Talk:Traditionis custodes

Building this page up

Since this is a recent development, I want to ensure that we work to avoid any vandalism or recentism that would be unfounded. Additionally, considering the obvious controversial nature of this document, NPOV considerations should be exercised. I wanted to ask Veverve if help was needed in the reactions department over the next couple of days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti:Thank you for your proposition. I would gladly accept any kind of help. I believe I have now given this article a robust skeleton so than others can edit it efficiently. What kind of help could you provide? There is two things I would need help with:

• Checking if the sources are properly supporting the claims, as I sometime mistake one source for another (did those news agencies really all had to call themselves "Catholic N..." or "National Catholic X"?);
• Finding sources stating clearly at what point Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum and JPII's Ecclesia Dei were repealed by Traditionis custodes. AP says "Francis reimposed restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass that Benedict relaxed in 2007, and went further to limit its use." Crux says: "Pope Francis’s new law essentially walks several of those changes back." CNS says: "overturning or severely restricting permissions St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had given". CNA says: "[Traditionis custodes] made sweeping changes to his predecessor Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum". America says: "[Traditionis custodes] revoked the faculty given by his predecessors that allowed any Catholic priest of the Latin Rite to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, greatly restricting its use. [...] It revokes the faculty given by John Paul II and “with even greater magnanimity” by Benedict XVI that allowed priests to celebrate Mass in Latin"

By the way, I have never seen you on Christian-related topics, did this apostolic letter made such a ruckus that the interest of people outside of this area of expertise has been catched? Veverve (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thank you for the exceedingly quick framework on this article. I’ll get on those recommendation ASAP. To answer two questions: Yes, every Catholic journal has a predilection towards vague and confusing names and it irritates the average Catholic reader to no end. And, yes, I actually edit Christian topics rather frequently but usually in the more liturgically-bent articles of the East and Anglican Communion. Recently have started something of a ruckus myself by reformatting the ledes of a few diocesan articles. Hoping to keep any work related to this controversial topic NPOV-free, as there is much confusion as to what the document actually does and I’d rather not scare people/get their hopes up, dependent on who the reader is. Again, keep up the excellent work and I hope to see you more often. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

La Croix, in French, says TC "abrogated" Summorum P., but does not use the word in English. Veverve (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Aleteia fr - unfortunately not RS - has a more detailed comparison. Veverve (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman Breviary and "Forms"

@Veverve: Before accidentally getting in your way, wanted to get on the same page regarding the inclusion of the Roman Breviary and the phrases "Extraordinary" and "Ordinary Forms". Due to the reference to all Roman Rite liturgical books promulgated by Pope Sts. Paul VI and John Paul II, it is reasonable to include reference to other forms of the liturgy besides the Mass in the lede (though it is obviously of second-class importance to the average reader). For that sake, I applied the "common use" term "Extraordinary Form" to the title. Even if Pope Francis has abrogated the term in official documentation, it still is the most useful catch-all for pre-Vatican II Roman Rite liturgical practices that avoids straying into POV terms or other issues. Recently was on the other side of this conversation regarding a different matter, but in this case I think a common-use term that aptly applies might be our best go-to in the lede. Absolutely open to other options and recommendations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti:

Due to the reference to all Roman Rite liturgical books promulgated by Pope Sts. Paul VI and John Paul II, it is reasonable to include reference to other forms of the liturgy besides the Mass in the lede: I found nothing in the article about this. "liturgical books issued by popes Paul VI and John Paul II after Vatican II" is very vague. I have read nothing clear about restrictions to all Roman Rite liturgical books.

You wrote "was produced in Latin with consideration that it was to be translated into the vernacular" and "the Liturgy of the Hours–also for use in the vernacular": those information are not common knowledge, and this information is nowhere to be found in the sources supporting it if there is any source.

