Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism

Due to the rapid and verbose nature of this debate, comments are quickly archived. Please see December 2005 for the most recently archived discussion, or Archives for a list of archives.

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 Novus Ordo Missae 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)

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)