "traditional Catholic", you now dismiss them as useless? Do you see your bias is showing? You ignore the historical fact that "traditional Catholic" did not exist until Vatican II, and was started by those who opposed the changes. Now you want to apply it to the opposite because you claim you saw the Vatican once refer to their own as "traditional Catholic"? The very creation and predominance of usage are by the same people to this day, but you want to ignore that. Also you fail in logic: If I were to predominantly use "traditional Catholic" it would NOT be logical to deduce that I refuse to use "traditionalist". But that is precisely what you are doing with what you say you saw the Vatican use. It is the violation of the principle that "omission is not necessarily denial", but you want to put the words in the Vatican's mouth, illogically, that they deny the use of "traditional Catholic" for the very creators of the term. The argument here is not that anything can be found to exist somewhere. There is nothing new under the sun. However, the argument here is on predominance of usage and you know very well that these terms are interchangeable. I have seen an article by Peter Vere use them interchangeably, and he is very dedicated to Rome today. I even know of a quote from St. Pope Pius X in 1910 that refers to "traditionalists" simply as being anti-modernists. You know very well that historically the common usage of "traditional Catholic" has been created by objectors to V2 and used frequently for the past 35 years. The predominance is obvious. What you are trying to promote yourself is what came late on the historical scene, and pales in comparison - those who in 1988 made the Indult compromise with Rome and BEGAN to consider themselves "traditional Catholic" after doing so. Predominance is obviously not only behind current number and usage, but with the historical years before 1988 to add to it all. Can you show some prominent example of a group that considers themselve "traditional Catholic" that doesn't care to promote the Latin Mass? (Diligens 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I am prtty much done talking circles. At least when the people came with the RFC, I didnt get into a trolling war with them. I dont think you have support to carry your proposal to rename the article. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ds, assuming that the name traditionalist Catholics prefer for themselves must be everyone's name for them, even if for others it means something different - begging the question? - has moved that the title of the article be changed from "Traditionalist Catholic" to "Traditional Catholic". So far, there have been two Object votes, and no Support vote apart from Ds's. And, as bar stools remain bar stools, whatever colour they are painted, traditional Catholics remain traditional Catholics, even if Ds chooses to paint some of them "conservative" or whatever. Lima 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Diligens thinks we have now achieved consensus to use small-t traditional. Strange, I thought the discussion was (a) not yet finished and (b) largely against that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the picture of the priest belong in this article?

Diligens has twice removed the long-standing picture of the priest saying Mass in a gothic chasuble, on grounds he alleges it is "not approved 'standard' by Rome pre-Vatican II". Well, the garb of the priest has never been a defining issue of traditionalist Catholics (most of whom would approve of a priest garbed only in a gunny sack with a cross on it, if that was what was available), and some of whom are known to specificallly approve of the gothic garb (as documented in conversation preceding). The picture is fine, but at least should not be removed without a suitable replacement.

