Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 8

Attitude to Mass of Paul VI

It's irrelevant to the paragraph that "the author of the publication Official Traditional Catholic Directory: Listing All Traditional Latin Masses and Traditional Resources for North America" is a sedevacantist and "also decries the changes made by Pope John XXIII in 1962." That directory is irrelevant to the paragraph, its author is irrelevant to the paragraph, that the author is a sedevacantist is irrelevant to the paragraph, and that he decries changes made by Pope John XXIII in 1962 is irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't a place for sedevacantist POV pushing. 66.235.22.204 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A source that does hold that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid is not irrelevant to that statement. But the compiler's views on other matters are indeed irrelevant. Lima (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequent confession, Stations of the Cross and Rosary

I have deleted in section Traditionalist_catholics#Individual_and_private_devotions the practice of frequent confession and the Stations of the Cross and Rosary devotions as they are not specifically Tratidionalist, because many other mainstream Catholics do that. Tradewater (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I see your point, this section was forged by consensus some time ago, with this issue being dealt with. While these practices are certainly not confined to traditionalists, one is more likely to find an emphasis on frequent confession and on the Rosary among traditionalists than in mainstream RC circles. If you want to modify the text to note the commonalities between the mainstream and traditionalists here, I for one would be okay with that, but IMHO, any discussion of RC traditionalism would be incomplete without mentioning these things. --Midnite Critic (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Midnite Critic, I didn't see this: Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archives/2007#Traditionalist Practices - The Rosary and Frequent Confession (new). I will continue the discussion there... Tradewater (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Traditionalist" and "conservative"

I added the following further text to the intro to this article:

"Traditionalist Catholics should not be confused with conservative mainstream Catholics (who arguably include Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II). These latter "conservative Catholics" resemble traditionalists in their opposition to liberalism and in their professed desire to be faithful to orthodox Catholic teaching and practice. However, conservatives tend to accept in general terms the legitimacy of the changes associated with Vatican II, though they believe that liberals have exploited the reform process and pushed it too far."

My rationale was twofold: 1. My understanding is that it is appropriate that Wikipedia articles should be readily understood by the general reader without specific, detailed knowledge of the subject in question. The term "traditionalist" in common parlance denotes, to me, a general conservatism, even a rather vague conservatism. Traditionalist Catholicism is, however, a more specific movement than this. 2. Related to the preceding point, a non-specialist or non-Catholic might think "Hmm, well, the papers say that the Pope is quite a traditionalist, and my Catholic friend Mairead says the rosary a lot, so she's probably the same - these are the sort of people that this article must be referring to". Of course, they're not - such people are known among the cognpscenti as "conservative Catholics" (along with other, less polite terms), and the distinction ought to be underlined.

I would therefore say that, even if my wording is infelicitous (and I'm absolutely sure that I've managed to offend someone), some sort of addition along these lines is needed. 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.231.113 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition about "conservative Catholics"

The anonymous editor at IP 79.97.231.113 insists on inserting a paragraph on "conservative mainstream Catholics" or "conservative Catholics" (using both these terms) into this article on traditionalist Catholics. Adding discussion about another supposed class, less easily defined, is confusing and unhelpful.

Most Catholics, I suppose, are "conservative" on some points and "progressive" on others. Only for traditionalist Catholics is the Second Vatican Council a central point of reference for their religious identity. The anonymous editor makes the attitude adopted to the Second Vatican Council an essential point of what makes a "conservative Catholic". But Catholics in general, whether "conservative" or "progressive", worry no more about the Second Vatican Council than they do about the First Vatican Council or the Council of Trent.

This second paragraph is just by the way. The essential question is whether the anonymous editor's addition is an improvement or a disimprovement. I think it is out of place. But I do not intend to join the anonymous editor in an edit war. Lima (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I refer our friend to my comments in the previous section above, which he perhaps did not have the advantage of reading before he offered his own views. I would reiterate the point that "traditionalist Catholic" is a potentially misleading term to the uninitiated, and so some wording is required to make clear that it denotes something more specific than a general traditionalism or conservatism. I'm sure everyone can agree that Catholic articles on here should be written so as to be readily helpful to the general, non-Catholic reader. The anonymous editor at IP 79.97.231.113 who insists on inserting a paragraph on "conservative Catholics" into this article on traditionalist Catholics 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.231.113 (talk)

Inserting this irrelevancy is even more misleading and confusing to the uninitiated. Lima (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the pleasure of agreeing with you, but I'll be happy (indeed, given that this is Wikipedia, I'll be required) to accept the verdict of the consensus of other users. I will say, however, that this isn't the first time that I've spotted (or edited) part of a Catholic article because it didn't seem non-Catholic-friendly. Catholic terms, concepts and jargon cannot necessarily be used cold, without further elaboration (particularly in the introductory sections to articles). Shoneen (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this paragraph is absolutely necessary, but given that a great deal of traditionalist polemic has been directed at the "neoCaths" who embrace a "hermeneutic of continuity" with regard to RC theology pre and post Vatican II, I also don't see it as being inappropriate. (Neo)conservative RC's and traditionalists are two distinct groups which often do not agree. --Midnite Critic (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Neo-Catholicism"

