Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism

Dimes Square

@Pbritti: I'm seeing nothing in the cited NYT article about Catholicism at all. Am I missing something? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: I am conflating that NYT article with an opinion piece from about the same time. There's plenty of RS coverage to source that statement, though, so I'll swap something better in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on recent reverts

Request for Comment: Repeated reverts and content disputes

Hi all,

There have been several recent reverts by @Pbritti and possibly other editors on this article that I believe merit community discussion before further edits are made. To avoid edit warring and ensure adherence to Wikipedia policy, I am requesting input from other editors on the following issues:

1. Clarity and scope of content

  - Some edits have aimed to clarify distinctions between Catholics in communion with the Church and groups outside the Church (e.g., sedevacantists, conclavists). These clarifications have been reverted as “unproductive changes” in some cases.
  - For example, a change that corrected text implying Catholics who did not recognize the Pope were (as a whole) anti-Semitic without reliable sources was reverted as “unproductive,” despite being a correction supported by citations.

2. Terminology and sourcing

  - Terms such as “RadTrad,” “offshoots,” or “separate groups” have been debated. The community should determine which terms are appropriately sourced and neutral.

3. Potential conflict of interest

  - One of the frequent reversion editors, @Pbritti, lists themselves as Catholic on their user page. While this does not necessarily imply bad faith, it may be a potential COI when editing this topic, and is worth noting for transparency.

4. Content weight

  - Some content has been removed as “reiterating SSPX talking points” or considered WP:UNDUE. We need consensus on what is notable and relevant for this article without overemphasizing primary sources.

Request: I propose that we hold further edits to disputed sections until a consensus is reached here. Please provide your input on: - Which content should be included or excluded, - Appropriate terminology that meets WP:NPOV, - Any sourcing concerns.

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. Let’s aim to reach consensus and maintain article stability.

Valepio (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you, having most of your edits be to Tridentine Mass, Roman Missal, Mass of Paul VI, and Traditionalist Catholicism are not, in fact, Catholic and aren't just as subject to whatever COI you might be claiming? If anything, it would seem as if you are likely a traditional Catholic, and would have more of a COI.

Secondly, would you be able to rewrite your proposal in your own words rather than that of an AI LLM, per WP:AITALK?

Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am approaching these edits from a historical and secular perspective and do not profess a faith. My edits and proposals are based on Wikipedia policies, reliable sources, and consensus-building, and are not intended to further the interests of any religious organization, Catholic or otherwise.

Some recent actions on the article (including repeated reverts, comments on the Talk page, and content on the user page) may give the impression of advancing a particular religious perspective. I ask that all editors focus on maintaining neutrality, adhering to reliable sources, and approaching the discussion in good faith (WP:AGF). Valepio (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As you did not acknowledge my request about LLMs, your text once again tests as 100% on GPTZero, and does not address the core of what I said, I am closing this discussion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I request that we avoid accusing users of using LLMs without evidence. I am trying to engage in good-faith discussion, and I do not believe talk topics should be closed unilaterally...

The purpose of this talk page is to seek community consensus on recent edits by users who identify as Catholic commenting on a politically-senstivie issue. I am concerned that closing the discussion in this manner could be perceived as shutting down legitimate review of these edits. Valepio (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Please clearly state for the record that you have not used an LLM in this conversation. Your first two comments were formatted and sounded suspiciously like an LLM and both tested 100% on GPTZero. Use of an LLM in talk page discussion is considered disruptive editing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with GPTZero, and I am unsure whether it is widely used to "identify" AI-generated content. However, I have seen claims that such tools of this type are dubious and can be notoriously unreliable. I am not sure why this is being cited as evidence.

For the record, I do not use AI and all contributions are my own words. I would like to return to the topic at hand rather than engage in unsubstantiated accusations. Valepio (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valepio: Please note that I actually did not receive any ping that you were accusing me of bias (which seems to be a bit of a reach, considering the revert you are upset about), but I did see this in my watchlist. If you wish to ping anyone, the appropriate ways to do so are utilizing the following templates: {{ping|USERNAME}}, {{re|USERNAME}}, or {{u|USERNAME}}. Note that the USERNAME element is case sensitive, so I recommend just copying and pasting the username as it appears on their user page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pbritti. Looking at the page history, I had noticed a substantial number of reverts you had performed as well as similar discussions conducted here in months prior. I’m unsure why these reverts are consistently made without prior discussion; and I’m sure you would agree that it does not reflect well on the Church to misrepresent or give a one-sided account of sects or factions opposed to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. All I am asking is that discussions take place on the talk page and that contributions be considered fairly, especially by editors who do not give the appearance of having a vested interest in defending the Church’s reputation.

