Those who devote themselves to the defense of traditional things (liturgy, catechism, resistance to deleterious doctrines) often hesitate to say that we are currently faced with an atypical ecclesial situation. Especially when it comes to the liturgy. Even if they assert that it is not for reasons of sensitivity but of faith that they attend the old liturgy, they feel they can effectively defend their position against the proponents of the new liturgy as a legitimate free choice. It is true that arguments of this kind can work quite well with Catholic opinion in general, for whom liberalism has become an unsurpassable horizon; but the fact that it is permissible to take tactical advantage of this state of mind does not mean it is justifiable.
Paradoxically, they even sometimes twist traditional doctrine to defend it. One example is the extreme reduction of the doctrine of obedience to ecclesiastical authorities and their teachings. Since, in many respects, submission to the authorities is untenable in conscience today, they practically come to affirm that free examination was the common doctrine of the Church, with each person deciding what is Catholic in the name of the “tradition” of which each is ultimately the custodian. Or they proceed to disembowel the doctrine of Roman infallibility by asserting that the First See has frequently issued heterodox doctrines. In other words, the abnormality of what is happening now is transferred to the Church of old.[1] And the anti-modernists become modernists.
We will deal here only with arguments in defense of the traditional Mass. In particular, we would like to consider two that are often used to justify the free option in favor of the traditional missal:
(1) The invocation of the bull Quo primum of 1570, insofar as it states that the missal it promulgates may be used “in perpetuity”. And
(2) the fact that the Church has always recognized the legitimacy of a diversity of rites.