"Full, conscious and active participation"
So was the Church wrong about the central act of worship? And wrong for a whole millennium and a half? We need clarification.
Did all those saints through the ages, who loved and lived for the Mass and who wrote of its glories -- and all those popes, bishops, and priests who suffered martyrdom for saying the Mass, and all those religious and lay Catholic faithful who suffered martyrdom for being at Mass -- did they not have "the spirit of Christ" instilled in them at Mass?
If only the martyrs could have had leotard-clad "liturgical dancers" to gape at, and celebrants in clown costumes, and rainbow banners looming, and Kool-Aid pitchers instead of chalices, and wicker baskets instead of ciboriums, and 1960's "folk" music instead of Gregorian Chant.
And pro-abortion, pro-homosexual-agenda politicians trooping up to Communion. That occurrence is a frequent feature of Mass nowadays around the USA, after all.
When the Vatican II fathers, in their Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, wrote of "full, conscious and active participation" by the faithful, "both inwardly and outwardly," they did not mean to green-light the abuses of the past 45 years or to deep-six the Tridentine Latin Mass.
And anyway, what liberals bill as "full and active participation" by everyone is not always that. How "active" is it when the congregation sits and watches a few people gyrate in the aisle?
Also, liberals never explain why they don't let the New Mass, which they believe embodies "full and active participation," be said in Latin. Is "full and active participation" in Latin bad?