I believe that open dialogue will help ensure the article remains neutral and accurate. Valepio (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valepio: You're vaguely accusing me of something. Please show me an edit that you disagree with, explain what specifically about that edit you disagreed with, and indicate reliable sources support the given position. Up to this point, you've cited two websites that are absolutely not reliable sources and done anything but assume good faith. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

The article presents several problems in how it frames the discussion about Traditionalist Catholics.

First, it portrays Traditionalist Catholics' use of the old liturgy as merely a preference when their own literature often emphasizes it as being a theological imperative. Additionally, the article uses "scare sources" such as the SPLC to paint those who reject papal authority as antisemites. The SPLC has come under fire recently for religious discrimination and cannot be considered a valid primary source on religious issues. There is nothing to suggest that merely rejecting the Pope would make a Traditionalist Catholic an antisemite.

This framing seems to suggest the article is more of a hit piece, designed to discredit a theological position that many mainstream Catholics seem to find controversial or taboo.

I've noticed that previous attempts to address these concerns were quickly reverted. Given that these reverts are being made by openly Catholic maintainers and the dispute centers around the portrayal of an anti-Catholic group, this page desperately needs a {{POV|date=September 2025}} tag. 132.237.186.249 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're almost comically mistaken here. I've been an editor and watcher of this article for a long time and am deeply sympathetic to traditionalist Catholics (though for technical reasons, I'm not a Latin Catholic, I don't call myself one.) Photos of me as subdeacon at a 1962 Missal Mass last Christmas! I suggest you focus on discussing what edits you would like to see to the article, rather than discussing the editors.Jahaza (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a broader range of sources, particularly secular anthropological ones, as well as Traditionalist and Sedevacantist voices, including those critical of the post-Vatican II ecclesiastical structure. As it stands, it reads more like an apology against Traditionalism than a neutral analysis of the movement and its groups.

Moreover, I'm concerned about editors from one faith tradition repeatedly reverting changes that challenge their Church’s official position. The Catholic Church has been open to ecumenical dialogue with Protestant communities, but Sedevacantism is explicitly rejected by the Church, which views it as a schismatic movement. The article itself makes reference to the special rejection of certain Traditionalists by the Church: "there's a traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism; this is not good". An introduction or note about how the Catholic Church’s relationship with Traditionalists (including Sedevacantists) is complex and varies across different theological and ecclesiastical contexts might set a more neutral tone. For example, explaining the Church's rejection of Sedevacantism alongside a summary of why some Traditionalists view it as legitimate would be helpful.

We should be cautious about dismissing sources simply for being Sedevacantist, for example, especially when (dubious) references like vatican.va and catholic.com are also cited.

Some Changes that need to be made:

• I am concerned about portraying a group as antisemitic without clear, reliable evidence. Terms like "Radical Traditionalist" seem to come almost exclusively from Conservative Catholic sources opposing Traditionalists. The only other groups using this term are the SPLC and the FBI, both of which have been criticized for political bias. I don't think this term should be used in good faith.
• Sections like "Criticism of the Radical Traditionalists' positions" seems completely oblique to the purpose of the article. What purpose does this serve besides to speak to Catholics why "this group is theologically wrong according to us". This would never feature in an article on Lutheran Christianity. Unless we include a critique of Catholic Theology on the Catholicism page, this should be removed.

>The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) used the term radical traditionalist Catholics to refer to those who "may make up the largest single group of serious anti-Semites in America, subscribe to an ideology that is rejected by the Vatican and some 70 million mainstream American Catholics."

• What exactly are these alleged anti-Semitic beliefs? Are they tied to historical, theological positions prior to Vatican II, or are they more recent phenomena within certain factions of Traditionalism? Are these beliefs specific to America?
• Sections like "Validity of holy orders" reads like it is written for the audience of CatholicAnswers.com rather than an impartial reader. "The conferring of holy orders may be valid but illicit" by the Catholic Church? or by Traditionalist? by Anglicans? This speaks from an authoritative voice and not a neutral voice.

132.237.186.249 (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's kind of funny that you think secular anthropologists would be more sympathetic. Here's a secular sociology textbook using the term "radical-traditionalist Catholics". This is another sociologist using the term and explicitly linking "radical-traditionalist Catholics" to fascism. Please just tell us what changes you'd like to see made to the article or just make them gradually and see if others agree rather than preaching about how the article should hypothetically be better. Jahaza (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think sources should be judged on whether they are “sympathetic” to Catholicism. With that said, most of the references here come from the point of view of mainstream Catholic writers commenting on groups that most would view as outside the mainstream. This raises its own issues regarding the page’s completeness. Wikipedia is not a religious publication, as such it doesn’t make sense to frame the article with such a heavy skew towards Catholic perspectives.

