I've been thinking for several months about writing something on the question of what level of 'cred' one should attach to the judgment of a tyro visiting the EF Mass for the first time; and an occasion has presented itself to precipitate a post in the near future.
The question is an interesting one. Personal impressions have to count for something, of course; but for what, exactly? Subjective reactions are usually based, whether consciously or not, on some sort of objective datum. What objective criteria exist for adjudicating between rival judgments? Intellectual transparency? Aesthetic excellence? Theological substance?
As I say, it's an interesting question. Every Protestant Fundamentalist thinks he understands what Catholicism is all about, more or less, without bothering to investigate what it is that devout Catholics love about their faith; and I suppose the Fundamentalist would return the favor in his opinion about Catholic dismissals of Fundamentalism. What happens, however, when a Fundamentalist who loves his faith goes on to embrace the corrective 'more' of Catholicism without recoiling in disgust at his erstwhile affiliation, as though it were nothing but error and blight?
But I am jumping the gun here. More anon.