Those who disparage “tradition” do not realize that they themselves are steeped within an anti-tradition tradition. So they assume that everyone who uses it for order to facilitate spirituality is an idolater, or at least, they act as if they believe that proposition.
And the same is true of views on physical beauty and liturgy and sacraments and Lent. The world was not created to be sterile to the senses, and people who cannot take some spice have perhaps just been raised in insipid environments. The Lord, however, makes us the vessels of His glory in every way, so there is no spiritual glory that is not incarnated in some form: the spiritual realities unseen practically demand to be made visible in declaration – by symbols and signs – as well as in consequence – by works of obedience.
As for the accusation that old forms are less seriously spiritual and also overly “religious” (read: Pharisaic) in tone, it is no more glorifying to God to worship in houses of blank walls and slick-looking PowerPoints than to worship in houses of traceried windows and liturgies written out in books: both are equally in danger of the “vaine pompe and glorye of the world”.
Keeping some old forms rather than changing all that can be changed, being slow and deliberate to change and not utilitarian, is about unity with the brethren who are now with the Lord: it is about refusing to ingest the “progressive” lie that we are more enlightened than our forebears.