I agree that a reader who is not familiar with the terms or not a Catholic can be confused, and following Midnite Critic's comment I have added a reference to the wikipage on Neo-Catholicism. Krnlhkr (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Neo-Catholicism" is an inappropriate term for an encyclopedia article. In strong contrast to "traditionalist Catholic" and "neo-conservative", has it ever appeared in a newspaper article for general readership? "Neo-Catholicism" seems to be used only by a very few traditionalist Catholics; a journalist using the word would surely have to explain who uses it (an extremely narrow base) and what sense they attach to it. Lima (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that for a term to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article in needs to appear in a newspaper article for general readership. You're placing a random requirement on what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article that is based solely on your personal opinion and not on the furtherance of the encyclopedia. As you point out, this is an encyclopedia - it's not a newspaper article. Thus, your argument also is counter-intuitive in that people not knowing the meaning of the term would certainly go to an encyclopedia to find out the meaning. It is a term used to describe a subsection of Catholics, and the term is well-defined. It was first coined in a book entitled "The Great Facade" and there is another book being published entitled "The Neo-catholics: Implementing Christian Nationalism in America" - both can be found on Amazon. As a comparison for usage, just now the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" has 18700 hits on Google while "Neo-Catholic" has 12000+ hits and Neo-Cath garners another 1200 hits. A news search on Google comes up with 4 hits for "traditionalist Catholic" and a single hit for "Neo-Catholic". If Google is any indicator of usage, and I would argue that it is, it seems the terms "traditionalist Catholic" and "Neo-Catholic" have an equivalent level of usage. Futher, there is already a Wikipedia entry for Neo-Catholicism (which was the whole point of it), so anyone confused about the meaning of the sense of the term could easily click there and find out. Given that out of several voices you are the only one objecting to either the usage of "Conservative Catholics" or Neo-Catholics, and given that I have evidence for its level of usage, I'm reverting the edit back.Krnlhkr (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will happily accept whatever is the general views on this among editors. As stated above, I do not think that so obscure a term deserved to be included, for its own sake, in this article. Lima (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of traditionalist Catholics

While I think this section as a whole is informative, especially the comparison of numbers between mainstream and traditionalist Catholics, I think the following is irrelevant and confusing: "For purposes of comparison with mainstream Catholic organisations, the Knights of Columbus in the United States are stated to have 1.7 million members, the Neocatechumenal Way is reported to have around 1 million members,[42] and Opus Dei is claimed to have 87,000 members."

Comparing the number of traditional Catholics to the number of members of the Knights of Columbus makes no sense. The KofC is a service organization and not a theological movement or charism. The Neocatechumenal Way and Opus Dei are movements and charisms, but they are joined explicitly - they have membership. Traditional Catholicism doesn't have "membership" proper, so this comparison is irrelevant and may confuse some into thinking traditional Catholicism is something that is "joined". I submit that these comparisons should be removed, or, in place compare the number of members of, say, Una Voce, The Latin Mass Society, etc. which makes a lot more sense. Krnlhkr (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that those who fit within the broad classification of "traditionalist Catholic" are not limited to those who are members of some formal organization or group of such organizations makes even more striking the contrast between the number of traditionalist Catholics and the membership of the formal organizations mentioned, which are clearly only a small minority of the total membership of the Church. Lima (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the comparison is still flawed, and an enyclopedia should give a proper comparison that has substance and meaning. I suggest a valid comparison to Byzantine Catholics or some other subset of Catholics that aren't "mainstream" instead of a fabricated and stilted comparison. AmericanCatholic.org states that: "there are 16 million members of Eastern Catholic Churches, of whom approximately 7,650,000 worship according to the Byzantine tradition, and 8,300,000 according to various other ancient Eastern Christian traditions, such as the Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions." Comparing the number of "traditionalist Catholics" who use the "Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite" to those Catholics who use Eastern Rites is a valid comparison and still shows they are "a small minority of the total membership of the Church." I'm not arguing against a comparison for illustration, what I am arguing against is an invalid comparison that will only confuse people. I am going to add the comparison to Eastern Rite members, and I still argue that these bogus comparisons should be removed.Krnlhkr (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Byzantine Catholics can be counted exactly, like the Knights of Columbus and unlike traditionalist Catholics. More important, they, in general, unlike the Knights of Columbus and traditionalist Catholics, have not made a personal choice to become Byzantine Catholics: instead they are such, in general, because of having been baptized, as children, in the Byzantine autonomous Catholic Church. Lima (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, you are making my point when you compare the choice to be a "traditionalist Catholic" to the choice to join the KofC. Being a "traditionalist Catholic" doesn't involve membership of any kind, and that is exactly how this comparison is flawed. It is at the least a choice of Form within the Roman Rite, and at most a particular mindset within Catholicism. Second, the reason "traditionalist Catholics" cannot be counted exactly is because they, like "mainstream Catholics" all fall under the Roman Rite. When the Church counts the number of members, it delineates between Roman (Latin) Rite and other Rites. But since "traditionalist Catholics" are members of the Roman Rite, their numbers are counted under the Roman Rite numbers. This whole section on comparisons is flawed. I think it should be rewritten somehow to offer comparisons such as these:

According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Catholic Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2005 was 1,114,966,000, most of who worship according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite[34], approximately 7,650,000 worship in the Byzantine Rite, and 8,300,000 according to other Rites such as the Armenian, Coptic and Syriac traditions[43] Estimates of the total number of traditionalists within this population, who tend to worship according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, have ranged from 1 million to 7 million.[35] [36] It has also been claimed that there are upwards of 2 million traditionalists in dispute with Rome, and a similar number in good standing with Rome.[37] Estimates of the number of supporters of the SSPX range from 600,000 to 1 million. [38] [39] [40][35][41]

There are roughly 500,000 Catholic priests in the world. The two most prominent priestly organisations dedicated to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite are the SSPX and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP); the SSPX has around 500 priests, and the FSSP has roughly 200. For purposes of comparison with priestly organizations dedicated to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Jesuits have 14,623 priests and the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross which is associated with Opus Dei has 2,000 members.

