Well, that *argument* can be a strength. But its persuasiveness will depend mightily on what else it's married to. Also, how often would traditionalists actually deploy that argument ahead of other ones? It seems more aimed intramurally.

If the traditionalists could even begin to get along with each other, they might - might - be suited to true ecumenism. Their appeals to, and defense of "tradition," rarely reach back beyond Trent, which was seemingly a defining moment for them. The Orthodox, tend to view Trent as a Latin council called to address western Protestantism, which had no bearing on Orthodoxy. If you are looking for common ground to discuss "tradition" with the Orthodox, you will have to start from the 11th century and go backward.

When we say that Peter overrules little traditions we are not accepting it for the sake of argument. We are affirming it as a tragic fact

To paraphrase Gerald Ford, a church with hierarchs powerful enough to give you everything you want, is a church powerful enough to take away everything you have. No wonder the Orthodox want to keep their distance.

While we are at it: just *what is* a traditionalist?
1. One whose paradigm is an historic liturgy, uninformed by secularly inspired music and with all due worshipful and historic ceremony?
2. One whose paradigm exhibits a strong preference for Latin?
3. One whose paradigm exhibits a strong preference for English informed generously by historic ceremonial and an utter absence of so much as one syllable of commentary or non-ritual verbiage?
4. One who insists on fiddle back vesture?
5. One who insists that fiddle back vesture is tastless, artless, and stuck in the Baroque, and prefers the far more traditional Gothic vesture?
6. One for whom the canon of sacred music is defined by a line from Gregorian-Carolingian chant, to Machaut, to Josquin, to Byrd and Palestrinna, Tallis and Victioria, et al., plus Bruckner, Stravinsky, Howells, Vaugh Williams, Whitacre, and those currently writing real sacred music for the English cathedral choir schools?
7. One for whom (by contrast) the only sacred liturgical music is 'Gregorian chant'?
8. One who thinks that 'cottas' are historic choir habit for acolytes and love to parade them around their sanctuaries? (These types also think that a real surplice is anywhere from waist to mid-thigh in length, rather that the proper near-ankle length.)
9. One, by contrast, who knows that the ancient vesture for acolytes and servers is the apparalled amice and alb.
10. One who genuflects or makes a profound bow at the 'incarnatus' in the creed, in opposition to those who don't go in for all this unAmerican bowing and scraping.

11, I'm sure that there are some identifiers that I have omitted... others may add some.

Another one:
12. One who thinks that lace (preferably of the 'fish net' variety) is hallowed by the ages and is as traditional as it's possible to get?
13. One who is really traditional and knows that lace is a latter-day innovation, essentially (substantially!) effeminate, and is as tasteless as it's possible to be?

(In the above, no attempt has been made to draw distinctions between points which may be representative of tradition or of Tradition, distinctions so beautifully illuminated by Yves Congar. Applying his criteria might very well be useful and informative in the understanding of two words bandied about rather carelessly as banners, rather than as signifers of substance.)

When someone who likes the awful 'music' of the 70s et al., and refers to it as traditional, and to herself as a traditionalist, our language is in serious trouble, and our cultural parameters have been savaged rather deliberately. I would go so far as to suggest that someone who is not some kind of a scholar of history cannot and should not venture to label something traditional or of historic importance when it actually is representative of a time-bound fad that lasted for 2, or 5, or 10, or 20 years. To do this is to betray the absence of any historical sense and understanding, and to debase our language.

As an eastern Catholic, and perhaps a bit closer to the eastern thought process, I would be the first to say that things are not ideal in the east. However, when Latin traditionalists appeal to "tradition," they are appealing to a Renaissance model of the Church. By this time, the popes had become, for any practical purpose, secular kings. When the Orthodox appeal to tradition, they are referring to a time during the first millenium. At that time, there was more collegiality. The popes operated more by building consensus among the bishops and by using their considerable teaching authority. Then, the east looked toward Rome as a guardian of orthodox teaching. The popes were genuinely first among equals and were highly respected and followed. The Orthodox would accept the papacy as it existed in the first millenium. My two cents, but I think Pope Benedict does a great job of fitting that first millenium model. He teaches, listens, builds consensus, and doesn't behave like a Renaissance monarch.

