I
did answer your question. I told you I had been a traditional Catholic, and I described traditional Catholics as Catholics who reject the reforms of Vatican II. That's what I believed: that the council represented a rupture with tradition.
I can see your sleight of hand with the numbers. True, as you point out, the worldwide Catholic population is estimated at 1.2 billion, but the Vatican is concerned not just with people, but with money. Catholics from the developing world may be numerous and devout, but they are not collectively rich and cannot sustain the Church's coffers. And many of the 1.2 billion, especially in Europe and North America, identify as Catholic but are essentially only cultural or nominal Catholics. They're not committed, either in attendance or with their wallets. Pope Francis is rightly concerned about the growth of traditional Catholicism, because it appeals to a small but crucial portion of the faithful the Church needs.
You're right that traditionalist groups have been around for decades, but if you've written books on Vatican II and attended events of the SSPX, then you must know that interest in the Latin Mass surged after Pope Benedict's universal indult in 2007. His intent was ecumenical: to bring the SSPX and other quasi-schismatic groups back into the fold. But the plan backfired, and more Catholics in the wealthy West started to take an interest in the "Extraordinary Form" and began grumbling about modernist Rome. The pandemic only made things worse. When diocesan parishes closed in obedience to the lockdowns, many Latin Mass parishes refused to offer their grain of incense, and stayed open. Francis is trying to put the lid back on Pandora's box.
Not much. You're the one who's pressing for details of my personal piety. I've told you (and I guess you already know) that traditional Catholicism is gaining momentum, and that its views on a woman's place are closer to the teachings of Trent than those of the 1970s. Should we get back on topic?
but I trust you got the rest right.