I think the use of "extraordinary form" and "ordinary form" should be avoided as much as possible in this article, in order not to confuse the article. Veverve (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In order to ensure I don't distract too much, I'll just address the first portion and we can get back to sourcing and the rest of it. Article 1 of the document refers to "The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II," so I would assume we are discussing all aspects of the liturgy and not just the Missal, though that appears to be the primary concern of the document. In order to avoid confusion and prevent misinformation, I will hold back on further discussion of the BR/LotH. We can have discussion the "Extraordinary" aspect (which is common to other articles but could be reasonably avoided here) if/when the other elements of the pre-VII Roman Rite appear in secondary/tertiary sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I added sources regarding the nature of the 1969/70 Roman Missal and 1971 LotH as Latin-language documents constructed with anticipation for translation and usage in the vernacular. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to say that Francis in his letter identifies versions of the Mass by pope (e.g. of Pius V, of John XXIII and of Paul VI) and avoids popular language like Tridentine and Extraordinary or, as some press reports have it, "the old Latin Mass". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Yes, it would be good, but I have not found a RS which makes this remark. Veverve (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll keep my eye out. I’ve seen tweets from priests (not RSs) and have a sense that such a source is within the pipeline. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability of opinions

Various

@Pbritti: @Anupam: Why should the opinion of this journalist, Zac Davis, be added? Is he notable? Is his article the official opinion from a notable institution? No, therefore I think his opinion should be removed, unless you want to give the opinion of every single journalist on this article. Veverve (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Veverve, why not provide the opinions published in notable Catholic publications in both sections? The reaction of the Church as a whole to Traditionis custodes should be noted and there is no reason why the subsections should be limited to just one paragraph. America Magazine, Rorate Caeli, National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, etc. could all be included here. I look forward to what User:Pbritti has to say. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 23:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Do you really want to add each opinion found in each article ever published on TC by any reliable journalistic outlet that exists? Do you think each opinion article they publish is the official opinion of their editorial staff? Veverve (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Anupam on the basis that blog posts seem to be the source for the Associated Press’s statement on traditionalist opposition. America Magazine carries some water in certain Catholic circles and a formal op-ed published on their site is at least as notable as the position of a CUA professor. That said, I would tend towards removal of this source if more institutions, major lay communities, and clergy publish their support for TC. All around, there’s space for both positions here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Pbritti. Removing content from a major publication in the Catholic world seemed to be a bad idea, especially since the section was bareboned before I touched it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I do not understand how the fact that the basis that blog posts seem to be the source for the Associated Press’s statement on traditionalist opposition is relevant the discussion. Moreover, we simply do not know what the AP source is, it may be blogs, it may be Twitter, it may be Traditionalist Catholic Youtubers, it may be anything. I also disagree with the idea that the opinion a person writes in a reliable magazine makes this person and his/her opinion automatically notable and gives him/her the same notability as a university professor. Veverve (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Veverve, you had just asked "Do you think each opinion article they publish is the official opinion of their editorial staff?" However, if you looked at the article, Zac Davis is a member of America's editorial staff. Anupam^Talk 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: Being a member of the editorial staff does not mean she is de facto and a priori the official opinion of the magazine in each article she writes which is published in said magazine. As Pbritti wrote: " 'America Magazine' itself did not laud the decision in this op-ed. This is a personal piece" Veverve (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the section in this Wikipedia article will incorporate diverse perspectives on the apostolic letter. Anupam^Talk 00:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: The goal of Wikipedia is not to have a "balanced" or "diverse" point of view, but to have notable and non-fringe points of view. Veverve (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Anupam and Pbritti: if you want an opinion from America, I would prefer using James Martin's opinion. He is the editor-in-chief of the magazine and has a Wikipedia page, unlike Zac Davis. What do you think about replacing Zac Davis's opinion with James Martin's opinion? Veverve (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Veverve, sure, I am fine with that. I will go ahead and supplant the information. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think James Martin is a neutral source at all. He is very well known among Catholic circles on the internet as highly liberal/progressive. His very Wikipedia article details this, particularly under the headings "LGBTQ+ issues" and "Conflict over Communion". The fact that he is pleased about the Pope restricting the Tridentine Mass is not noteworthy. 86.157.16.14 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