6. One for whom the canon of sacred music is defined by a line from Gregorian-Carolingian chant, to Machaut, to Josquin, to Byrd and Palestrinna, Tallis and Victioria, et al., plus Bruckner, Stravinsky, Howells, Vaugh Williams, Whitacre, and those currently writing real sacred music for the English cathedral choir schools?

I find your inclusion of Whitacre in this list to be interesting. Don't get me wrong, I like his stuff, but if you've ever heard him talk about his influences, I'm not sure from a technical point of view I'd be quick to include it in a line of anything with regard to sacred music.

So far as "What is tradition": This was described earlier in a previous post as referring to the liturgical-cultural heritage, usually identified as "little traditions" which are explicitly not of the deposit of faith, rather the deposit of cultural heritage.

So tell me how the Roman Canon in the NO is not Roman? Have you been in the wine cellar with the more illustrious Charles? ;-) Granted, it is not said in corrupted, 4th-century street Latin anymore, but I suspect it is just as Roman as the Tridentine Canon which the priest mumbled unintelligibly.

Traditionalists, if they would learn why they're right, and realize the truth in a few propositions --- there is a legitimate diversity of historical-cultural liturgical heritage; simultaneously that the Novus Ordo ain't part of that because it ain't terribly Roman --- could be a rather potent force for ecumenism.

It appeared to me that the Novus Ordo isn't considered Roman. No caricature intended, but I believe the Roman Canon in the NO and the 1962 missal are both Roman, and the same. Granted, I view the Canon as the essential part of the mass - or at least, the part that makes it a valid mass. Of course, I can't do anything about someone adding something crazy to the mass in some place, at some time. But that wouldn't destroy or change the origin or heritage of the Roman Mass.

Yes, but...How can anyone maintain that the official rite of the Roman church is anything but Roman. It is by definition, fully Roman. Now it may differ from the rite in earlier missals - they were Roman, too - but those earlier rites are just that, earlier rites. I have never said that I am a great fan of the Novus Ordo, but it is definitely the approved, officially sanctioned, rite of the Roman church, and is therefore, Roman. I think the SSPX often strains at gnats, but that is my opinion. Some of the differences are not nearly so great as they would have you believe.

Look at it this way: Is an adopted son a blood relation?

CharlesW is certainly correct!
The Novus Ordo, being THE official (and ordinary) rite of the Church of Rome, is by definition the Roman Rite. It's just that we are now in the position of having TWO Roman rites in concurrent use: the Ordinary Form (NO) and the Extraordinary Form (Trent). Those who would maintain, though, that they are quite distinct and different rites have a lot of evidence on their side. The two 'forms' of the Roman rite are certainly kindred in that they follow the basic shape of all 'western rites', but they are quite different in important liturgical and ritual details... not to mention theological emphases. (Perhaps they should properly be referred to as 'uses' rather than rites???)

Also a point: The Novus Ordo ought to be a blood relation (SC 23, &c.), and folks bizarrely say it is, but it pretty much isn't. The Tridentine was closer to the pre-Tridentine than the Novus Ordo is to the Tridentine, by a long shot; and, as to paraphrase Dobszay, the Novus Ordo is about as close to the Tridentine as it is to the Byzantine.

If you're fine with the ordinary form while admitting that it is no relation, well, I guess you can be. But then you are necessarily giving up ground you ought to defend with your life. In giving up that ground you lose the best common ground with the Orthodox which exists, for it is where the Orthodox are belligerently right. If you're fine with there being two basically unrelated rituals, then call them two basically unrelated rituals. But if you are perfectly comfortable that the ordinary ritual is basically unrelated to the old one in the ways we can discern ritual, then again you lose the common ground with the Orthodox. Therefore, for someone to faithfully defend the Novus Ordo as it exists basically only in the liturgical books, it must be shown, against the evidence to the contrary, that its pedigree is solid despite the bungling of Bugnini. However, all this is a separate topic than the one at hand. Keep in mind that this is the thesis:

Traditionalists, by their care and caution over the pedigree of the liturgy, and their fierce devotion to the ancient Roman use which exists most widely, could EASILY fare better than an apologist for the Novus Ordo who has no care or caution over the pedigree of the liturgy, or the authenticity of cultural heritage, and who has no particular devotion to one ritual or another.