I would additionally ask that Diligens stop interjecting his personal opinions, and CITE PUBLISHED SOURCES, before making any more changes to this article, particularly as to those aspects in which the article has been stable for a long time. I detect a desire on the part of Diligens to incorporate what would constitute "original research" into this article, and to use this article for activism purposes, rather than for merely documenting "what is". pat8722 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I will find a source for you; I am in process of getting it. If you think the garb of the priest has tolerated burlap for the Holy Sacrifice, then your opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt. I know a great deal of Independents, SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI, and what you say is hardly correct about the gothic style. As for the material, here is a quote from Matters Liturgical (1931) concerning the material of a chusable: "The Chasuble, the Maniple, and the Stole shall be of silk or half-silk, of gold or silver cloth; but not spun glass. (See S.R.C. 3543.) Vestments of inferior materials are forbidden by the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2769, V. 3 and 3779, 1." Who are these traditional priests you are talking about that would wear gunny sack? - Diligens 22:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We're not looking for Catholic Church official regulations, we're looking for what real-life traditionalist Catholics hold to. What they hold to is the Tridentine Mass. The same priests who promised that some day we would be willing to crawl a mile through the mud just to attend Mass, also knew we would not have walked out just to find the priest had nothing more than a gunny sack with a cross with which to clothe himself. Neither scenario was likely to be a real event, but it makes the point that clothing issues do not define traditionalist Catholics. (I will largely be unavailable until next Sunday, but I will look forward, then, to the sources you promise.) pat8722 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gothic chasubles were worn at pre-Vatican II Masses in many parts of the world. They were not prohibited, just as the Roman chasauble was not prohibited after the Second Vatican Council. It is just that most people, wrongly, think that only one was allowed before Vatican II and only one afterwards. That is nonsense. The late Pope John Paul II when ordained wore a Gothic chasauble at his first Mass. And the current pope wore Roman chasaubles until just before his election. He has yet to wear one as pope, but can if he wants. This chasauble nonsense is getting annoying. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just gave the quote from an approved, traditional litugical source used by traditionalists. As soon as you insist on "real-life" you are just giving your own opinion and implying there is no written source except for personal observation. That doesn't hold here.

Furthermore, the 1957 version of the same book, in regard to the chasuble, says:

"The older or mediaeval style of the Roman chasuble, popularly but erroneously called the Gothic chasuble, may be used with the permission of the local Ordinary. To his prudent judgment the matter is now committed. In making this judgment he is cautioned to consider local and other special circumstances, to have regard to the sanctity and decorum due to divine worship, and not to authorize this change from the present Roman practice except after consultation and mature deliberation. Especially should he be careful to forbid such changes in the form of vestments as are likely to disturb or surprise the faithful."

Putting a gothic chasuble as representing traditional Catholic ways would be like representing traditiona marriage by representing a Catholic marrying a Buddhist, which was also by special permission. As I said from the beginning, we need a picture of the norm, not what is permitted by dispensation. - Diligens 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous. The image is a standard one used in standard books on the Tridentine Mass in the 1920s to 1960s in the United States. It is your sort of petantic nonsense that gives Traditionalists a bad name. Grow up. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard one? Says who? Book? Books? What are the ISBN numbers? Copyright? Childrens books? Are you going to compare Wikipedia to children's books designed for Catholic children? Wikipedia is for adults the world over, and this is an article to represent the Traditional Catholic. I have already given authoritative quotes from Rome showing what chasuble is normative. Modernism has been changing little things like that throughout the 20th century. Is it your principle to show the norm by portraying what is only allowed by special indult? That is not Catholic principle, nor traditional. (Diligens 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Works for me. I added the photograph to end the debate as I found it in wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

lol. A picture I downloaded. The local priest gave me permission to use it freely. I've put back in the gothic image lower down with the caption explaining that it was a standard illustration from books on the Tridentine Mass. BTW the image has been used by Traditionalist Catholics themselves to illustrate their websites as an image of a Tridentine Mass.[6] [7] [8][9] ] FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens wants to be unhelpful, and refuses the compromise. Adding the second picture is an excellent idea. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show the copyright or permission for it. Then we can discuss the caption. (Diligens 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

[personal attack removed] The picture is a commons picture. Issue closed. [personal attack removed] and start working with people. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am working with people. You have now informed me the image is PD. I accept. I don't agree with the caption. I am going to add in the caption that the chasuble was not the norm for Mass but allowed rarely by special permission of the bishop. If you want to keep the statement about the books. You will have to prove the drawing was in a plurality of books and as prevalently used as you are trying to sat it is. I would appreciate you working with me. (Diligens 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

You work with people? The evidence of this page suggests otherwise. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that one should concede to lack of evidence and illogic. Wikipedia does not expect that to be worked with. Let's see how well you work with me on my request for proof about the alleged plurality of books, etc.

Work with me; I request proof of your assertions. (Diligens 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC))