Catholic Sensibility

Yet more clarifications on the 1962 Rite John correctly notes he personally has never questioned my use (or others' use) of the 1970 Rite. I considered my use of examples (St Joan's, a streetcorner evangelical church) and I would expand that to most any parish that worshipped in ways I would not approve of: parishes that persistently gave Communion from the tabernacle, parishes with poor music or weak homilies, parishes without a sense of social justice. In other words, places at which if I were hired to serve (by some wild stretch of the imagination), I would be urging them to substantial change. John also notes the 1962 books are the only ones available to Tridentine worshippers. I'm sympathetic to this situation. I'm not sure I grasp the reason for it, though I'm sure that the CDWS of 1984/1988 had some explanation. It seems to me to freeze these parishes into a moment before the Council, unable to access the riches of what are acknowledged to be positive reforms. It has the malodorous whiff of authority for authority's sake lacking a degree (or lions' share) of good sense. The simplest solution would be to just hand Tridentine liturgists SC 21, 23, etc. and say, "You think we screwed up? Fine. Show us how *you* would remain faithful to the Council." Or perhaps the 1988 Indult was not only for loyal Catholics, but also to hide a schism under the rug, rather than deal directly with the issues. I would reject the notion that only traditionalists feel the sting of unjust authoritarianism, but I'd rather not get into a p***ing match over whose heroes have been battered by more arrows. Andrew's comment that I could say across the board, "You can do better" is spot on. My own parish is first on the list. I think I would reject Mr Brandt's notion of the Tridentine Rite being equal to the Byzantine, the Mozarabic, the Ambrosian, etc.. It is a rite of the Roman Church, not of an ethnic group. As a separate entity from the Roman Rite, it has a history of less than a half century. That it is permitted by indult implies it is celebrated by way of exception to the rule, not as a concession to its own merits. As usual, Liam seems to be able to communicate accurately what I wished I had said. I would also appeal to the notion that liturgical reform is only the first step. What is most needed now is liturgical *renewal*, a stronger effort to make the liturgy more meaningful for the bored, the disengaged, and the indifferent. And regarding the quibbles about who's pouring when and what? Not getting the job done.