86.157.16.14: Fr. James Martin–as the editor of a major Catholic publication, holder of a Vatican position, and having some mainstream awareness–is a notable person whose perspective merits appearance in this article. The reactions section is explicitly for the publication of opinions; everyone quoted could be similarly critiqued as highly polarized in some fashion. To not include his opinion would be akin to not including that of the Latin Mass Society: of course they're displeased with the restriction the Tridentine Mass, but it's still a noteworthy opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

86.157.16.14 I totally agree with what was said by Pbritti above. Veverve (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with User:Veverve and User:Pbritti. User:Veverve, I had added the information. If you still feel that it is necessary, you may have your wishes with the statement by Davis, unless User:Pbritti objects to it too. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Bishops

@Pbritti: what are you referring to when you write: "responses from French bishops"? In advance, I say that if you want to add the opinion of random bishops who are not important, I oppose. Veverve (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: There are two announcements, one from traditionalist French bishops and another from their episcopal conference, anticipated to arrive in the coming days. Will post to talk page before due to persisting dispute of what qualifies as notable opinions on this topic, though these page desperately requires a number of non-American, non-British reactions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: traditionalist French bishops: I do not see who you are referring to.

another from their episcopal conference you mean this (in a RS)? Veverve (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly, there will be more information to come. Will not be adding anything until we have an RS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: I strongly disagree with you adding the reaction of individual, unimportant bishops. I think your edit opens a can of worms to add each individual opinion of each individual bishop. After all, why should the opinion of the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Séez not be put if we have the opinions of the bishops of San Francisco and of Arlington? At this point, you might as well create a completely new article compiling each bishop's decisions and reaction on TC, but we already have List of communities using the Tridentine Mass for such purposes I feel. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I never said I wanted to include "all" bishops reactions, in fact I didn't even mention the 4 or 5 whose reactions were in the source provided. As the archbishop of a relatively large archdiocese (San Francisco) and as a known supporter of the latin mass, I found Salvatore Cordiloeone's comments on this documents notable. I have no problem if you want to trim out the Arlington's bishop's response from the text, but I do believe the bishop's response as a whole (not individually) is worth mentioning as these are the individuals who are tasked with enforcing this document. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: I am not saying you want to add all opinions of bishops. What I tried to say was that when you start adding individual opinions of unimportant bishops, however demographically important their dioceses are, you are opening a can of worms. This can of worms could turn this article into a chronicle of each reaction of the 5600 bishops of the Catholic Church. The only bishops which, to me, are important are heads of dicasteries and president of episcopal conferences. I think we should stick to add only opinions of important bishops, or official opinions of episcopal conferences. It still leaves us with potentially more or less (200 x 2) possibilities.

the bishop's response as a whole (not individually) is worth mentioning: I wholeheartedly agree. However, we are still waiting for a news article detailing the bigger picture of the effect of TC.

Do you agree that either you or I remove your addition of the reaction of the bishops of San Francisco and of Arlington? Veverve (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: personally I think Cordiloeone's comments are worth keeping, but for the sake of compromise I have removed the names of the bishops. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The reaction of the Bishops, particularly the perceived failure of the bishops to implement is a very important part of the story. Not every bishop can be mentioned but the consensus on this talk page certainly seems that the more important ones should be. JASpencer (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Cardinals

