Talk:Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2019-cmri-masthead-revised.jpg

"Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

CMRI history 1967 to 1989
The CMRI of 1967 to 1989 is so different than the group since then, that I wonder if it makes sense to create a different page, something like "CMRI history 1967 to 1989." Nearly all of the bad decisions, scandals, and issues with the group occurred before 1989. They've also changed a lot of their practices. I think it's unfair to the group now to display so much negative information on the page, when nearly all of the issues have been resolved and the group is really in a new time period. While many of the same people remain in the group today, clearly many of the problems should be pinned primary on Schuckardt, and also somewhat in the Chicoine transition era of 1984 to 1989. The early group had to deal with abusive priests, the anti-cult movement, and lawsuits that haven't been a reality of the group for over 30 years. Other outsiders have noted that it's unfair to compare the problems in the Schuckardt era of the 1970s with the current group. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) — G4wa5r4gasag (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It's unfair to repeat anything that can't be supported by reliable secondary sources. And therefore we've gutted this article of negative and positive information alike, because much of it rested heavily on self-published or otherwise unreliable sources. Simple uncontroversial facts can be left standing, but per WP:SPS and WP:BLPREMOVE we really can't salvage much else. Elizium23 (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you edit all these pages? Who do you work for? You're not doing any research yourself, you just come onto pages to delete huge amounts of info, and you've been doing this for years. I've seen this Elizium23 name pop up on the FSSP page, you watch that thing like a hawk, deleting anything you don't like. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also important to consider WP:BLPCRIME here. Catholic priests could be considered "public figures", but the clerics mentioned here have a small following and are not notable enough for their own articles, so it would be unwise for us to repeat criminal allegations unless they are well-documented and robustly substantiated. Elizium23 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "it would be unwise for us to repeat criminal allegations" this group has been written about in numerous academic books and has achieved international fame, with 10,000+ followers. The article as it stands is so pointless, it may as well be deleted. My only guess is that you intentionally gut these articles down to nothing on purpose. All of these articles (FSSP, CMRI, Schuckardt) are so pointless and arbitrary that they should be deleted. This has been happening for over 10 years, with contributors having everything deleted. I've looked through the talk pages & previous edits on these pages, and I see lots of relevant information has been removed over the years. Thankfully, all these edits are visible, and I've downloaded the previous pages & chats going back to 2005, so I have a lot of good information to start another website. People will eventually see how worthless this wiki page is, and will ignore it. Your efforts to just chop pages to nothing are a waste of time. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Supplied jurisdiction and epikea
The WP:SPS were not adequate to document the canonical concepts which CMRI relies upon except to show that this is what they claim. I've copied cites from sedevacantism without being able to review them. Better still, sources might be derived from Ecclesia supplet, if you understand German. Elizium23 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed your additions, as those sedevacantist blogs are not reliable sources. Veverve (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Without any secondary source whatsoever, the section has been removed per WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this would violate ABOUTSELF and be UNDUE. The source used was an article from the organisation about itself describing its legal philosophy. Veverve (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the section described the congregation's legal relationship to the Catholic Church. Since the CMRI acknowledges that the Catholic sacramental theology applies to them, they're defining this relationship in terms of how they see themselves, and these claims are unduly self-serving, exceptional, and contentious. The claims are self-serving by nature because without making these claims, they lose all perceived legitimacy. Therefore they have a vested interest in making such claims and we need to be able to counterbalance that with how they are considered from the outside, whether it be a secular perspective or a legal, ecclesial consensus view. Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was curious about Bishop Welsh's statements from the Diocese of Spokane, because the liberal quotes in our articles said a whole lot of nothing. Reading between the lines of his statement indicates that Welsh considers the CMRI's Holy Orders and sacraments to be valid. That is to say, he does not consider them invalid, or he would've explicitly said so. He's repeated the phrase "not legitimate" 4 times, so a canonist would say that Welsh identified the CMRI's sacramental status as valid, but illicit. But again, since it is a WP:SPS making self-serving claims about a third party, it is inadmissable for any purpose here on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Veverve and Elizium23 are Trolling Catholic Pages
These two authors are trolling various Catholic pages and deleting everything. I don't know if they are paid, are part of the Catholic groups themselves, or are part of some government operation, but they clearly have no interest in expanding knowledge, but simply go onto pages, chop out huge amounts, and post absolutely trivial information. I've seen this across numerous pages, not just what I've worked on. Wikipedia is a lost cause, so I won't be making any other edits. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"St. Joseph's Catholic Church (Wayne, MI)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect St. Joseph& and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"TLRCC" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TLRCC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Latin Rite Catholic Church (splinter group) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Reliability of the website "Traditional Mass"
My use of an article from the website "Traditional Mass" was rejected as "absolutely unreliable". While the website may be unreliable, the article in question is simply reporting a pamphlet written in 1993 by well-known sedevacantist priest Anthony Cekada, who is an authority on the issue. I ask wether I can use the article as a source, therefore.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Cekada is not an authority on the history of sedevacantism. Sources like pamphlets are not acceptable either, and even less when they also have the flaw of being an WP:SPS blog post. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * very well, I'll keep looking for a more authoritative source.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the very same material from an unreliable person, published by a non-reliable publisher (the person's own church) does not make the source more reliable at all. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have myself delved into those kind of research of data. All I can advise is: do not try to search too much, because time is previous and you will find almost nothing that qualifies as an RS on those obscure religious movements and people. Yes, those people love to quarrel among themselves, even if they are a tiny number; they do produce quite a lot of words, but none which are reliably published. Veverve (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)