Those are more appropriate comparisons - those associated with the different Rites and Forms within the rites, then a sampling number of priests within the Roman Rite that are members of societies dedicated primarily to the different forms. Really, I don't understand why you are arguing against having a valid comparison so people can have a clear picture of the percentages rather than a confused view of a "membership" that doesn't exist.Krnlhkr (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with the Traditionalist Catholics, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

The link was deleted because it is a list of Masses, which is irrelevant to the text linked to. 24.143.71.160 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it pertinent to have a directory of a list of Masses, most of which are offered by dioceses or the SSPX, to support the contention that some traditionalist Catholics are sedevacantists? 24.143.71.160 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "independent" priest who gives that directory the puffed-up title of "Official Directory" uses the phrase "invalid Novus Ordo service" (he avoids calling it "Mass") twice on page 30, once on page 31, three times on page 33, and again on page 37, where he accompanies with the icon of a monster indications of Masses influenced by the 1962 Missal of John XXIII or the 1970 Missal of Paul VI. I think this is a valid reference for the statement that some see the revised Mass as categorically invalid in principle and entirely unacceptable. Is "including many sedevacantists" the problem? Should we omit that phrase? The author of the directory seems clearly sedevacantist, but it may be unjustified to conclude that many sedevacantists consider the revised Mass to be invalid. Lima (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Lima, I think this is s pretty common position among the SV's (although I don't think Fr. Morrison is necessarily representative of them). If you check out, for example, the sites for CMRI and SSPV, two major SV organizations, I'm pretty sure you will find statements indicating a belief that the NO is invalid. --Midnite Critic (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem on my part to changing to any of these sources. They are doubtless much more suitable than this one. I just think that removing the citation, rather than improving it, was not a good move. Lima (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Communion in the hand

Another liturgical topic which might deserve a separate entry is communion in the hand, which has been the object of ecclesiastical debates since the 1970s, with a silent majority that is accepting of the practice, while a vocal minority continues to oppose it. ADM (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you add to what is already in the "Individual and private devotions" section? How small is the "vocal" minority: 0.1% of Catholics or less? Lima (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pope (Benedict XVI) favours communion in the hand, he has given it in public, and many of his liturgical advisors have tried to slowly re-implement the practice. Don't you know about them ? ADM (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Benedict XVI favours communion in the hand. On the contrary, he has shown that he prefers to give communion in the mouth and to people who are kneeling. He has not opposed giving communion in the hand, which is a different matter: this form is used at the same celebrations at which he chooses to give communion in the mouth to those who go to him. I'm sorry, I know nothing specific about the "many" (how many?) of his liturgical advisors who have tried to "slowly re-implement" the practice. I think that most bishops conferences have long since decided to permit the practice and that the practice was immediately accepted wherever it was introduced, with very few refusing to receive communion in the hand. Lima (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

This page needs your help! This page has been flagged for concerns of bias, neutrality, and innappropriate use of category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.33.90 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Point regarding a questionable paragraph

I am not a Catholic and I may be misreading something here.

The last bullet point under "Sedevacantists' claim that mainstream criticisms do not apply to them" sounds to me as if it is not presenting a claim which is made by the Sedevacantists but rather a criticism which is raised by their opponents. I have placed a hidden comment just above this paragraph suggesting that it may not be NPOV.

Shewmaker (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

im am shocked at the language used in this article, you claim that those who attend the extraordinary form of mass are "traditionalist" because they attend ceremonies that have been praised by the holy father himself.perhaps these people are truely "Catholic" as they make use of the many many varied liturgical actions of the church and not just one form only?schism and fundamantalism is a result of focussing on only one of the many means of spiritual progress offered by the church for the salvation of her members while bad mouthing or condeming the other options. the catholic church is the religion of the "and", we have the totality of truth in many forms- the "and" is part of having everything.how can it be claimed that somebody is not a catholic just because they attednd more than one valid form of Mass?Catholics accept everything the church offers and respect the traditions of the church that have been in practice for hundreds of years and are still being practiced today by people who enjoy the tresures offered in liturgies old and new. people who make the effort to go to the novus ordo Mass (which the vatican calls it, thankyou very much)5 days a week and then go to the extraordinary form (which the vatican calls it, not the "old Mass, or latin Mass, or traditional Mass" which the article says "traditionalists" call it) on other days because they have been given the oportunity to experience everything the church offers and enjoy the toatality of Truth.the article should not label people who attend the extraordinary form as "traditionalist" because they like it or prefer it.i could call every person who doesnt go to both forms a "liberal cafateria catholic" because they only accept one form, instead of everthing the church offers because in my opinion those who do not or have not attended the extraordinary form are affraid of it or think it shouldnt be used, they think that everybody back before 1965 never knew what was happening at Mass and that they do-when actually they cannot recognise the different and distinct parts of the mass themself. the different parts are very distinct in the 1962 form because of changes in the priests voice, posistioning, veiling and unveiling of the chalice(which is still supposed to be done on the credence after the liturgy of the word in the ordinary form, but often isnt)and the use of the "Dominus vobiscum" which is greatly reduced in the ordinary form.i hope you edit the article now and get you terms right.you have made me very upset at the fact that there might be people who believe your one sided definition of "traditional catholic", you should make a definition between orthodox (doing everything correctly in both forms of mass/sacraments/life and the unorthodox, those who do things wrong in both forms of mass/sacraments/life at both end of the scale ie:the liberals (female ordaination, mass is not a sacrafice etc) and the true "traditionalist" (sedevacantist,or those that elect their own "pope" ie: these are cults, not catholic, sspx is becoming like a cult, the groups with their own "pope's" are actual cults and so are the ultra liberal groups who perform fake ordainations on women (as they are not valid matter for the transferal of the sacrament of holy orders)202.74.204.57 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed claimed those who attend the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite are "traditionalist Catholic". I am not an English native speaker, but as for my own language, that seems to be a good definition of what any Tom, Dick or Harry will most certainly understand when hearing this word. The word is, in itself, neutral; yes, there did once exist a condemned heresy called traditionalism but no, the word is not used in this sense in the article. Though indeed the article is not really accurate in one thing: that it takes the same attentions a) to the approved priest associations and those connected to them, which are a quite respectable form of Catholicism, and the SSPX, which is problematic, but at least relevant, on the one hand and b) some sedevacantist sects, with most little numbers of adherents and by no means relevant to either Catholic Church; US society, British society, French society, any society; culture or scientifical life on the other hand. --84.154.77.116 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More stategic citations are needed