Card. Müller has written an article about TC.
This raises the question: which cardinals' opinion should be added? We already have Card. Burke. The article is almost at 40k, which is a treshold I am really reluctant to go over. Veverve (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see the need to be concerned about such a low threshold in the long-term, but agree we should limit the number of perspectives admitted into the reaction category until more time has past. I would not include Cardinal Müller’s take because, even if I appreciate the umlauts, his perspective and ideological camp have both been represented in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: As I said above, I disagree with this kind of arguments. If something is well received, Wikipedia should show it. If it is not well received, Wikipedia should show it. The goal is not to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. With my argument added, is your opinion any different? Veverve (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Müller's opinion has been reported by CNA. Veverve (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With CNA coverage, I think that is more than sufficient to merit its inclusion, though not at the expense of the detail you have provided elsewhere. I don't think it's so much a balance issue for me, but rather about ensuring that the perspectives included provide insight on how major camps in and outside the Catholic Church responded to this document while still keeping under your reasonably imposed roughly 40k limit. That said, I almost always lean towards the inclusion of more sources than fewer. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, I feel we will be very lucky if we manage to keep this page under 55k. Veverve (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bp. Zen has spoken, but I do not feel he is important enough to be worth a mention. I mean that since he never had any important job, such as head of a dicastary or commission, or the Apostolic Signatura, he is less important than e.g. Burke, Müller or Sarah. Veverve (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Since Zen is now mentionned in the overview, I will add his opinion. Veverve (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake: the linke above is Zen's opinion before TC was released. His opinion after it was released is here. Veverve (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has commented (English traslation). However, I found no report of it outside of InfoVaticana. Veverve (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cardinal Sarah

I saw but have lost a reference to Sarah just recently making a public statement about the importance of the pre-Concilar form of the Mass. It looked like a good example of a pre-critique in anticipation of this motu proprio. I hope someone can locate it. His opposition in advance would help set the scene. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: You can find them in full in this blog (not a RS), and some extracts on CNA. However, where would you put those declarations? Not in "Background", for they do not constitute a background to the encyclical. Nor in "Reception", for they were made even before TC was released. Rather, those are vague comments made by Sarah. Veverve (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: While I am at it, this information could be put into the "Background" section, but as of now no press article which I read has put this in relation to TC, so I feel it might not be suitable to put it. Veverve (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Same goes for this. Veverve (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing vague at all. And clearly "before publication": there was a debate before the motu proprio was even released. The CNA article clearly connects the comments of Sarah and Zen to the anticipation of action by Francis, both commenting after Francis told the Italian bishops that they could expect a statement in the near future. The sources behind the CNA article are Sarah's own writings on Twitter, a valid source of his views, and Zen's blog is a reliable source of his views. BTW, there's no encyclical. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Hum. I do not really know how a "pre-publication" debate should be treated. Still, I agree that you add those two cardinals' comments in the "Before the publication" section. If it their opinions do not fit in the flow of the article, we can still discuss removing them :). Veverve (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK submission

Any of you all want to put together a Did You Know? submission for this article? I'll do it if there aren't any other takers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: What kind of interesting fact do you want to add in the DYK? Veverve (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Something like “…in his July 2021 apostolic letter Traditionis custodes Pope Francis called the Mass of Paul VI the “lex ordani” of the Catholic Church?.” ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Your suggesion is not eye-catching at all, to be honest. As far as I am concerned, I find no interesting anecdote about this article which would be worth a DYK. Veverve (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: No harm, no foul then! Thanks for at least reviewing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it

Eric Sammons apparently plans to make a report on the immediate effect of the document. Feel free to add things you believe one should keep an eye on here. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
There is this. However, I have not been able to find anything apart from this tweet, even on the official website of the Hungarian Catholic Bishops' Conference. Veverve (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the ambassador of Hungary to the Holy See and the Sovereign Order of Malta says it is a fake. One less thing to keep an eye on. Veverve (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC) PS: and the original uploader deleted it. Veverve (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

And the Archdiocese of Budapest has officialy declared this statement fake news. Veverve (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The SSPX has realeased an initial statement in which it stated: "An official statement will be released from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X in due course." Veverve (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Vacatio legis

Do you think this page should have a section about the discussion concerning the normalcy of this document having no vacatio legis?
On the one hand, Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas states: "Very strangely, we learn that the norms of this document are to go into effect immediately. This is unknown in canonical legislation, to the best of my knowledge, especially since implementation should require prior proper catechesis." On the other hand, Martin Klöckener, currently quoted in the article, claims it is perfectly normal.
I would have no problem with leaving Klöckener's opinion on this where it is if he was stating something factually. However, apparently he is not. Veverve (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree: Klöckener (and Fr. Stravinskas) appear to be expressing opinions that both merit mention. Reactions is perhaps the only right section for both, but while retaining the brief explanation of what vacatio legis is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I think this debate - whether or not it is unusual that such a document takes effect immediatly - is so minor that it should not be mentionned. I will remove Klöckener's opinion on the vacatio legis from the article. Veverve (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: While I think you have taken a very conservative approach to what reactions should appear in this article, I think that the removal of this debate matches the with tone of the rest of the article. If reactions consider pouring in on a major scale, I would not be opposed to the creation of a reaction article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"proper to the Bishops"

