Catholic Sensibility

It's always good to know what the neighbors are up to. From the web site of the Latin Mass Society: THE TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT: What is it about? PRESERVATION of the ancient Roman rite of Mass in the form in which it has been celebrated for centuries throughout the world. RESPECT for the Church's sacred traditions as a vital link with the traditional Faith regarding the nature of the Mass, and as a secure anchor and guarantee that we do not drift away from that Faith. NO COMPROMISE with the spirit of the world or adaptation of the Mass to the lifestyle of our desacralised age. RESTORATION of a sacred atmosphere where God comes first and in which we give Him the worship that is due to Him. APPRECIATION of the Church's treasury of sacred music especially Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony. PROMOTION of the use of Latin, the Church's own language, in her worship, teaching and administration. PROTECTION of our altars from destruction and our sanctuaries from being re-ordered, none of which was authorised by the Second Vatican Council. One must point out that the liturgy of the Church (not "my" liturgy, not "their" liturgy) was in bad shape before the second Vatican Council. Chant was not sung in parishes. Liturgy lacked the potential it does today for formation and evangelization. The world's bishops voted 2,000-some to 2 to revise the Mass. Why don't traditionalists just accept that the 1962 Rite has an outdated Lectionary, tacked-on externals, and an exaggerated sense of the performance of the clergy? Peripherals do not contribute to the sense of mystery and reverence they yearn for, rather they obstruct the core intent and meaning of the Mass. I like the "no compromise" line. That tells you right off the bat where you stand. All too often such words give a convenient excuse to demonize people who just do things differently. They certainly suggest that the speaker is absolutely, infallibly correct, and every other Catholic celebrating by the Roman Missal in the vernacular is just a profane heretic slob. "Sacred" polyphony was once criticized and repressed as modernist innovation. I enjoy singing and listening to polyphony as much as any other music enthusiast, but applying the adjective "sacred" to such a modern development (ca 1500) seems downright heterodox to me. Whatever happened to "Chant or bust!"? I wonder how one says "Clergy sex predator" or "Bungling bishop" in Latin. It is true that architectural renovations were not authorized explicitly by Vatican II. The Council placed the responsibility for liturgical reform locally in the hands of each bishop. Bishops authorized the renovation of churches so that the reformed rites would have an appropriate home. I appreciate the prayerfulness of good liturgy. My readers know I do. I have no problem with a Latin language Mass -- celebrated according to the revised Roman Missal in accord with the documents of Vatican II. At such Masses, traditionalist-leaning Catholics can support classical church music with all the smells and bells ritual they can muster. More power to 'em. However, I question the continued use of the 1962 Rite under a Catholic umbrella, a use indistinguishable from the worship of schismatics who have rejected their Church's council, pope, and local bishop. Someone wants to pray by the 1962 or 1570 Rite whenever or wherever they want without the oppression of the local bishop or the chancery liturgy office? No problem, really, except when they want to consider themselves Roman Catholics and do so. There is no question that Catholic liturgy has a long way to go to achieve the ideals of Vatican II and the Liturgical Movement. But the answer is not to balkanize the Church and succumb to the modern secular notion of "a choice for everyone." I look forward to the day when a true sense of catholicity imbues the Church, and various Catholics can look with accomplishment at their own parish's worship without resorting to sniping at those who worship in a different, or even a less adequate way.