CathInfo.com

Well, I did not make up the term.  However, it is a professional, accurate, and useful term.  It makes discussion of the matter more efficient, so long as the terms are accurate.  And, in this case it is.  Look it up on google.  You will see that I am not the only one who uses it.  I see no negative to its use.  I will continue to use it.

I know that you didn't make up the term. It is a useful term for sedewhatevers who obsess on a certain sedewhatever POV. I realize that.

Feel free to keep using it. I'll keep pointing it out that you do not use it accurately, because you use it to describe trads who themselves do not profess to be sedeplenists. It's dishonest to use this term for traditional Catholics who do not describe themselves as such.

    PG : "don't let your hatred of me for exposing louis de montfort as the fraud that he is blind you to reality.  Facts are       facts."    Meg:  "I'm not a fan of De Montfort anyway, because he over-analyzes everything - especially Marian devotion."

I can't understand how it is possible for St. Louis de Montfort to be called a fraud.  May I share a link to defend St. Louis de Montfort, please:   http://files.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_05/137438/Squabbles.pdf
His writings, "Love of Eternal Wisdom" and "Letter to the Friends of the Cross", are very helpful spiritual guides.  And yes, the "True Devotion to Mary" may be too long to read for the first time and may not be as quick to read like espionage novels, and it takes 2 or more readings before the full meaning becomes clear and for the devotion to grow, but after years of reflection, it can only be described as 'comprehensive', not 'over-analyzed'.

I have thoroughly read all of de montforts works.  And, I object to true devotion and the secret of mary.  Similar to how I cannot explain the phenomenon of some modern musicians playing some of he most hideous diabolical music classified as classical alongside some of the loveliest classical music at performances, I cannot explain de montfort producing such problematic works(true devotion) alongside works(his poems and letters) that appeared to me to not be problematic at all.  However, I am not at all about to praise any of his works.  
As for my music example, can you explain why narcisio yepes(one of the best classical guitarists of his time) would play such hidious music from minute 50:00 to minute 1:12:00 in the video I link below, when the rest of his performance consists of some of the loveliest classical music compositions flawlessly performed?  These contradictions are sad.  But, they exist.  And, that is the case with de montfort.  He wrote some beautiful things, but he also wrote some diabolical things.  And, like vatican 2, we have to reject both.  De montfort is a contradiction.  However, unlike Christ, who taught no evil, de montfort does teach evil.  Because, the devil always has a tail.