That's a good example. I suppose any Catholic may assert anything he wishes and be wrong. I read Deus Carites Est and thought it an excellent expression, but without testing for upholding Tradition. An ecclesial document of obfuscation and fog seems, if not quite Tradition, at least traditional.
I don't know Mr. Droleskey's argument, or even that he accepts the authority of the Pope. He may be right in one area and wrong in another. He may be totally off his rocker, but he has reason for alarm.
I had to go back to your previous post where you wondered "if only it were possible to learn what the position of the traditionalists actually is." For that you have to compare the New Mass with the Latin Mass, and the physical changes to Catholic churches in the last forty years. I know people who love the New Mass, and may even think it a great improvement; Saturday service so it doesn't interfere with Sunday fun, guitars and drums, laughter and applause, tabernacles relocated out of the way, no need to kneel, sins forgiven automaticly. Hey, what's not to like? (unless you're some weirdo dinosaur trad)
Did you know, the entire Mass is prayer? The idea is not "go to church" but pray the Holy Mass. One may receive the sacrament of Holy Communion at the New Mass, but with loss of reverence to God (in my opinon) and greater glory to Man (also my opinion). Hooray for the people who find spiritual fulfillment there, and many do. I feel very fortunate in my circumstance after reading many FReeper's posts about the goings-on, and shopping for a parish in their onw cities. Traditionalists may have seen the New Mass as a great hope, but now think it an experiment turned sour, or perhaps an evil intention with a measure of success.
I think it is quite possible to disagree with many of the changes that were made to the Mass in the years following the Council without concluding that the Missal of Paul VI is evil or illegitimate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the conclusion that the more radical traditionalists have come to. Moreover, they fail to distinguish between the authorized changes that have been made to the Mass and the many unauthorized experiments and innovations that all too many priests and liturgists have made. These latter cannot be blamed in any way upon the missal itself or upon the Second Vatican Council. Catholics need to have a reasoned discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the current Roman Rite but a knee-jerk rejection of the so-called New Mass--it's not a new Mass, it's the Roman Rite--contributes nothing to this discussion. Finally, while the older form of the rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass, had its strengths, it also had its weaknesses. The fact is that it is possible for a priest to say either form of the Roman Rite badly. Having grown up in the era of the Council and its aftermath, I have attended my share of English Masses in which the assembly was the focus of the liturgy, which was certainly a penance. But I have also had the misfortune of having attended several indult Tridentine Masses, which were said in such a way as to deny the people in attendance any opportunity to participate in them, except to receive Commiunion. These were not good either. Let's stop blaming the rite and start focusing on the abuses of the rite and on the ways to correct whatever inherent weaknesses it may have.