The footnotes in this article are numerous, yet are lacking for many, many places in the article where specific beliefs and feelings are ascribed to a particular group. Those are the sorts of things that especially require citation. You can't say what someone is thinking without backing it up somehow. It might be that the existing footnotes would cover a lot of it. If that is the case, the refs should be given a name, if needed, and then re-referred to by name wherever necessary. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholics vs. Sedevacantists, Conclavists, and Integrists

Sedevacantists, Conclavists, and Integrists aren't Catholics because they aren't in communion with the Catholic Church. This article often confuses Traditionalists Catholics, those Catholics within the Church with a preference for historical cultural norms in the Catholic Church, with these other groups that have broken away from the Catholic Church. I've been trying to weed this confusion out of the article, but there are a lot of mix-ups in it, so any help would be highly appreciated! 128.2.118.172 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for your contention that those you call Sedevacantists, Conclavists, and Integrists are not traditionalist Catholics, although they do call themselves traditionalist Catholics. And you need to get consensus here on the Talk page before changing the article so radically. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is a reliable source for what the Catholic Church teaches. 128.2.118.172 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, for those who are interested in this topic, the status of sedevacantists is being discussed in the sedevacantism article talk page Talk:Sedevacantism#Apostasy_vs._.22Traditional_Catholicism.22

128.2.118.172 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To state in Wikipedia that those you refer to are not traditionalist Catholics or that they are not even Catholics, you need to cite a reliable source that makes that statement, not just argue that they are not Catholics or are not traditionalist Catholics.

Since you are new to Wikipedia, please take note that, if you persist in inserting your personal view in Wikipedia articles without getting any support from other editors, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We could ask a wikipedia administrator to decide on the issue. I've cited my sources showing Sedevacantists, Conclavists, and Integrists are not Catholic. That source is the Catholic Church, headed by the Holy See in Rome. Secular organizations such as the United Nations as well as all the countries with diplomatic relations with the Holy See also agree. Indeed, the only people who think that sedevacantists, conclavists, and integrists are Catholic are sedevacantists, conclavists, and integrists. In conclusion, on wikipedia we can't allow the Traditionalist Catholicism article to say that sedevacantists, conclavists, and integrists are Catholics because this is misleading to people who genuinely want to learn. Robert314 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On your last remark, "we can't allow ...", I must respond that, unfortunately perhaps, not only can we allow, we must allow the article to include the view that sedevacantists etc. are Catholics, since sources that uphold it do exist, in particular the sedevacantists etc. themselves. As for asking an administrator "to decide", I think administrators do not intervene on questions of content, and wish such questions to be decided though discussion; but if you want to try to involve one, I certainly have no objection. Why not discuss one section at a time here? We might find that we can agree on some suitable text, and some other editor might intervene and support you. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would only want an administrator to intervene to prevent a revert war or to edit a locked article, but I agree we could avoid this.

The point is clear that sedevacantists etc. consider themselves the "true Catholics", but to leave it at that is misleading. Their relationship with the communion of Catholics needs to be made clear. Like many other articles we could continually seperate sections such as "View of sedevacantists" and "View of the Catholic Church" but that implicitly acknowledges that sedevacantists aren't Catholic. How could the Catholics' view and the Catholic Church's view be seperated? You could call Catholics "papists", but no one wants that.Robert314 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Since your personal arguments in favour of your thesis do not count for Wikipedia, you could perhaps start by citing a reliable source that actually states that sedevacantists are not Catholics. By the way, I would be interested in hearing your view about which side in the Great Western Schism, in particular Saint Catherine of Siena or Saint Vincent Ferrer, ceased to be Catholics, something on which there is no pronouncement by the Church itself (see this very recent book). I imagine that you hold that the entire Sacred College of Cardinals ceased to be Catholics on 20 September 1378, when they unanimously "disavowed the April election as done under duress and therefore invalid" (p. 147 of the same book), thereby declaring that the see of Rome had remained vacant since the death of Gregory XI on 26 March 1378. Esoglou (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For why sedevacantists qua sedevacantists are not Catholics you can go here where we are already discussing this. And while I found wikipedia's article about those saints and the Great Western Schism very interesting, are you asking for my personal views of their histories? If so, the answer is that I think they are interesting and worth reading.Robert314 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you will not (cannot?) cite a reliable source that states what you claim, I am now ceasing to let you turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You and I have been having the source discussion [[1]]. I'm not turning wikipedia into a soapbox, but thanks for scrutinizing my edits! At least some one reads them... Robert314 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Traditionalist and traditional Catholics

"Traditionalist Catholics are distinct from other groups of Catholics who have a broadly 'traditional' or conservative outlook, since the latter tend to accept in general terms the legitimacy of the changes associated with the Second Vatican Council."

