However, since then I have read this account of their meeting in October. I was astonished to read that they feel the bishops have a 'lack of appreciation of how the imposition of the new liturgy has disappointed laity.’ I feel exactly the same way myself. The imposition of the new liturgy, replacing the time-hallowed Immemorial Mass was certainly disappointing to many of the laity, but I was surprised to hear that voiced in this context.
Another promising quotation was: ‘it’s all very well to talk about Vatican II - but how many Catholics today really know what it said?’
Again, my sentiments exactly!
Some people seem to think that Vatican II authorised, or even ordered, all sorts of things which it did not. Reading the documents and implementing them (Latin as the primary language of Worship, Chant having pride of place in liturgical music, for starters) would certainly be my idea of progressive action.
Someone else, apparently, talked about ‘opening up spaces where people can be listened to with respect and gentleness.’ It’s called the confessional, and in our diocese the bishop makes sure it is opened up additionally in Advent and Lent, which is a great initiative.
Such respect is given in the confessional, of course, that a good priest won’t patronise you by pretending your sins are not sins, but will respect your status as a pilgrim and fortify you for the journey by helping you address your weaknesses, and giving you God’s grace and forgiveness in the Sacrament.
So was I misjudging CTA?
Perhaps not. For on reflection, I think the first comment may have been a jibe thrown at the new, improved translation of the Mass; the second I suspect is conceived in ignorance of the very teaching of the Council it professes to admire; and the third is less interested in the Church telling him where he’s wrong than in him telling the Church where She is wrong.
As you were.