Active Participation in Liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HagiaSophia

Guest
A lengthy and in depth discussion by Fr. Joseph Fessio discussing exactly what the council said and what they meant in their liturgy documents:

“This essay appeared in the September/October 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier and is based on a lecture on the liturgy given by Father Fessio in May, 1999.”

"…The Council actually spells out its intent, in paragraph 14 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations, which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.” The key words here are “full, conscious, and active participation.” The Latin for “active participation” is actuosa participatio.

I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”

That’s what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice, and the document - as it turns out - was actually written by a Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.

In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.

No Innovations Unless the Good of the Church Requires Them

"… Later, when changes are discussed, the Council states in paragraph 23: “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them.” So no changes unless there is a real, proven, demonstrable need.

Paragraph 23 continues: “And care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” Organic growth - like a plant, a flower, a tree - not something constructed by an intellectual elite, not things fabricated and tacked on, or brought back from ten centuries ago, or fifteen centuries ago, but an organic growth. That’s what the Council itself said.

Paragraphs 50 to 58 contain nine specific changes the Council had in mind for the renewal of the liturgy. But before we consider them, we must recall that when the Council made these proposals, it didn’t dream them up overnight. Although this was the first document issued at the Council, it was not issued without long preparation. The modern liturgical movement began in the middle of the 19th century…"

Nine Proposals

What are the nine liturgical proposals, or the nine liturgical mandates, of the Council? Paragraph 50 says the rites are to be simplified and those things that have been duplicated with the passage of time or added with little advantage, are to be discarded…

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
A
In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant.
what?! not Kumbaya? not they’ll know we are Christians by our love?, not Peace is flowing like a river? who knew?
 
An interesting read, Hagia. Thank you. I agree with a great deal, but, granting what Father said about the Council not entirely dispensing with Latin, I hope we don’t go back to it wholesale. I think it important that people understand what is being said and I don’t think Latin is any more sacred than English, though I quite like the Latin I know and I like knowing it. I would prefer the reverse of what Father prefers, namely, that the Santus, the Mysterium Fidei, the Amen, and the Agnus Dei be sung in Latin and that all else be in the vernacular (and yes, “multis” should be translated as “many.”) I don’t want to have to follow from a missal. I can memorize the sung parts, but I don’t even follow the readings in the missalettes, believing it more important to listen. I do want to clearly understand, however. Also, I think Our Lord intended all of us, clergy and lay alike (and there is a distinct difference in the states, as there should be), to rec. Both of the Sacred Species in Both Their Forms. I would hate to see a reversion to not admitting the laity to the Chalice.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
An interesting read, Hagia. Thank you. I agree with a great deal, but, granting what Father said about the Council not entirely dispensing with Latin, I hope we don’t go back to it wholesale. I think it important that people understand what is being said and I don’t think Latin is any more sacred than English, though I quite like the Latin I know and I like knowing it.
When one reads the correct Latin to English translations that Fr. John Zuhlsdorf presented in his series “What the Prayer Really Says” I’d say they are so beautiful that I’d love for the congregations to have some of it in the vernacular.

Having been raised where national churches were very plentiful, I have been accustomed for a great deal of my early church life to hearing Mass in a variety of “tongues” spoken by their various congregations. I happen to prefer the all Latin but as I say. the translations of the pitiful prose produced by ICEL have soured people so that they want to revert to the “old rite” simply in self defense .I’d be satisfied if a merging of the two was made, giving us a definitive, beautiful and fulfilling liturgy.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I do want to clearly understand, however.
I hesitate to remind some that St. Jerome had his reasons for translating Scripture into the vulgate — he understood the importance of it – and Sts. Cyril and Methodious were no slouches either. 😃
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Also, I think Our Lord intended all of us, clergy and lay alike (and there is a distinct difference in the states, as there should be), to rec. Both of the Sacred Species in Both Their Forms. I would hate to see a reversion to not admitting the laity to the Chalice.
There I tend to differ with you; it seems to me that since the Church has always held the Eucharist totally complete in reception of the host only, I prefer it. I believe the abuses in handing and receiving the chalice, (plus in huge public liturgies, it is virtually impossible to do), have truly multiplied much of the problem with believing Communion is just a “memoriam” of some kind and treating it carelessly in the handling. Personally I find the practice extremely unsanitary and in several instances bishops have had to put a temporary ban on it in the interests of public health. Now having said that, those are MY preferments, I would have no objection to the bishops deciding they wish to continue distributing both.

And I really did enjoy the Fessio article - I think for those who aren’t familiar with Vatican II docs, or don’t “get it” when they read them, he made some clear distinctions, about “what you see ain’t what you are supposed to be getting” without coming off as one of the “forward to yesterday” crowd.