I think this line is inaccurate. It implies that traditionalist Catholics tend to reject the legitimacy of the changes of Vatican II. There is no source to substantiate this assertion. The groups in good standing with Rome all accept the legitimacy of the changes made at Vatican II. They may not agree with the changes made, in fact many simply disagree with the interpretation of Vatican II, but they do accept the legitimacy. I will reword this in the next couple of days unless someone raises an objection here. Sue De Nimes (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the inference, and I don't expect that editors will object in principle. But it may be difficult to get an agreed change of wording, even after removing the reference to "legitimacy". Would "... distinct from Catholics who have a broadly 'traditional' or conservative outlook but who do not oppose the changes made by and in the wake of the Second Vatican Council" be acceptable? I have for now removed the attempt to pinpoint where the distinction lies, leaving only the statement of the existence of a distinction. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph inaccurate

I don't think the opening paragraph is accurate. To take each point:

1. A traditionalist Catholic is a Roman Catholic... - This is disputable. Followers of Pope Michael or the Palmar De Troya are commonly referred to as traditionalist but can it truly be said they are still in fact Roman Catholics?

I agree with the point that traditionalist Catholic cannot be describe as Roman Catholic. Tranditionalists have no communion with curent the Bishop of Rome (Pope) hence they should not be described as Roman Catholic. ppa (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2. ...who believes that there should be a restoration... - This is too restrictive. Not all people who attend the traditional Mass BELIEVE this. Plenty of people just PREFER the old liturgy or would LIKE TO SEE a restoration.

3. ...a restoration of [a] the liturgical forms, [b] public and private devotions, [c] and presentation of Catholic teachings that prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council... - Not everyone who attends the traditional Mass is interested in all three. Plenty are only interested in the Mass and care little for the other parts of the liturgy. Plenty are interested in the Mass and other parts of the liturgy but care little for public and private devotions. Plenty are interested in the entirety of the liturgy, private and public devotions but not doctrinal issues. And so on and so on.

It seems to me the umbrella here is the Mass. But even then there are exceptions, such as followers of Fr. Feeney, many of whom are happy to attend the new Mass.

In any case, I think this first paragraph is misleading and inaccurate.

MarkAnthony1980 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 'Traditional Catholic' is a term used by the various groups in question themselves, not by mainstream Catholics. 'Tradition' has different meanings and nuances for them and mainstream Catholics. The difficulty here is we are attempting to define these groups as one using the terminology they themselves use. However they disagree amongst themselves what 'tradition' means. Gazzster (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholics are neither traditional nor catholic. They are a cult outside of the The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of Saints Peter and Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.246.2 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Notable Traditionalists

I think we should list famous non-clergical traditionalist Catholics, such as Mel Gibson, Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Jr., Alan Keyes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.151.191 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They are called schismatics. There is nothing traditional in saying "I will not obey". Gibson is working on his third marriage. He is of the tradition of Henry Tudor. Buckley worshiped Mammon. Buchanan defends the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.246.2 (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job on neutrality

The authors of this article has done an amazing job at presenting a neutral point of view. It is very difficult to write about such a value-laden subject in a way that both sides will consider fair and neutral, but it looks to me like they've succeeded. The article was also a very clear introduction for someone with virtually no knowledge of the underlying controversy. EverGreg (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Georges de Nantes

I propose removing the section on Georges de Nantes. It seems irrelevant, not really adding anything worthy to the article. Or, at the very least, it should be moved to a different place in the article so as to not interrupt the flow of the article's discussion of traditional Catholics' beliefs. Schoemann (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where better to put it. At present it comes after a section that makes many unsourced statements about generically referred-to traditionalists, impossible to verify and probably disowned by many traditionalists. After that, it is a relief to come at last to some sourced information about a concrete founder of a concrete group of traditionalists and about his beliefs. It would be better to have even more such information. Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It offers nothing to the article, doesn't do anything to increase the understanding of what traditional Catholicism is and what traditional Catholics believe. The unsourced information needs to be sourced, but adding sourced stuff just because it's sourced doesn't make any sense, especially since it, as said, offers nothing to the article and is way out of place even if it were relevant. Schoemann (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nantes ideas are a verifiable example of what (some) traditionalists believe. Just add verifiable examples of what others believe, rather than delete what is verifiable. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Conclavists and Sedevacantists

Esoglou, a conclavist is, by definition, not a sedevacantist. Not sure how you're seeing that statement of fact as "unsourced opinion." Either the chair (sede) is emtpy (vacante) or it is not. Sedevacantists think it is; conclavists think it isn't; they just don't accept the commonly accepted pope as being the one sitting on the seat of St. Peter. If you don't have an argument against that, I'm changing it back. Schoemann (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just cite a reliable source that makes that statement. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Conclavists" share the general attitude of Sedevacantists that Pope Francis, his (latest) predecessors and (all his*) successors were not sitting on the throne of St. Peter, so they are, in general use of language, sedevacantists. Logical implications can be discussed in an appropriate half-sentence, but that doesn't earn them a right to be treated separately. [*"Normal sedevacantists" - if these words are not a contradiction in terms - generally, as far as I assume, would accept a future Pope under the condition that he is a) to their liking and b) meets their standards of being validly ordained. Conclavists, by the nature of the case, have ruled out ever accepting even such a Pope, so they are even more, if that be possible, sedevacantist than the sedevacantists.]--131.159.0.47 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Heresy?

