"full, conscious and active participation"

[SteveGC]

the confusion here is that “Annabelle” jumped in on post #23, which was a response to a post by “Anna Claire”.

This is why you were misquoted Annabelle…your similar user name and the timing of your jump into the discussion.

 

[Corki]

*I will compare that to the words of Pope John Paul II

Quote:
Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural*

That does not mean anyone is being encouraged to attend mass and do nothing but pray to themselves. That makes it a devotion. A Eucharistic liturgy is not a devotion but communal worship. Pray privately at home…or, go to a Tridentine mass. The pope may have said the theology is the same but he is wrong. It is very different…and this thread is not the place to get into all that. I answered the question about FCAP…I stand by what I said…that is what the church teaches.

You are confusing two sets of items.

1. Yes, it is encouraged for anyone who is able to join vocally in the responses and to sing, etc. But that doesn’t mean that those who do not are not fully, consciously and actively participating. These are two completely seperate issues.
2. The difference between silently praying at Mass and a private prayer devotion is the joining with the sacrifice of the Mass. This was very nicely described by Brendan back in post #5. Silence does not equal passivity. Active listening is also key but, even if one cannot hear the priest or readers, he/she can still participate fully in Mass.

 

[Brendan]

Wait a minute! That middle quote was NOT mine. Given that fact then you might want to re-respond to me on how I see how there could be some confusion about it.

My apologies

 

[Brendan]

Brendan."just noticed you attributed one of my quotes to Annabelle

I said…

We are not talking about the TLM…that’s a whole different theology.

Ok then, in what document was the change in theology given?

 

[YoungTradCath]

…That does not mean anyone is being encouraged to attend mass and do nothing but pray to themselves. That makes it a devotion. A Eucharistic liturgy is not a devotion but communal worship. Pray privately at home…or, go to a Tridentine mass. The pope may have said the theology is the same but he is wrong. It is very different…and this thread is not the place to get into all that. I answered the question about FCAP…I stand by what I said…that is what the church teaches.

This is more than a little egotistical, you know. The theology is exactly the same. The priest, acting in persona Christi, offers himself, the Son, to the Father, as a sacrifice. If you would like to find me a valid, Vatican-issued document that says otherwise, please show me, or if you’d like to take your chances at it and write one yourself, please do. Otherwise, your argument holds zero weight, and is insulting to the countless saints and martyrs who attended nothing but contemplative, quiet masses in Latin for their entire lives.

You say the theology is different, but you have no pre- or post-nominal letters before or after your name, nor have you produced any credible document. You say the pope is wrong, but the likelihood of that is nigh impossible in this context.

 

[Anna_Claire]

Ok then, in what document was the change in theology given?

It’s not always about the documents but you should read, study and interpret the reform documents, especially the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy…

I was born in 1950 and grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I don’t hate it because it’s my roots. But…been there done that and I have learned to love the Vatican II changes even more. I experienced the excitement when they were implemented. The liturgy was in need of reform and most of us welcomed that change.

I can’t explain to you in a combox all of the ways the theology of the Tridentine Mass is different from the reformed liturgy. You will have to do your own research. Here are the differences that come to mind.

The Tridentine mass is about the actions of the priest, not the whole Body of Christ, head and members.

The concept of active participation of the people didn’t/doesn’t exist.

The Paschal Mystery wasn’t/isn’t given the importance that it is in the reform. The Passion was given more importance in the former mass (and we know that wasn’t the end of the story).

The concept of “Source and Summitt” was not understood.

The Presence of Christ was limited to the Eucharistic species (or at least understood that way)…now we understand that Christ is also present in the person of the minister, in the Word proclaimed, in the gathered assembly.

The dignity of Baptismal priesthood… liturgy is our “right and duty”. It always was but never understood in this way. The “obligation” to go to mass was more important for fear of mortal sin (I’m not saying it’s no longer an obligation…it is)

T

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

The pope may have said the theology is the same but he is wrong.

Who are you to say the Pope is is wrong??? Sorry, but the Pope has more credibility when it comes to matters of theology and the Mass than you do.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not always about the documents but you should read, study and interpret the reform documents, especially the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy…

I was born in 1950 and grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I don’t hate it because it’s my roots. But…been there done that and I have learned to love the Vatican II changes even more. I experienced the excitement when they were implemented. The liturgy was in need of reform and most of us welcomed that change.