Not sure if it has already been noted, but the "proper to the Bishops" of the accompanying letter is not present in the Italian version. See here for comparison.
The Italian version says: "chiedo a Voi di condividere con me questo peso come forma di partecipazione alla sollecitudine per tutta la Chiesa."
The English version says: "I ask you to share with me this burden as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church proper to the Bishops."
Not sure if this detail is really important. Veverve (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

When it says in the translation into English language "for the whole Church proper to the Bishops" it sounds very strange because in Italian language says "for the whole Church". Translations from one language to another may vary. In Spanish language says "os pido que compartáis conmigo esta carga como forma de participación en la solicitud por toda la Iglesia." Translated from Spanish into English it would be: "I ask you to share this burden with me as a form of participation in the solicitude for the whole Church." I do not see any contribution to that statement ("proper to the Bishops") to the article, for me it could be removed. Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: The thing is, it should not be up to Wikipedia users to decide which version is the right one. Morevoer, no journalist has talked about this, so maybe there is no problem. Lastly, the English translation is deemed as "official" on the Vatican website, so I would feel even less confortable in removing "proper to the Bishops".

The French version also has no mention of a "proper to the Bishops", and states "participation à ma sollicitude pour toute l’Église." like in Italian. Veverve (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

What can be done with the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines' statement? It feels like the authors beat around the bush without saying anything. Veverve (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

anyone can read the following declaration: "In their July 22 statement, the Filipino bishops said, “We reiterate the appeal of Pope Francis that ‘every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities.’”

It is clear they support the Pope's statement. Why can't it stay in the main WP article?

The same applies for the German Episcopal Conference that is one of the most influent in Europe. The same catholicnewsagency.com declares: "The Archdiocese of Berlin said that it could not foresee when the motu proprio would be implemented given that the diocese is in the midst of the summer vacation". It is a very unusual statement from an Archbishop...not to say the decisions of other German dioceses. It describes a very complex situation.

You affirm "or the Philippines: it says nothing about the implementation, it's diplomatic gibberish and thus is unusable, as I already said in the talk page at Talk:Traditionis_custodes#Bishops’_Conference_of_the_Philippines; for Germany, we do not add individual dioceses'"...But you have to note that the main Roman Catholic dioceses of Germany have singularly taken a position contrary to the motu proprio. Has this WP:notability?

"In their July 22 statement, the Filipino bishops said, “We reiterate the appeal of Pope Francis that ‘every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities.’"

What is this supposed to mean? Moreover, it is not a decision on keeping ot removing the TM. Even if it was an approval, a "we agree" is not an implementation.

We do not add individual bishop's opinions. The rest of your argument is tasseography at best. Veverve (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Important details

Please can User:Veverve take intended deletions to the talk page first? 18:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@JASpencer: there is already a consensus at Talk:Traditionis custodes#Bishops. I feel the article - which is an encyclopedic article and thus is only an overview - would be way too long if one is to add the individual reactions. If you want an article with the detailed, day-by-day implementation of TC, which includes every decision by individual archbishops and bishops, feel free to create an article about it. Veverve (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Article 3

Hi Veverve. I don't want to start an edit war because I certainly could be misunderstanding some things about Article 3. First, I need you to clarify what you mean in your edit summary "Reese does not quote the article anywhere in his article". Reese doesn't quote which article? Reese's article is about Traditionis custodes, and I don't think he has to quote anything to discuss it. But more importantly, I think my confusion pertains to where exactly the Tridentine is allowed. It can't be in a parish church (i.e., parochial church), and a new personal parish specifically for the Tridentine cannot be established. So if a group of Tridentine fans come to a bishop (who does not oppose the Tridentine) where there is not already a personal parish for the Tridentine, and they seek permission to use the Tridentine, is the bishop's response required to be, "No. It can't be in a parish church, and it can't be in a new personal parish. So it can't be used in this diocese"? I understand that the intent of the apostolic letter is to restrict the use of the Tridentine, but I don't think it is intended to completely forbid it in a parish as long as the Bishop approves. Have I missed something? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:

Reese doesn't quote which article? Article 3. I tried for the section to quote in quotation marks only the articles, because it is what the reader expects.