Given that they still maintain that "there is no salvation outside the church" while the Catechism says that people who aren't Catholic can be saved does that mean that traditionalism is heresy? 86.45.39.124 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to put that in the article, you must cite a reliable source that says so. Mere discussion among us does not help the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not while Pope Francis is on the throne. We pray for another Saint Pius X to rescue us from these Protestants. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church is a *dogma* of the Church still and now (see paragraph 846 of the Catechism), and always has been and always will be (such is the nature of dogma). Also traditional, though, is the teaching that the Church has a "Body" and a "Soul." Read Pope Pius XII's "Mystici Corporis", for ex. Even Archbishop Lefebvre of the SSPX wrote that people who aren't formally Catholic might be saved -- but, if they are, it is because they *are* a part of the Church, and they are saved by the grace of Christ alone, *in spite of* any false religion they might adhere to. He wrote in "Against the Heresies," pages 216-217, on Proposition #16 of the Syllabus of Errors: "Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God — God in so far as these people can conceive Him — and who want to accomplish His will. There certainly are not many such persons, because these people, not being baptized, suffer more than Christians the effects of original sin. But some of these persons make an act of love, which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved. Implicit baptism means the Church: by the very fact that baptism of desire is found implicitly in their act of charity and submission to God these persons belong to the Church. They are saved by the Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ. For there is baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire (that of catechumens), then baptism of implicit desire, which is contained in an act of true love of God. How many are saved by this form of baptism? God alone knows. It is a great mystery for us. One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions, but if he is saved, it is always by his attachment to the mystical body which is the Catholic Church, even if the persons concerned do not know it."

You can also see his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" for more about that. And that is Abp Lefebvre talking. Schoemann (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Just for disambiguation, the statement "traditionalism is heresy" happens to be, as such, correct, but that's a different traditionalism from the one we treat here, name that one (heresy at least if they say this is the only source of religious knowledge).

2. It should always be remembered that traditionalist Catholics are Catholics and as such outside the standard debate-arena of hardline-vs-mainstream Protestantism. Theirs is a strictly inner-Catholic debate. Abp. Lefebvre summed up the Catholic traditionalist, and also just the Catholic, position perfectly when he said that "there will be no Protestants in heaven; there will only be Catholics in heaven, including those who on earth have been Protestants; or Muslims, Buddhists etc". That is exactly what also the Catechism says (it is true that the SSPX have their little beefs with the World Catechism, but not here). The attitude it is chiefly opposed to is that of modernizers who say that Protestants have a valid Church and so come to heaven as Protestants, not because they're implicitly good Catholics and just don't know better (thinking, with some justice, that this is not the best basis whereon to build ecumenical dialogue). Some go farther and ascribed even to non-Christians their own way to God, deviating from the principle that there is no way but Christ (especially where the Jews are concerned). - It is, asidely, also opposed to Feeneyism, though Feeney (I admit) did tend to traditionalism in his other leanings. Yet even Feeney (who can only be understood if we realize that he was US American, and that in the USA the inner-Protestant debate has much publicitiy) saw that he was deviating from the traditional Church position, and said so.

When Abp Lefebvre says "there certainly will not be many such persons", he may well be asked from what private revelation he gets the certainty from, after conceding the principle. From his arguments about the effect of original sin in the unbaptized he can argue with some high probability that their chances are lower than that of Christians, but not that there aren't, even so, still a great many of them. --2001:A61:20E3:7501:A474:AAFF:3A6:BF8F (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Opus Dei

Should the Opus Dei be counted to traditionalist catholics "in good standing with the Holy See"? --212.186.14.29 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, unless you have references saying so. Amqui (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This page itself counts Opus Dei to them in section "Number of Traditionalist Catholics": "...Opus Dei is claimed to have 87,000 members.". I think we should mention Opus Dei in the list. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No. I guess most traditionalist Catholics think Opus Dei is a good Catholic organization. Also, both Opus Dei and traditionalists are orthodox Catholics (except maybe for the sedevacantists w.r.t. the latter). Also, some people may be Opus Dei members, or co-workers, or counseled by them, and at the same time traditionalists. But that is as far as it goes; the Opus Dei does not belong to traditionalism properly so-called, as proven by the litmus test that the Opus Dei as such does not put any emphasis at all on celebrating in the pre-liturgy-reform Rite.--2001:A61:20E3:7501:A474:AAFF:3A6:BF8F (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a week, seems a reasonable nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Traditionalist Catholic → Traditionalist Catholicism – The wording "-ism" seems just as supported by general sources check, and is per WP:Consistency in accordance with main relevant equivalent language versions. It is also consistent with Template:Traditionalist Catholicism, as well as in equivalence with Liberal Catholicism. See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_3#Category:Catholic_traditionalism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Traditionalist Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030202034019/http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm to http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525080327/http://www.celam.info/content/view/277/332/ to http://www.celam.info/content/view/277/332/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303094949/http://www.laportelatine.org/international/maison/maison.php to http://www.laportelatine.org/international/maison/maison.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209163346/http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0106.asp to http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0106.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Standing for Communion

"Early and medieval Catholic liturgy featured standing, and not sitting nor kneeling during Mass; kneeling is a recent development that came to be after the 16th century.[40]"

1) This is totally false. 2) [40] is neither a credible nor actual source for the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.91.156 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources in the latest edit

@MonG695: "Rorate Caeli" is a blog. "Windsor Latin Mass" is a newsletter. Summorum Pontificum is a WP:PRIMARY source, as is the Baronius Roman Missal. The only valid reliable source here is the Catholic News Agency article. It could be the start for adding some material. Elizium23 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