On the last point, I believe they were actually trying to follow your earlier request to discuss possible edits before making them. If others agree, I’d be happy to update the page with some of the citations which you’ve provided. 108.49.129.153 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You need a reason

Re this edit by Pbritti, I don't think you can just revert en masse a whole series of without giving a justification.

• Unsourced material needs sources, per WP:Verifiability
• Large quantities of primary sourced material is in danger of being WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH
• Listing Catholic responses to a memo before introducing the memo is just silly
• Terms like neo-Nazi and clerical fascism benefit from wikilinks to their articles
• The term "relied on" is vague and needs explaining, preferably via secondary sources
• NPR doesn't call a judge and FBI official agreeing with each other "bipartisan" and so we shouldn't use that term when paraphrasing them
• The FBI's relationship with the ADL is not relevant in this article.

And so on, as carefully detailed in all of my edit summaries. Did you even read the edits and summaries before reverting and making the article less encyclopedic? BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I provided a reason: you made edits that were, on a whole, contradictory to maintaining the encyclopedic quality in reliability and depth of coverage in the article. While individual components of your edits may be worthy of restoring, the edits were reverted for what looked to be a bit of a rushed job, inserting rather hastily primary source tags to statements that didn't need them (a citation to the SPLC that is attributed in-text definitely does not need such a tag). For example, your removal here was justified with the edit summary of material not relevant in this article, and primary sources. Reading that summary and reviewing that you deleted content 1.) related to traditionalist Catholicism and 2.) sourced in part to Reuters indicated to me that there was an issue in need of reversion. The other edits were, by and large, similarly deficient. Worse still, the response you had was not a civil message on this talk page asking for clarification, but a comment containing belittling questions like Did you even read the edits and summaries before reverting and making the article less encyclopedic?. To answer: yes, I read the edit summaries but no, I did not make the article less encyclopedic. Please review WP:CIVIL and feel welcome to respond regarding individual content issues you may still have. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I came across as un-civil; I should have assumed good faith. Will look at your example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In the example you give, you say I deleted content 1.) related to traditionalist Catholicism and 2.) sourced in part to Reuters. This is what I removed:

• drawing bipartisan condemnation from Attorney General Merrick Garland, who called it "appalling," and FBI Director Christopher Wray, who said he was "aghast."
• A DOJ Inspector General review concluded the memo did not meet "analytic tradecraft standards," reflected "errors in professional judgment," and improperly conflated religious beliefs with terrorism risk, though it found no evidence of malicious intent. Congressional investigations revealed coordination across multiple FBI field offices and found at least 13 FBI documents dating to 2009 used anti-Catholic terminology citing the SPLC. Under Wray, employees involved received formal admonishments but no terminations; under FBI Director Kash Patel in 2025, there were "terminations" and "resignations" related to the memo. In October 2025, the FBI ended its formal relationship with the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League following a reassessment of the Bureau's reliance on external advocacy groups.

1.) What part of that relates to traditionalist Catholicism? It's about the FBI and its relations to the SPLC and ADL.

2.) The only bit that is sourced to Reuters is the last sentence, about the FBI severing its link to the SPLC and ADL. Do you really think readers wanting to learn about traditionalist Catholicism need to know about that? It's surely a COATRACK, no?

In my next edit I moved the Catholic responses to the memo after our mention of the memo, which seems incredibly uncontroversial to me.

In my next edit, I moved this passage The FBI cited reports from the SPLC that often employed the label “radical-traditionalist Catholic,” though the majority of Traditionalist Catholic communities are not linked to extremist activity. after the footnote, as we need a footnote that shows the FBI cited the SPLC reports, not to footnote those reports ourselves - that feels like uncontroversial WP:V.

This edit actually adds material about traditionalist Catholicism, with a solid source.

Again, I'm sorry I was snappy, but I don't understand how you can think all of this made the article worse not better.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

References

BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, but this comment is rather long and I'm traveling for Thanksgiving. I'll respond more fully sometime in the next 24 hours but want to prioritize a couple other things on the project. Please rest assured that any concern about your civility has been resolved by your polite responses that followed. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Article needs more attention to mainstream and diocesan traditionalism

This article needs to reflect the broader existence of traditionalism (i.e. in dioceses and with Gen. Z.) beyond small groups. With Gen Z it expected to grow and will become more of a mainstream fixture in the Catholic Church--more of an "-al" as apposed to an "-ism."

Though touched on, more could be said about Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis custodes, etc. and how that has affected diocesan parishes (i.e. in Charlotte).

The early parts of the article could make more clear the difference between full-communion traditionalism (which is essentially a "High Church" movement within Catholicism) and separatist/resistance traditionalism, which is much more radical.

I just added material in the lede. However, I will be adding soured material in the history section to balance it, so please be patient. GloryRoad66 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)