I think my confusion pertains to where exactly the Tridentine is allowed. From what I - and Catholic commentator Skojec - understood, they are allowed in places which are not parishes, such as in the middle of a forest, in a hotel room, or in an igloo. However, The Pillar states: "It is not yet clear what sacred spaces the motu proprio envisions, as most churches in most dioceses are parish churches — that provision may well be revised or clarified in the days to come." So, since there seems to be a small confusion as to what those places are supposed to be, I prefer not to give someone's interpretation.

Also, I prefer to use, in the summaries of the measures, journalistic articles which came out to explain and summarise the document. Reese's article is an opinion, i.e. its purpose is not to explain but to give a point of view, so I am not really enclined to use it on this section. And Reese does not seem to be notable enough to be used in any other section. Veverve (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: According to this recent article, the Tridentine Mass can be celebrated in "church, oratory or chapel". If none of those three can be put at the group's disposal, then Tridentine Masses can be celebrated in parish churches. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thanks for the info. That's certainly better than an igloo. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be in the "Implementation" section?

I think this should be in the "Implementation" section and not in the "Catholic Church" section, what do you think:

"The Bishops' Conference of France states that the bishops of France "wish to express to the faithful who habitually celebrate according to the Missal of St. John XXIII, and to their pastors, their care, the esteem they have for the spiritual zeal of these faithful, and their determination to continue the mission together, in the communion of the Church and according to the norms in force." Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: I disagree. It is in no way an implementation: what concrete change does the communiqué ask for? Veverve (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment by the pope

A comment by the pope on TC during his recent trip can be found in secondary sources here and here. Do you think it should be included? Veverve (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Francis also made a comment recently, with Crux linking it with TC. Veverve (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And he made a comment directly mentioning TC recently. Veverve (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

CDW instructions

@Pbritti and Inter&anthro: I have added a section on the CDW's instructions. Does any of you have any idea on how the content of this guideline could be summarised in one or two paragraphs in this WP article? Feel free to have a look at the references I have already added. Veverve (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Looking into it now, waiting for a couple sources I know are decent and comprehensive to publish their stories. Might add some stuff tomorrow, but I think a "greatest hits"-style approach of pulling out maybe three or four of the explicit prohibitions and permissions not already discussed is the best route. Thanks for the heads up and good work on setting up the new section so quickly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Thanks for your help. I thinks a small account of each of the 11 guidelines would be better. Veverve (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added a summary as best as I could. Veverve (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Reactions

Here ar the reactions to the CDW instruction, I will see later if they should be added (the article is already quite long):

• FSSP reaction

Veverve (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicago

@Jjfun3695: Many of your edits have been reverted. In order to prevent an edit war, I recommend you include encyclopedic material in a more appropriate space, namely the article on Blase J. Cupich. Consensus is that this article will not include reference to implementation on the diocesan/national level unless of unique, encyclopedic note. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: If that is consensus then ok. God bless Jjfun3695 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: Your understanding is deeply appreciated. Your prayerful blessings are appreciated and mutual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jjfun3695: thanks for your understanding. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Future of the article

@Pbritti: from what I understood, measures at a national level (i.e. implementation decisions for the whole country taken by the conference of bishops) could be mentioned (currently the Costa Rica as a whole is mentioned). However, there is more than 200 countries in the world, so if each conference of bishops does something the article will become unreadable. There is also the question of including of each former Ecclesia Dei group's reaction(s?) (e.g. here, here). My best take is to wait a few years until the situation has settled down and then see what specialised sourced have judged to be worthy of writing in History books and how to summarise it.
However, if someone wants to create a page about the individual implementations and reactions to Traditionis custodes, I would not oppose this person creating a fork article to put them. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Veverve (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A fork seems to be the best approach, though at some point I anticipate it would become more of a resource in looking up local regulations rather than serving an encyclopedic purpose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regular POV-pushing by a sockmaster