None of what was in the revision was disputable, even if a blogpost and newsletter was cited. Even without a citation, the FSSP and ICKSP's use of the 1953 text and rubrics for Holy Week in the last few years is readily observable in their many livestreams, even if little has been written on it. Also, Summorum Pontificum was cited to source the preceding statement, which simply stated what Summorum Pontificum says. It's a legitimate use of a primary source. The purpose of the revisions in the first place was to include more information about traditionalists' use of the pre-1955 Holy Week rites who also use the 1962 missal and have canonical status with the Holy See. The previous version had no citations, either, and was outdated given the PCED's recent dissolution. MonG695 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources cannot be found for the material you intend to add, then it is probably not worth including in an article. Livestreams are primary sources and not usable for verification of the facts you wish to present. It is regrettable that the previous version has no citations and it should probably be reduced as well. Elizium23 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is only infallible when it is either presenting teachings that are "Dogmas of divine and catholic faith" (that is, doctrines that are divinely and formally revealed) or "Definitive teachings on faith and morals" (that is, teachings [by the magisterium] that are not proposed as being revealed). The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can be non-infallible when it is presenting "Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium" Ex: Gaudium et Spes 24 claims "love of God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment", this is false as Jesus taught that "love of God is the first and greatest commandment", love of neighbor is the second greatest commandment. So under "Responses to traditionalists' claims", the final counterpoint seems to be false. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html MysticSoothsayer (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Indult Catholic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Indult Catholic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Indult Catholic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Indult Catholics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Indult Catholics and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Indult Catholics until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Old archive list

See Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archives for an old archive list of this page, from before the archives were rearranged. Graham87 11:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Image of Palm Sunday "Tridentine Mass"

The caption on the image of a priest celebrating Palm Sunday is inaccurate, because it says "Tridentine." The image is actually from a celebration of the post 1955 rites. In the Tridentine rite, the color assigned to Palm Sunday was purple. In 1955 it was changed to red. Perhaps this picture is no longer appropriate for this article. In recent years, traditionalist communities in good standing with Rome have been given permission to celebrate the pre-1955 (that is, the Tridentine) rites. This image, which represents a transitional version of the liturgy, might become obselete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.186.22 (talk • contribs)

You raise a more fundamental question: What does "Tridentine Mass" mean. You seem to apply it to the form of Mass mandated by Pius V in 1570. Others apply it to the variants of that form adopted by later Popes, especially by Pope John XXIII in 1962, in editions of the Roman Missal that in their titles still claimed to have been authorized by the Council of Trent. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Both are Tridentine, but the 1955 Tridentine Mass was used during two short periods in history. Perhaps an image with purple vestments would better suit both the contemporary and historical expression of the Mass. --Valepio (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The whole "Mass wars" thing shouldn't even be on this page beyond a brief mention. Wikipedia isn't a place to hash out theology or extremely niche areas that are better discussed elsewhere. This could easily be summarized by saying something like, "Traditional Catholics use the Roman Missal and Pontifical that were used prior to the changes in the late 1960s, with disagreements between groups on which books to use" and then cite sources that argue back and forth about it. There is no need to get into extreme levels of detail here, and detailed liturgical book discussion is really something that could take a life of research just into that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4wa5r4gasag (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC) — G4wa5r4gasag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rewriting of Entire Page

This entire article should be rewritten by a neutral source. It's wildly biased and is obviously written by people within the movement who are arguing over extremely minor and inconsequential issues.

Ignored is how much this entire movement is based on literary cherry picking, endless arguments and disagreements between groups on a host of issues, and how the movement has always been centered on cult leaders and influential personalities. No diocese ever accepted Traditional Catholicism as its way-of-life, instead certain individuals took it upon themselves to create a following around their selective reading of history.

These cult leaders & influencers within this movement arbitrarily select texts from before the 1960s to compare against documents after the 1960s, but when you have 2000 years of stuff piled up, you can create anything you want (proof texting becomes infinite with this much material, so it's been perfect for all these cult leader personalities). This is now done with Youtube videos and memes. There's nothing serious going on here, it's all trickery and deception (as it's been since the 1960s with Schuckardt and the SSPX), and totally ignores the scholarship done since the 1990s that has been accepted by everyone outside of the Traditional Catholic movement.

And what of all the abuse that's happened within the Trad Cat movement? That deserves its own page for abuse common to the SSPX, FSSP, and independent groups. Much of the abuse is happening within Trad Cat marriages based on Trad Cat theology. Not to mention all the abuser priests who were able to fly under the radar by bouncing from group to group, abusing children along the way.

First off, the world "Traditionalist" implies perennial philosophy, which is something else entirely (though there is some overlap in the two, with figures such as Coomaraswamy in the mix). A better renaming of the page would be "Traditional Roman Catholic" as this is a label the group itself has generally assumed. The various names of the Mass are inconsequential and meaningless. The focus on terminology is also meaningless and a distraction. What's more important are the ideas that are common to the whole movement, and this is nearly completely ignored. When the movement got started, the focus was not on Vatican II, but was instead a worry over changes in the culture happening in the 1960s, like music, communism, and clothing. A big focus was that everyone was going to hell, and we are the "remnant church." Most Traditional Catholics are largely motivated by wanting to return to a 1950s lifestyle, and a very specific focus on certain ways-of-life practiced in the 1950s. Also there's a big focus on a small number of very specific things, which are a random selection of items popular among some Catholics in the early 20th century, such as Marian apparitions, certain saints popular in the 1950s, hand missals (a blip in time in Catholic history, but huge with Traditional Catholics), women's "modesty" clothing, anti-Communism, Marian devotions, and very specific items such as "Holy Slavery" or "Total Consecration."

Traditional Catholics attempt to claim they are holding to the "true Catholic faith" when in reality it's a very specific subculture and really a separate thing that never even existed in the 1950s like this.

G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC) — G4wa5r4gasag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@G4wa5r4gasag: hey, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you take issue with this article for its detail and length. You are welcome to cite policies or guidelines which indicate that we've written it incorrectly, but as you'll find by looking around all sorts of disparate topics is that many articles have been written about things you might consider trivial or insignificant. On the contrary, Traditionalism has a significant following proportional to size of the whole Catholic Church, and that's fairly natural, considering that it's based on a liturgy that was celebrated by billions of people worldwide for over 500 years.