I was there too and I don’t think we need to go back to the 50’s. The EF, although it uses the Missal of 1962, is celebrated a lot differently today than it was back then. The people who attend do pay attention to what’s going on. There are enough posters on CA who will vouch for this. They ask questions. They do want to know what the priest is doing. Many of them have read the SC. Unlike the 50’s perhaps, they are open to learning and responding in the Latin. That’s not a bad thing, IMO.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s not always about the documents but you should read, study and interpret the reform documents, especially the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy…

I was born in 1950 and grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I don’t hate it because it’s my roots. But…been there done that and I have learned to love the Vatican II changes even more. I experienced the excitement when they were implemented. The liturgy was in need of reform and most of us welcomed that change.

[edited] It is always about documents.

I am going to say something that I have said several times on these forums. I have noticed in my parish that the people who most hold to the (nonexistent) idea of the “spirit of Vatican II” are the older Catholics who were young when the post-Vatican II hypefest was going on. In fact, your statements above lend weight to that argument. These Catholics were given a mission, so to speak, by the crazy societal upheavals of the time, to change change change change change everything. Naturally, this expectation extended to the Catholic Church. The Catholics of your generation, whether explicitly or implicitly, were charged with that change. The “spirit of the 1960s” gave your generation that mission. It is how those Catholics identify with each other. They are the “children of Vatican II.” That is their generational identity in the Catholic Church. IMO, this attitude is going away, and the Catholics of that generation feel threatened, and that is why we have threads like this one. The Catholics of that generation, for some reason unknown to me, in my experience, are the ones who have the hardest time discerning between what the documents of Vatican II actually say and what they were told Vatican II was about. Please notice that I make a distinction between what is commonly thought Vatican II was about by older Catholics, and what its documents actually say.

My point is that the crazy 1960s society plays a huge part in how many older Catholics interpret and understand Vatican II, and so it slants their interpretation of it. I don’t feel contempt for those people, I feel sorry for them.

I don’t pretend that the Catholic world before Vatican II was all roses and daisies, but to pretend that we are so much better now than before seems to be a bit of a stretch. Really, it seems we have more problems now than before. I don’t blame this on Vatican II. I blame it on the false ideas perpetuated by both people and society, ideas fed to the Vatican II generation, which supremely skewed their outlook and opinions. Honestly, I really don’t think we will ever “go back” to only having the Tridentine mass, and as much as I love it, I don’t think it would be a good idea to only have that. We must certainly retain it, and must advocate for more widespread use of it, both for its own sake and to help rectify the aberrant characteristics of the OF that have sadly crept in, but I do not think a wholesale return to it will solve our problems.

I wrote this not to inflame you, but rather to help you see from a different, and, in my opinion, level-headed point of view.

 

[w_s_s]

It’s not always about the documents but you should read, study and interpret the reform documents, especially the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy…

Oh yes… the document that said:

“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

“steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

“In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office”

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

The Tridentine mass is about the actions of the priest, not the whole Body of Christ, head and members.

It’s really strange then, that the text of the traditional Mass refers to the prayers and offerings of the assembly as a whole. I wonder why that was in there if nobody but the priest mattered.

Oh yeah, a new Mass said by a priest alone is still a valid and licit Mass.

The concept of active participation of the people didn’t/doesn’t exist.

Wow, so the new Mass was already around when Pope St. Pius X coined the term “active participation” with respect to the participation of the laity the Mass in 1903?

The Paschal Mystery wasn’t/isn’t given the importance that it is in the reform. The Passion was given more importance in the former mass (and we know that wasn’t the end of the story) … The concept of “Source and Summit” was not understood.

The Mass is the sacrifice of calvary, brought into the present. It is not the resurrection brought into the present. It is therefore good and proper that, in that Mass, we concentrate on the sacrifice that was offered, and that is being offered, by Christ, of himself, to God the Father. When that ceases to be the main theme of the Mass, then the people stop believing in the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It is the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the ability to partake of the fruits of the sacrifice, that makes the Mass and the Holy Eucharist the source and summit of the Christian life.

The Presence of Christ was limited to the Eucharistic species (or at least understood that way)…now we understand that Christ is also present in the person of the minister, in the Word proclaimed, in the gathered assembly.

That was also understood before, but the difference is that people these days fail to recognize the different modes of the presence of Christ in these elements. Christ is present in the Eucharistic Species in a different way than He is present in the assembly. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. The Eucharistic Species are the real body and blood of Christ. The Eucharistic species IS Jesus Christ. The Holy Scriptures are not Christ, and the assembly is not Christ.

The dignity of Baptismal priesthood… liturgy is our “right and duty”. It always was but never understood in this way. The “obligation” to go to mass was more important for fear of mortal sin (I’m not saying it’s no longer an obligation…it is)

Nothing has changed in this regard, as you admit. The form of Mass itself has nothing to do with it. It is just a matter of catechesis.

I was born in 1950 and grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I don’t hate it because it’s my roots. But…been there done that and I have learned to love the Vatican II changes even more. I experienced the excitement when they were implemented. The liturgy was in need of reform and most of us welcomed that change.

