CathInfo.com

Ah, yes, you are too complicated and unique to be placed in a category... we should make up a new word JUST FOR YOU because you are THAT SPECIAL.

Get over yourself, man!  You're not "above it all", however much you claim to be.

You deny man's rational nature, which is able to abstract, categorize, and know the essence of things. Why do you have a problem with categories or "hat racks" to categorize various nouns? (people, things, ideas, movements)? It's basic rational human nature you have a problem with. It's one of the things that separates us from the animals.

If there's one type of "anti-Novus Ordo" type that annoys me more than any other, it's those who seem to be sympathetic to the movement, but they want to be aloof from it. Those who say, "I'm just Catholic" as if all those who accept the label "Traditional Catholic" are some kind of low-end, Rent-a-Center patronizing, lotto ticket buying, pawn shop using, cheap beer guzzling, sports team rooting, low-credit-score having, lots of TV watching, fake fingernail wearing, tattooed, nose-pierced, Wal-Mart cashiers.

In one statement or wave of the hand, they write off ALL the Traditional Movement, from the sedevacantists to Archbishop Lefebvre to Fr. Bolduc and the whole lot of them. They consider themselves smarter than ALL of them. And even if they deny it, it's still just as true. You can't reject the whole Trad movement and somehow still believe that any of them were superior to you. That would be empty talk.

We don't accept the label "Traditional Catholic" because we're partisan, have a team or gang mentality, love division, or any of that BS. It's because it's a label that does a job: it reflects a reality: we all hold a certain position on the Crisis. Like any element of LANGUAGE used by rational creatures, language serves as a shorthand abstraction to convey a certain reality.

Why don't you go further and call yourself "Christian" instead of Catholic! Come on, don't give any ground to those Protestants. Take back the name! Let's pretend the Prots didn't take over much of the Western world.

Oh, but if you call yourself Christian, people will assume you're protestant, won't they? And if you call yourself "Catholic", they're going to assume you're mainstream (novus ordo) Catholic. That's the REALITY, like it or not. You can kick against the goad, but reality is reality.

That's why the new 3rd, 4th, and 5th gender pronouns aren't taking off -- at all. Those "new genders" are only manifestations of mental illness existing solely in the brains of a handful of mental patients. They aren't real, so we don't need any new words to reflect a new reality.

Well,that's quite an opinion.  I hardly know what to say except I never claimed to be any kind of special of even "too complicated" for classification. What I actually did say was that I did not fit into these arbitrary categories which are in fashion now, and then I went on to point out how some folks are intolerant of any one who is not able to be put on the shelf of those who are either in agreement with certain opinions or those who dissent from that point of view. This exchange is an illustration of that.
Being a Christian is certainly not exclusive of being a Catholic in fact they are the identical in their substance.  
As for labels doing their job, well, in their current usage, they do more than their job. They classify, separate out, and carry with them a lot of baggage and implications, and they are used to create realities rather than to reflect realities.
The modern use of language is so tortured and distorted as to be almost unusable as a means of communication between men. Men no longer agree upon the objective meaning of words or often speak of the same thing but have two completely opposed understanding of what is said.
And when I said that Fr. Pfeiffer went from an asset to a liability, I meant that the context and real situation around him changed and that is where he became an inconvenience.
I said nothing about him becoming a disobedient or rebellious inferior, those are the words of others, attached to my statement which was limited to to only the words that I said.
In the beginning Father's Pfeiffer and Chazal were an asset, in fact they were the first form of an official resistance. Bishop Williamson had not yet come on board with their efforts. What happened after that, I will not address as that is beyond the scope of this reply.
Pfeiffer's disagreements and criticism of the Bishop did not happen in this time period but at a later date when relations soured and became hopeless.
It believe that your criticism to be unjustified and an over reaction to my comment to 2Vermont.