Frankly I look forward to the day, when once again, a Catholic can cease “shopping” the diocese for a liturgy, when as a body of believers, we find things pretty much the same, wherever we go. And for the love of Christ, His people, and His bishops and priests who I think must be as tired of half of the mail they receive on this subject as we are of insipid prayers and song, may we all be “reunited” in ritual praise and prayer at Mass.

And now onto the music — a pox on the houses of much that is passed off as music today – we have such beauitful things – and when you hear what is offered – makes one want to weep sometimes. (I say this as I sit listening to the Mass of St. Cecilia which IMHO is probably the most sublimely beautful Mass ever recorded – just glorious.)

I love that Sannnnnctuuuuus! Wow ! That’s some prayin’ Not to forget tthe Glooooooria! 👍
 
One of the reasons I do like the Spanish Mass from time to time is that their translation is much more accurate than the ICEL. I understand a new Spanish lectionary is in the works that is even better and more faithful to the Latin. If they can come up with a Spanish translation to serve all the diverse Spanish-speaking countries and cultures, why not the English? The version of the psalms for instance in the LOTH for England, Wales etc. is so heartbreakingly beautiful, and the RSV proves it can be done, what is the problem coming up with an accurate English language lectionary and missal? I can only suspect wilful refusal to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the process, especially based on various interviews with ICEL funtionaries I have read over the years. They are working on an agenda of their own, consequently have no use for the direction of the Holy Spirit.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
. They are working on an agenda of their own,
The story of ICEL, the battles behind the scenes, the poor translations of not only the Mass but their “version” of Psalms – one would think that Bp Trautman would “get it” – but he obviously is still bent on his own “program”…sigh. At any rate, down the line a few “books” will be written I’m sure and hopefully some good English will emerge.

As I mentioned before, i loved Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s translations because he took the time to compare each item with what is “au courant” and to explain the differences. Made the entire thing much clearer for those wondering “what the fight is all about”.
 
Full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations does not mean create jobs for the laity to make them feel like they are included.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations does not mean create jobs for the laity to make them feel like they are included.
:amen: I went to a Mass a week ago where every person who lectored or acted as an EMHC processed with the servers and the priest. It was absurd, but I suppose we got to know who was important.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
And I really did enjoy the Fessio article - I think for those who aren’t familiar with Vatican II docs, or don’t “get it” when they read them, he made some clear distinctions, about “what you see ain’t what you are supposed to be getting” without coming off as one of the “forward to yesterday” crowd.
An excellent antidote to the “Spirit of Vatican II:” What the Council did rather than what we’ve been lead to believe the Council wanted.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
One of the reasons I do like the Spanish Mass from time to time is that their translation is much more accurate than the ICEL. I understand a new Spanish lectionary is in the works that is even better and more faithful to the Latin. If they can come up with a Spanish translation to serve all the diverse Spanish-speaking countries and cultures, why not the English? The version of the psalms for instance in the LOTH for England, Wales etc. is so heartbreakingly beautiful, and the RSV proves it can be done, what is the problem coming up with an accurate English language lectionary and missal? I can only suspect wilful refusal to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the process, especially based on various interviews with ICEL funtionaries I have read over the years. They are working on an agenda of their own, consequently have no use for the direction of the Holy Spirit.
I’m relieved to hear that. I’m Latin-american and when I don’t attend my parish’s Latin Novus Ordo - I try to go in Spanish.

Our Missals are perhaps more faithfully translated that the English speaking one, but don’t think that they’re perfect…some liberties are still taken here and there… i.e. the Latin “Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis…” is mistranslated to “Gloria a Dios en el cielo, y en la tierra paz a los hombres que aman a El…” (Glory to God in heaven, and on earth peace to men who love Him). Instead of…“Gloria a Dios en las alturas, y paz en la tierra a los hombres de buena voluntad.” (Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will). Close but no cigar… and you can nitpick the Spanish Missals on things elsewhere too. Also, in the current Spanish-language lectionary that is in use in the US, alot of inclusive language is unfortunately in use.

On a recent trip to Québec - I noticed many mistranslations in French… not least among them at the Orate Fratres - where it was gutted to the priest just saying “Let us pray together at the moment of offering the sacrifice of the whole Church” instead of (in the correct English translation) “Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father.” The people’s response in French is equally gutted to “For the glory of God and the salvation of the world” instead of “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His holy Church.”

Why not translate faithfully from the Latin in every language always - is it reallly too much to ask?

I have read that the hope of Liturgiam Authenticam was that by cracking down on ICEL’s mistranslations and by raising the bar for norms for translations, that other Episcopal conferences around the world would follow suit for re-translating their missals and lectionaries in their own languages.

So you see… the English speaking world is not alone in its woes over the present liturgical translations…even in the Spanish-speaking communities in the U.S., Spain and Latin-America, they are just as hopeful for better translations (and believe it or not, just as sick of guitar Masses) as our brothers and sisters in the English-speaking and French-speaking world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top