An user under four differnt IPs - User:148.77.37.122, User:162.83.236.163, and User:2603:7080:140:f600:e06d:657c:f4f4:580e, User:69.123.237.31 - has been adding the same unrelated content to the same article, despite being reverted every time and having the consensus clearly against him/her. Compare [1] vs [2] vs [3] vs [4].
The articles the sockmaster uses do mention Grillo. However, the issue is not whether or not Grillo criticised Benedict XVI; the problem is that adding that "Andrea Grillo, an Italian theologian and outspoken critic of Pope Benedict XVI's liberalization of the Traditional Latin Mass who has campaigned in favor of imposing an institutional silence on the pope emeritus (Benedict XVI), also taught at the institute" is neither due nor relevant, and that it is the consensus not to put this information, on top of being clear sockpuppetting.
Numerous people from Sant'Anselmo are mentioned in the Catholic News Agency article, but only Vittorio Francesco Viola and Aurelio García Macías are considered relevant as they are bishops directly involved with the Vatican department on liturgy and the CNA article says as much, while Grillo is an unknown academic. Furthermore, the La Croix article is from 2017 - 4 years before the subject of the article - and as far as Grillo is concerns only contains a short interview with Grillo which would be WP:SYNTH.
I have already reported the sockmaster at ANI. Veverve (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

The FSSP claims that Benedict XVI sent them an encouragement letter due to the publication of Traditionis custodes (source; English version). Should this be mentioned in the article? Veverve (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also today's Die Tagespost interview with Gänswein in which he says that Traditionis custodes was painful to Benedict XVI (see partial transcript here, here, here). Veverve (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think yes, but not in the lede. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a reliable secondary source mentioning the alleged letter. Veverve (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an IP forced our hand. Veverve (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

J.D. Flynn and Roche

The following part was removed by @Pbritti::

Roche had previously, in response to a query which was published in a 17 February 2023 article, reacted to a The Pillar article by J.D. Flynn published 7 days earlier. This The Pillar article had claimed that the DDW, despite what was stated in its official letters of its Prefect Arthur Roche, had no canonical right to direclty impose restrictions on the Traditional Mass and pre-Vatican II reforms sacraments, since the restrictions of Traditionis custodes were not reserved to the Holy See and thus canon 87 allowed local bishops to dispense of those restrictions as they wished. The article claims that therefore Roche "overstepped his authority" by telling local bishops that they had no say in the application of those restrictions. Roche responded: "It is an absurdity to think that the prefect of a dicastery would do anything other than exercise the wishes of the Holy Father as clearly outlined in their mandate and the General Norms of Praedicate Evangelium. The article in the Pillar is not really an attack on me but on the Pope's authority which for Catholics is an astonishing act full of hubris". J.D. Flynn had planned a response to defend his previous claim, against Roche's remark. However, the author claims, the rescript has now created a "new law" which gives the DDW, and not the local bishops, authority over those restrictions.

I do not see why Pbritti thinks there are too many weasel words. However, maybe the information itself is no worthy of inclusion. On the one hand, a cardinal-prefect answered an article by a reliable newspaper on the very topic of the rescript a few days before said rescript was approved; and it was reported by a reliable source. On another hand, maybe it is useless noise to mention Roche's dispute with J.D. Flynn in such details or maybe to mention it at all.

