Taken from my comment on the Sarx blog:
…I think what most determines “tradition” is what we bring to the table. I think the greatest revelation about the SSPX is that they are fetishizing some very “traditional” things in very idealistic, totalitarian ways. The same goes with the Orthodox when they approach modernity, as well as with more conservative Catholics. In the end, the picture that is created is a totalizing one that leaves aside and cuts out much of the story, if you will. Certain things don’t “fit” in their vision and are simply ignored, or worse, persecuted.
I would thus say that “tradition” is something that is not ideal; it is something that simply works. It is not determined by ideology precisely because it is not ideal; it is religion with all of the blemishes, it is Faith as it has to be. I would like to say that the attack on tradition started with the Protestant Reformation, but Catholicism since then has also treated this tendency as an enemy within; the old villain of lay “superstition”.
In the end, the first principle that I start with is that the most certain starting point is tradition as it has been passed down to you immediately by those who preceded you. It is a foolish errand to try to figure out how the “first Christians” thought or acted; for all we know, they could have been a bunch of fornicating magicians who used the name of Jesus to put curses on people (there is some evidence that this was the case in some places). You can’t determine belief by archeology. In the end, you have to go with what has been put into your own hot little hands, tempered a bit by reason. I emphasize, however, “a bit”.