The sources herein are substantial and adequate for our purposes. If you identify material which is poorly sourced or unsubstantiated by any source, you're welcome to challenge or even remove it. If you have suggestions about condensing specifically over-detailed sections, you could also perform those edits yourself. Otherwise I'm going to say that WP:SOFIXIT applies and you haven't even really given us a rationale for your objections except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizium23 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

One question. Where in the literature is the group referred to as "Traditionalism." I've never seen any groups use it (sedevacantists, SSPX, or FSSP) and it instead seems to be a term created on the internet only. The entire article should be renamed. Without a source, I am going to work towards having the entire page deleted, since the term "Traditionalism" is used by the literature to refer to the perennial philosophy, not Traditional Roman Catholics.

Also your opinions don't matter, so things like, "Traditionalism has a significant following proportional to size of the whole Catholic Church, and that's fairly natural, considering that it's based on a liturgy that was celebrated by billions of people worldwide for over 500 years" needs to have a source, otherwise it's pure opinion.

Why has the group settled on the Roman liturgy of that time period as the default? It's arbitrary. Why not the liturgy previously? What is the first 1500 years ignored? The liturgy wars and studies have shown it's arbitrary to follow the 1962 books. You know as well as I do, the whole reason this was created was that the people at the time thought the papacy was empty, so they were holding onto the pre-Vatican II liturgy, because they were waiting for a new pope to fix things. The whole thing was created by only a handful of cult leaders, so it's hardly this widespread thing as you claim. It's nearly all based on the ideas of Francis Schuckhardt and SSPX of the 1970s, everything after that largely derived from these handful of people. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — G4wa5r4gasag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Trad Cats like to focus on "masonic infiltration" around Vatican II, and this idea becomes widespread because of youtubers and influencers like Taylor Marshall, who have a selective reading of history. They are ignoring the huge amounts of scholarship done by secular and church leaders, who studied liturgy, sacraments, and all kinds of things from the past. All of this literature is either dismissed out-of-hand, or is mischaracterized and dismissed. Trad Cats wants to pretend like all of the changes were just from infiltration, and deny that much of it was based on scholarship. Much of the scholarship has only happened since 1990, but even the earliest scholarship was really only being done in the 19th century. Some topics had been brought up by Protestants, such as forgeries in the middle ages, which Trads fail to mention. Biblical forgeries are ignored by Trad Cats, who simply blindly push the Douay version, just ignoring all modern scholarship entirely.

All this selective reading of history and dismissal of scholarship should be noted as core features of the Trad movement. I'm not sure if The Vatican or other scholars have studied the Trad Cat movement, but I'm assuming someone has noted that cherry picking historical records is a huge part of the movement. Other things to note are how they have a serious focus on certain saints and devotions that were popular in the 1950s, so there's a serious focus on a handful of saints (e.g. St. Dominic Savio) whereas huge numbers of saints through history are rarely or never mentioned. The movement is also geographically constrained, it's largely focused in America & France, with small amounts in Mexico. In much of the world, the Trad movement doesn't exist. The internet has caused much of this ignorance and nostalgia to spread, and I think this should be a noted feature of the movement too, because without mass media, the Trad movement wouldn't exist.

Trad Cats also hold to a very specific costume, notably the mantilla, which was popular with Spanish missionaries to America, but it's become the default costume for women. Or things like a coat and tie for men, that was simply a costume popular in early 20th century America (and continues to be popular fashion among politicians and lawyers), and is insignificant to Catholic history. Throughout much of church history, a mantilla would've been considered immodest, as saints had required opaque head coverings. These are important points to note, as Trads constantly misrepresent the past, as they don't want people to know they're simply following a very specific version of American 1950s Catholicism, but now with youtube and twitter. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — G4wa5r4gasag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Per WP:RGW and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFORUM, this talk page is not for you or anyone to rail against some ideology. It's to improve the topic coverage by this particular article. If you have problems with sourcing, point them out or tag them. If you wish deletion of this article, take it to WP:AFD. If you wish to write a WP:WALLOFTEXT, go to Fisheaters or Rorate Caeli. Wikipedia is where we write articles. (Note to observers: G4 has received my inquiry about a possible conflict of interest, and has not replied to it.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

support for renaming it to traditional roman catholicism to avoid confusion with various offshoot sects affiliated with sedevacantism. Lord saturnus (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Lord saturnus, I would ask you to work from sources and please be mindful of niceties such as English sentence structure and grammar, when making improvements to the article, we do not need to go back and copyedit mangled sentences when the original revision is better. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

maybe it is unclear still. but well no it is not better than any original revision since it is phrased wrongly still regardless of what you think, and eh, that's just kind of weird. not sure if your recommended edit purveying of english is constructive here now since i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so you are foreign probably? i'm a native english speaker above or beyond the grade 12 level of reading and writing comprehension since my youth. i was trying to elucidate the confusion of definitions often complained about. Lord saturnus (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

So you say, but your very reply contains run-on sentences, no capital letters and a basically stream of thought narrative. Please see the article WP:CIR where we do request that editors be held to high standards and not cause more work for us. Elizium23 (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

trolling? i don't really care if this is carried on as so you say, since you want a useless debate now, but that is literally you grasping at straws for your mere opinion in some type of apparent wp:wikilawyering scheme, and to defend what? an article of confusedly poor definition without too much constructive change yet allowed positively? i would almost call that casting aspersions if i could call it a personal attack since it kind of looks like one to insinuate that i am trying to be disruptive? Lord saturnus (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)