Over this particular point, is there any dispute?

Whether or not one likes the Novus Ordo, it is what it is. No one on this forum has the authority to revise or replace it. My only option with it, has been to make it as good a liturgy in actual practice, as I can.

Over this particular point, is there any dispute?

Traditionalists can be strange animals. Yes, some do a great job of maintaining tradition and heritage, and spend lifetimes promoting them. Others can, at times, be like my crazy old aunt with OCD, who examined dust particles on tables to see if items had been moved a fraction of an inch. The obsession with externals not key to anyone's faith can be a real distraction and annoyance to others. So as to whether that point is open to dispute, it depends. I have met traditionalists who are good, devout Catholics who believe and live their faiths. I have also met some who parade externals to demonstrate their holiness and superiority to the Novus Ordo lower class who can't obviously be anything but deluded. That is pride and is always wrong. So again, it depends.

INSOFAR as your observations about traditionalists have validity, EAF, the same may be said of non-traditionalists of many stripes from pop mass advocates to 'charismatics' to near-heretics. So, this does not ipso facto affirm or not affirm traditionalists' validity as representative of the Catholic faith. Some of them (it would seem) would be more at home in the Lefevreist camp whilst others would make very decent high church Anglicans. And the non-traditionalists? Some of them (it would seem) would be more at home in some evangelical or pentecostal church, while others would make very decent Methodists who did, though, happen to believe in the Real Presence. Fancy that all these folks are Roman Catholic and dwell under the tent of the Bishop of Rome. In that context, traditionalists are no more strange or weird than anyone else... except that it seems to me that, in a Catholic or orthodox perspective, it is the non-traditionalists who are the weird ones. (And, one might note in fairness that for every traditionalist who skirts awfully close to the worship of externals there is a non traditionalist who skirts awfully close to the worship of their absence... both are (well, may be) pharisaical, two sides of the same coin and may be, as you say, 'deluded' and possessed of spiritual pride.)

... others would make very decent Methodists who did, though, happen to believe in the Real Presence.

Someone once said to me something like this: "Methodists? They are just Catholics who haven't found their way home yet." A few years later, I found my way home.

As a person who knows that they I will live and die as a traditionalist latin rite Orthodox catholic christian, I attest that this is a fine article.

When I decided to come into communion with the Moscow patriarchate (via ROCOR) the only real person to give me pause and persuade me to potentially reconsider was a another well known traditionalist who remains in communion with Rome (though a bit of a strained relationship).

He sent me a small pamphlet sized magazine titled from "From The House tops: A publication of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary)"

The issue covers the "The Patrons of True Ecumenism" "Brother Francis relates the lives of two martyrs for Church unity in the East: Latin Rite St. Andrew Bobola, the Jesuit, and Ruthenian Rite St. Josaphat Kuncewicz, the Basilian Monk. Both died as victims of the Russian schismatics: one in 1623, the other, in 1657."

It contains numerous other articles of similar nature, including detailed stories of certain slavic kings (Galitzin family) who switch between catholicism and orthodoxy circa 1300 (with the subsequent king reversing the decision yet again!)

So the summary is that yes, Traditional catholics have the integrity to preserve the church the most and the willingness to sacrifice and suffer for that cause.

Like Orthodox christians, traditional Roman Catholics are in their own way, as was stated to me by one, protesting the overreach of Papal power that has for the last 45 years in practice been responsible for denying them the traditional theological teaching and authentic expression of the Holy sacrifice of the Mass.

They don't go quite as far as the Orthodox Church and myself would, but they are a serious step in the right direction, and for many people, just enough for them to be content.

Another way to put is this, within the Orthodox Church, the traditional roman catholics (and eastern catholics obviously) are the ones taken the most seriously today. They are the ones that are viewed as the type of people that see things like mindedly.

Sometimes attachment to the late medieval and counter-reformation period does get in the way, but most traditonal catholics have the greatest serious focus of any other catholic on early church fathers and original ecumenical councils. I should know I was one.