CathInfo.com

I realize I'm preaching to the choir here but one thing I've noticed is that the whole trad question hinges a lot on a certain common-sense, Old World, Catholic view of the world and authority vs. a modern positivist legalist one.

I know this is not particularly novel, it's one oft-discussed pillar of Traditionalism, but I've found that when I've used this framing, most people let their guard down and instinctively grasp what a big part of Traditionalism is about.

For Europeans it's more intuitive because most Europeans have some link to a village, even if they've lived in the city their whole life, and almost every village has something comparable to the Caretos de Podence or the St. John's Eve fires, that is, an extremely old tradition that's been passed down for centuries and centuries. Now if they were told the mayor of that village had banned it and substituted it for some made-up thing they'd be indignant and say "who does he think he is?" and still do it nonetheless, either risking the fine or doing it in another place. Another good example is "What would you think if the French President turned Chartres (or any other ancient cathedral) into a shopping mall?"

For Americans it'd be the same as if the government said "From now on 4th of July is now on the 7th of August and it's no longer going to be fireworks and guns, it's going to be white and red plastic balls and bubbles". Or if the Lincoln Memorial or Arlington Cemetery was turned into a Costco.

Another example I've used which lands quite well is: "imagine if the government said "from now on every copy of [your favorite book or movie] must be the New Updated Edition" and this edition had scenes removed, new scenes filmed by a government commitee, plot points and conversations changed, etc. Would you think "Yep, that's the movie I know and love!"

The modern view is "Well they're the government, aren't they? They can do these things if they go through the right legal channels" and that's precisely what most people you see say regarding Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

It's also worth noting that despite being saintly and great men, Pius X and Pius XII succuмbed to this exact thing and set a very dangerous precedent, one changing the entire breviary psalm schema, which was in use by the western church for more than a millennium for a manufactured one, the other changing the Holy Week rites.

It's precisely this overstepping that should make every Catholic with common sense say "Whoa whoa, I know you're the Pope and all but this is wayy out of line, this is like if you said "I don't think the Gloria in excelsis is needed nowadays, don't recite it anymore"". The problem is that even in that hypothetical so many people would line up to defend it in the name of "obedience".

The real problem is that EVEN if the Novus Ordo was, let's say, a collage of the Gallican, Mozarabic and Byzantine rites, so that every prayer and movement was traditional and orthodox, it would still be pretty unacceptable, because the Pope is the Pope, not the God-Emperor of the Universe, he has no more power to do that than to ban Catholics from wearing green. And even if he really has the power, I know that's a matter of debate, it's certainly a command worth resisting.

There's of course way more to the crisis, but I just wanted to share a frame I've found useful when talking to people who aren't trads, they at least become more sympathetic to Traditionalism, which is a good first step.

Thoughts?