I'm new here. I'm in my 70's and lived through the eras with a smidgen of "Angela's Ashes" and a dash of "Bells of St. Mary", but mostly the latter. Christmases for me are the Holy scenes Christmas cards(can't get them in boxes with various scenes), the midnight masses,Holy Water, angels on top of real trees, and the nativity scenes under the tree with the accompanying lessons about it to the new additions to the family. I admit I tried my best to brain wash my now adult kids into a real meaning of Christmas. And it worked, they want Christmas at Granny's every year, and I dress up as Santa.
 
I often see forum rules that make the ultramontane statement that they always support the Pope. You know quite honestly, I was a bit naive concerning this statement. I go to FSSP masses as a priority, the love of my life actually, but they are not in my area, so I go to the NO mostly. So I thought, "sure, that's a good attitude for a forum, ....great stuff".
 
I've become distrustful now. To say I was naive, probably. It took me I'd say 10 years to realize that something was wrong. Words in context of Church such has liberal,conservative would not even interest me or was I interested in it. Then on occasion in my SFO fraternity I would find myself gently correcting someone on a point of dogma(as trads used to do in the 50's. Children would also remind another child something was a sin), only to receive a strange look in response. I was puzzled but thought nothing of it. Occasional comments as to the goings on of the "Trads" was not interesting , so I attributed it to something the speaker took personally, so I ignored it. It wasn't my business. It became as now an atmosphere not unlike a nervous dinner at a Gestapo party, every clergy member measuring the Trad's words, and others waiting for a simple social slip, the spirit no longer seen for what it once was and what Francis desires.  
 
When I went to one forum, I noticed changes. Traditionals and everything about them were now categorized with something called "Sedevantists", and "Schismatics". What a cruel placement that is for a Catholic forum, and itself makes the statement that wants us all to receive. The Sedevantists I was determined to read up on, but schismatics I recognized. By then I knew by the description of the posters, I was a Traditional. This forum I said goodbye to. 
 
In another forum, Traditionals had their own category, not for convenience of the trads it turned out, but for having them all clustered in the "getto" of Catholic ostrization. In that forum I would find a post from people like me, and perhaps a deacon and a priest were frequent visitors. These were the behaviour police, and in a typical case a poster debating with a priest asked asked him to backup his position by citation using dogma, but the priest would come back with no answer except for a veiled reference to the forum mods, in other words that mods should be alerted. It was obvious, the old trustly baton of last resort the threat could be used to replace every resort. I thought to myself there must have been some swearing or disrespect,etc. No, I then did some forensic analysis of the thread, 3 trad people were dismissed on points only, and no NO people who were on that ban list, but were very flaming to the group. In these cases, not a word of protest from the priests. The answers from the deacon were veiled to mods as well. From now on my posts were less relaxed and specific and I realize the "coffee group" type of atmosphere is now gone.
 
Judging by 3 forums, I think we are very coyly being given gag orders, since they know principles cannot win debates, they slam down Trad people with their "batons". (interestingly, Bishop Baron commends the writings of Psychologists, Rene Girard, in his book  Mimetic Desire, where he describes this very phenomenon of social desire to pick on one person as a scapegoat. It involves honor among men. He went on to explain this was done to St. Peter as well.)   
 
But in closing, I know that since my principles are deemed wrong in the Church today, that it is a critique also on my dear mother who worked herself to the grave to ensure that we children received the right principles. Also the teachers who worked tirelessly for that cause. It goes further back to my ancestors who did the same, and the majority of Saints back to antiquity. The priests and bishops of my era were very protective against influences of outside religions. The magisterium of today has it all wrong. I'll tell you I remember in 58 that on the B&W our Bishop was a guest speaker at a supper in his honor, and the civil government put out the red carpet for him. The civil government took much advice from the Church then. It was well respected. Converts were coming in in droves, and common saturday night Radio Evangelization would catch the ears of thousands. The protestant religions at a common discussion table would all silence to hear what the Bishop had to say.
 
The picture that is painted of traditionals today is scandalous. But I echo the words of Abp. LeFebvre, that I cannot change for the sake of secular desires. Even if I wanted to, I would be betraying all the generations that ensured the Vatican of the pre-VII were given an unblemished and unaltered dogma. And so we know why he could not either.

I think St. Thomas More's response when he refused to swear Henry VIII's Oath of Supremacy is just as relevant today as it was back then. He said that they had a new law, backed by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, but that that was as nothing against fifteen hundred years of dogma and tradition in the Church.

The only difference is that now we have nearly two thousand years of dogma and tradition to weigh against the new-fangled rules and laws.