Vatican II cannot in any way, shape, or form be represented as a genuine step away from the extreme hubris displayed at the Council of Trent. Catholic apologists who represent it as such are engaging in sophistry. They have never taken back a single anathema.Of course, no “Catholic apologists” worth their missals would concern themselves with Protestant strawmen charging “sophistry” and claiming “extreme hubris displayed” at the ecumenical-&-general Council of Trent, which was convened with “[i]ts main object [being] the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants” of the 16th-century.[††]
“Radical traditionalist” Catholics, 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 Catholics. Many of their leaders have been condemned or even excommunicated by the official [sic]church.[‡]“[E]xcommunicated” ? A reader might infer that among the alleged “radicals”, SPLC is tarring SSPX, and all of that organization's priests and lay adherents, after John Paul II famously excommunicated all 4 of its bishops. In 2006, SPLC did indeed publish a tract about SSPX, titled “Radical powerhouse”.
If radical traditionalists belong to a specific sect--and many do not--it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a sprawling international group that publishes reams of anti-Semitic writings on its Web site [....]Sooner or later, readers of SPLC's tracts opposing “Radical traditionalist” Catholics will recognize that SPLC's highest-priority complaint isn't traditional Catholics withdrawing or refusing obedience to the (modernist) dictates of the Vatican and its hierarchy:
Adherents of radical traditional Catholicism, or “integrism”, routinely pillory Jews as “the perpetual enemy of Christ” and worse, reject the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, and sometimes even assert that recent popes have all been illegitimate. They are incensed by the liberalizing reforms of the 1962--65 Second Vatican Council, which condemned hatred for the Jews and rejected the accusation that Jews are collectively responsible for deicide in the form of the crucifixion of Christ.Really? The accusation of deicide is widely documented in the New Testament, as a few hours of study will easily reveal. In particular, what are Catholics expected to conclude from the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew? Notably his chapter 27 per the Challoner-R(h)eims Version (and Vulgate)[†]?
Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists”--people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the [sic]mass now typically said in vernacular languages--although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin.Ah, yes: Guilt by association with “liturgy in Latin”. SPLC is insinuating that to find “serious anti-Semite” Catholics, one need only look in the pews of a Mass celebrated in Latin. SPLC concludes its complaints:
Radical traditionalists [...] also embrace extremely conservative social ideals with respect to women.“Extremely conservative” compared to whom? Maybe the misanthropes among radical feminists, or the radical feminists who openly advocate destruction of the traditional family? It can't be that SPLC has such an unusual interpretation of the U.S. 1st Amendment as to insist that secular U.S. law on “equal opportunity” overrides nearly 2 millennia of the religious tradition of the Catholic Church, requiring it to perform ordination of priestesses, or consecration of bishopesses, in the U.S.A., as already done by those oh-so-progressive Anglicans & Episcopalians. The traditional Catholic prohibition was upheld even for the Novus Ordo church, by 3 prominent examplars of the modernist Vatican hierarchy: Popes Paul VI (1975) & John Paul II (1994), and William Card. Levada (2007). None of them could be called a “radical traditionalist” by any sane stretch of imagination.
//Ixquick.com/do/search ?q=host%3Asplcenter.org +%22traditional +Catholic%22 &lui=english>
Gibson shocked Hollywood after announcing The Passion [...] would be shot in Aramaic language without the aid of subtitles-- but now a Christian focus group invited to a screening of the film insists it has too many subtitles. [emphasis added]“Gibson slips in subtitles”. WENN, 2 July 2003 (then World Entertainment News Network). <http://www.IMDb.com
“radical traditional Catholics [....] 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 Catholics and many of their leaders have been condemned or even excommunicated by the official [sic]church.[”] [So if it's fair to leverage the specifics above into broad criticism of Wikipedia, it would be best avoided by traditional Catholics on subjects interacting with religion. Although perhaps with limited exceptions: Its lists of references (esp. those bearing links) can be very useful in locating additional information; that's true even for the Web-page described above as “egregious”. But the visitor must understand that objectively valuable sources of information may have been deliberately omitted if they support a point of view that's contrary to the one dominating the article--or even if they merely detract from full support for that view.
ItSPLC] claims that [“a]dherents of radical traditional Catholicism [...] “routinely pillory Jews as ‘the perpetual enemy of Christ’”, [“]reject the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, and sometimes assert[”] all recent [sic]Popes are illegitimate.[†]
[ Wikipedia editing and presentation of quotations from SPLC, as excerpted immediately above, is missing various opening or closing quote-marks; they have been supplied by the webmaster of this Web site, within brackets, after inspecting the text on the SPLC page from which it was copied (bold-face added, red signifying Wikipedia's erroneous placement, and green signifying corrections to Wikipedia's omissions). The 1 opening double-quote that's placed too late in the sentence quoted from SPLC is signified by a strike-thru at mid-line height beneath it (for display or economical printing in black-&-white, no better solution seems to be provided by standard Web-page mark-up). ]
“Wikipedia FAQ”. <http:Note *½: E.g.: wording quoted from a publicly accessible e-mail message from Wales himself: “As the founder of Wikipedia and spiritual leader of the project from day one [....]”.
//web.archive.org/web /20010406101346 /www.wikipedia.com /wiki /Wikipedia_FAQ>.
“Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel Matters” ("15 Dec. 2007, 06:58:30 UTC", last ¶). <https:This message has the advantage of accessibility for documenting Wales' perception of his own role at Wikipedia (but not necessarily any presumption of uniqueness). The link to it (above) does not constitute endorsement of other assertions or claims made by Wales in that same message.
//lists.wikimedia.org /pipermail /foundation-l /2007-December /036069.html>.
“Who is Essjay?,[sic] Probably he's Ryan Jordan”. <https:
//web.archive.org /web /20150302074323 /http: /wikipediareview.com /index.php ?showtopic=2778>.]