I would agree that when the difference between one Mass and another is simply “right or left,” (based on personal preferences, that is) it is foolish not to appreciate that which is different from what we are used to. However, when the difference is “right or wrong” (based on following the rubrics and reverence in the Mass), I can see nothing at all wrong with having a clear preference for the Mass that has no abuses, over one that has many. Likewise, it would be perverse, in a sense, not to feel the pangs that our Lord Himself and the Angels must feel when the sacred liturgy is abused. It would be a spiritual insensitivity on our parts to simply shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, if this is how they like to do it, that’s up to them.”
Since our Catechism points out the evil of indifferentism, or believing that one religion is as good as another, I cannot help but think that believing one Mass is as good as another, regardless of serious abuses in one, is also a form of indifferentism.
Please undersand, EasterJoy, I am not accusing you personally of this. I’m only trying to point out the differences between bad preference and good preference. As far as I can tell, wishing to worship in a reverent and abuse-free Mass is the good sort of preference, and we need not feel ashamed of it.
Exactly. I did not mean that one should not have a preference for a more reverent liturgy or a liturgy where the homily and music are done more conscientiously or more skillfully, let alone that one should not prefer a liturgy free of abuses. Of course not. One may as well say that because a polite guest will never mention flaws in the food served that we should not care whether there are worms in the greens or that we eat the meat even though it has obviously gone bad. I mean that where it is possible, you pass over flaws, and where not possible, you make your objections as humbly as possible. If you have a neighbor whose food is wretched or unhealthy, it is not uncharitable to avoid her dinner parties at all costs, but you would of course do so as kindly as humanly possible, right?
I also mean that there is an obligation to be as open to what can be gleaned from the homily as possible, even if it is an ill-prepared collection of platitudes salted with personal opinions not to be found in the catechism. If the homilist says something true about the Scriptures just proclaimed, latch onto that. We have a positive obligation to bring our best to our participation at every Mass we attend. We are not to roll our eyes when we don’t like how the truth is told when the homilist rambles or does not have the self-discipline to confine himself to one point. Of course that doesn’t mean that bad homilies are “OK”. Heaven forbid!
I mean that there is an obligation to be charitable rather than judgemental when one encounters a lack of exterior reverence or musical aptitude or good taste in others. You can choose to love the guy next to you who is singing off-key, because bless his heart he is singing, or you can choose to wallow in disappointment about how much better it is at home. You can say to yourself, “Oh, no, not the St. Louis Jesuits again” or “Ick, I hate Gregorian chant” or you can say, “Hey, it’s a psalm, praise God, I can sing that.” We have an obligation to “lift up our hearts” whereever we find ourselves, to try to be able to say that there is not a fellow Catholic willing to worship at a valid Mass who will not find having us in the pew next to them a positive help.
If Thanksgiving must be at Aunt Mabel’s this year, and not at Grandma’s, and it can’t be helped, you go, anyway. Maybe you pick at the food in case Aunt Mabel has inadvertently tried to give you a food-borne illness again, but you go. If a badly done but valid Mass is the only one you have, you go, you bring your best, and you give thanks to God. You try to be a pleasure and a edification to have there. A least you have a Mass to go to, for so many Catholics on this planet do not.
Of course, even those persecuted souls would choose the best liturgy going, given the choice. They would be sickened to think that those blessed with Mass wouldn’t give it all the reverence they can muster every time they go. Those who treasure the Mass want to see the Mass treasured, everywhere and every time. On that, I think we all agree.
But to be sure, the same holds true for the other side. I belong to one of the (GASP!) happy clappy churches. While I do generally prefer a more solomn Mass, I know that right now this is the best place for my family as a whole. And it is still my home. On Holy Thursday I had an opportunity to sit, quietly, with the Blessed Sacrament and it mattered not one iota that it was in a church that has been known to make the more conservative among us weep for the days of Vatican I. As long as proper reverence is observed, I’m not bothered by the more enthusiastic style of worship. It only really becomes a problem when folks are showing up for the entertainment value (always an issue when you have a dynamic priest).
If you walk into any other faith community’s place of worship, He isn’t there. You could walk into a garage for all it’s worth. But walk into a Catholic Church, and Jesus is there in the Tabernacle!!! And if you just be still and know that He is God - you will know it.
I really don’t think that avoiding disrespect to Our Lord can be considered “snobishness”.
You are blessed to have found St M of T. 
)