Upon reflecting a bit, I’m ambivalent about Rowland’s points.
I do think the second point is the weakest and most suspect. Scolding traditionalists for being aesthetically obsessed and nitpicky, and then criticizing them for dressing funny, does indeed smack of hypocrisy. Moreover, in my experience, people at extraordinary form Masses do not, in fact, “dress funny.” They were mantillas and dress more formally and more modestly than most Mass-goers, but I would never think to accuse them of just having stepped out of the 1950s. I see a lot of knee or ankle-length dresses and skirts, modest but not absurd blouses, collared shirts on men, with or without a jacket or tie. I don’t know what the TLM near Rowland is like, but none of the above strikes me as so old-fashioned that someone could reasonably be intimidated and scared off by it.
Rowland’s first point is more legitimate, I think. I absolutely do see what she calls “aestheticism,” in myself and in others. And I think she is right to say that it can be offputting to outsiders, and even a bit spiritually damaging, when we constantly nitpick every little decision made at Mass. If you are in charge of the liturgy in some capacity–perhaps as a choir director or section leader or altar server–then it’s good to be precise and care about the little details. But if you are just someone in the pews, and you encounter something you think is a bad decision (but which is not, in fact, a liturgical abuse), I believe the best practice spiritually is to humbly accept the decision of those in charge and go on being quietly grateful for the Mass. That is how a holy monk or a nun would probably respond.
But a few factors mitigate her point. First, even when traditionalists do nitpick, in my experience they nitpick far more at middling ordinary form Masses than at extraordinary form Masses. I’ve heard of
exceptions, but usually traditionalists are just grateful and content after an extraordinary form Mass. Second, nobody loves the extraordinary form “just because it’s beautiful.” They prefer it because it is beautiful, but love it because it is Mass. Third, I have never heard a traditionalist offer a criticism as minor and purely aesthetic as “that soprano really didn’t hit that high C.” Most criticisms offered by trads are more substantive, and even more importantly, are genuinely
liturgical (as opposed to purely
aesthetic). A trad who complains about the lack of the introit and communion chant at an ordinary form Mass is not offering an aesthetic criticism; he is offering a genuinely liturgical criticism.
I think her third point is pretty legitimate as well. In my opinion, it’s difficult to overestimate the damage done by the systematic disobedience and attacks on Catholic doctrine perpetrated by the SSPX and other similar traditionalists with “schismatic attitudes.” If anything, I think obedient traditionalists need to push harder in insisting that what they are doing is trying to be faithful to Vatican II and renew its effect on the Church. When someone says they don’t like Latin at Mass, ask them why they’re so against Vatican II. When someone says they don’t want Gregorian chant at Mass, ask them why they’re so against Vatican II. That is the proper tack, not looking on Vatican II with suspicion and sorrow.
.
) that this is not the case nor had it been for centuries. “No matter though,” was the official position, “you folks don’t need to understand what is being said word for word. The clergy will take care of that; you just need to be present while it’s going on.”