What do you think? Veverve (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:CLAIM for why I dropped the paragraph on phrasing issues. However, the passage also has some other issues. The Pillar qualifies as a reliable source, but WherePeterIs is more of a blog and the article's author, Lewis, is known to have a longstanding feud with The Pillar (meaning attribution would be necessary). Also, phrases like "The article claims" are imprecise–the article is not an agent, but rather its author (in this case, Flynn). Additionally, using just these posts to discuss the dispute is most likely WP:PRIMARY–if other reliable sources engage with this dispute, we can include an abbreviated mention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not know how WherePeterIs should be qualified. If a cardinal-prefect answers them, then maybe they are more than a simple blog...? I am not sure. In any case, the quote is present in The Pillar's article; I simply wanted to give the primary source (WherePeterIs) for the quote.

Maybe Flynn's article can be considered a secondary source which reports on the dispute.

I feel Roche's quote is important to mention in the article. The dispute and the quote were also reported on CWR and on Catholic Culture. Veverve (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend rewriting the paragraph more succinctly, perhaps only using the secondary sources. Something along the lines of "Roche was criticized by canon lawyer J.D. Flynn, who wrote in The Pillar [...] Roche responded, saying [...]." ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Presenting claims as facts

@Str1977: I have reverted you per BRD. I do not wish us to fall into an edit-war, I believe we can reach an agreement.

I have already told you at your talk page: stop presenting claims as facts by using expressions such as "reveal". Your understanding of WP:WEASEL is wrong.

The sentences are not weasel wording, but clear attributions of claims (it is clearly stated who claims). Those fall under the MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Veverve (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not present statements as facts. (And strange that you complained about that only on my talk page, not in edit summary as you reverted me.)

I didn't aimed at removing any attribution. What I have tried was to word it a bit more concisely and, after your complaint, have worded it in such a way that it is clear who says what. In these (edit with full attributions and edit with "state instead of "reveal") I have not removed any attribution, but you reverted anyway.

You OTOH have even restored the ultimate weasel word "claim". And yes, it is weasel wording when you can easily use other verbs. Note that the word was universally used when referring to one particular side of discussions. That definitely smacks of POV.

To quote the WEASEL policy page: "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence." After reviewing the page - I hadn't been there in a while - I found that also the words "assert" (which I consider much less problematic) and "reveal" (which I used) are on the list, so I didn't use them afterwards.

I don't want an edit-war either but I have already compromised twice on wordings. I won't accept the word "claim" in these two instances. (The other two are quotes or closely related to a quote.) Str1977 ^(talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

PS. I now see that my last edit inadvertedly reverted the word "revealed" back in. My preferred, albeit compromise, version is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionis_custodes&diff=prev&oldid=1195603165

Two separate issue:

• Why do you insist on having a lengthy, bad rather pedestrian quote under Article 8? Sometimes a text has worded something so succinctly that it is better to simply quote it. I don't think this is the case here.
• I think that it is enough to note and link to the death of Benedict XVI once. The best place for this is the beginning of the paragraph in dispute, as it was his death that prompted the FSSP statement. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

strange that you complained about that only on my talk page, not in edit summary as you reverted me: I forgot to add the considerations on claims in my edit summary, hence why I gave them on your talk page.

1) I agree on using "stated". Still, I do not believe "claim" to be a weasel word if you clearly state who claims.

2) I think the wording within the source of Article 8 is clear enought that the wording can be quoted verbatim. I feel your changes only make the sentence more difficult to understand for the reader.

3) I think that it is enough to note and link to the death of Benedict XVI once: I agree and I have removed the overlinking. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

1) Stating who "claims" something is not the solution to make the word any less weasel-ish. It is in the word: someone only claims something, implying that it probably isn't true. Such wording might be okay outside of WP, but here we MUST adhere to NPOV. Especially so, if one side is said to "claim", while the other one gets neutral or even endorsing verbs. Maybe you should consider what the issue is actually about because it doesn't seem like you have. I take it that the version without any "claims" can be implemented.

2) Quoting a formula from a Vatican document is never "clear enough". It needlessly includes pretty wordy prose. Admittedly, my changes were not that forceful and hence did not make it much easier.

On the 2nd sentence (immediately) might be augmented by pointing out that is an exceptional move - see the first section on this talk page.

3) Good that we agree on this. But we still note Benedict's death twice. OTOH, it might be good to call Georg Gänswein his "former" secretary.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)