I am currently experiencing the excitement of the spread of the Tridentine Mass and the reform of the reform of the new Mass. I may yet live long enough to see the end of the new Mass, as it is currently celebrated. I pray that I do.

 

[Anna_Claire]

YoungTrad…you are so arrogant! Who the hell do you think you are to label me that way??? You don’t know me!!! What are you trying to prove? You don’t know anything about what it means to be a Catholic Chistian!

As a respected liturgist who has studied for many years I think i know what I am talking about. YOU DON’T. You have a lot of growing up to do. What do you want?!! Are you trying to drive me away? Is that it? You ask questions…I answer them…then in your arrogant insulting way you say something that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

As a matter of fact I am being driven away from this uncharitable board. I am finding very few Catholics here like the ones I love and serve… Only a bunch of legalistic hateful people.

If this kind of Catholicism makes you happy…God forgive you. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Brendan]

It’s not always about the documents but you should read, study and interpret the reform documents, especially the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy…

I have read the documents of Vatican II, and quite a number of other Church documents

Could you quote the part of Sacrosanctum Concillium you are thinking changed the theology of the Mass.

I was born in 1950 and grew up with the Tridentine Mass. I don’t hate it because it’s my roots. But…been there done that and I have learned to love the Vatican II changes even more. I experienced the excitement when they were implemented. The liturgy was in need of reform and most of us welcomed that change.

I can’t explain to you in a combox all of the ways the theology of the Tridentine Mass is different from the reformed liturgy. You will have to do your own research. Here are the differences that come to mind.

The Tridentine mass is about the actions of the priest, not the whole Body of Christ, head and members.

That actually runs counter to the pre Vatican II documents. I think it is not so much a change in the theology, as a misunderstanding on your part.

The concept of active participation of the people didn’t/doesn’t exist.

It certainly did. There were several calls by previous Popes to the faithful to participate fully, in the ways mentioned by Pope John Paul and Benedict. But they were not listened to.

Read Pope St. Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini (That was where term ‘active participation’ was first mentioned. And Pope Pius XI’s Divini Cultus , Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei

You will see that all those Popes agree with Popes JPII and Benedict on the role of active participation. And since the later two where there at the Council, they would have a better understanding of what the Council meant than either of us.

One interesting note, the term the Council chose followed the term Pope Pius XII used “actuosa participatio”. The Council did not chose the adjective activa, but rather the noun. The more direct translation is ‘actual participation’, that we participate in the act, NOT that our participation is active. Since the documents are authoritative in Latin, it helps if we follow the nuances of Latin to get to what the Council mean when it issued Sacrosanctum Concillium.

And in that, we see how the theology really didn’t change.

Of course, part of the problem is that what the Council was calling for does not translate well in English.

The existing translation ‘active participation’ uses active as an adjective to describe our participation, that is has to be ‘active’. That is NOT what Sacrosanctum Concillium called for.at all.

As I mentioned the direct translation is "actual participation’, but most English speakers would read that ‘as opposed to phony participation’. “Participation in the act” is not good either, as it lends one to think that the Mass is some sort of dramatical production.

The term the Council used ‘actuosa’ needs a level of Thomistic Philosophy that most do not have.

That is why Pope Benedicts work ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ is so profound. It describes the various actio that make up the Mass and how our participation becomes a part of it.

The Paschal Mystery wasn’t/isn’t given the importance that it is in the reform. The Passion was given more importance in the former mass (and we know that wasn’t the end of the story).

Huh? It has always been that. That is part of the symbolism of placing a piece of the Host into the chalice, an imemorial practice of the Church. It showed the full Pascual Mystery, the His Death in the consecration of the species individually, and their reunion.

That is also why fasting was prohibited on Sunday

The concept of “Source and Summitt” was not understood.

I would disagree. The Church has long recognized the Eucharist as being Christ Himself, as fully and completely present as He is on His Throne in Heave.

And you would be hard pressed to find a pre-Vatican II document that did NOT list Christ as the Source of the Church, and the Summit to who we seek.

The Presence of Christ was limited to the Eucharistic species (or at least understood that way)…now we understand that Christ is also present in the person of the minister, in the Word proclaimed, in the gathered assembly.

THe Presence of Christ was always understood as it is now. Christ is present in His Divintiy in the entire Universe, and in a special way in a gather of His People. That is Scriputral and has never been

He is present uniquely in the Sacrament, as not just His Divinity is Present, but His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

That understanding has not changed either. If so, could you reference the documents specifically for me and we can talk.

The dignity of Baptismal priesthood… liturgy is our “right and duty”. It always was but never understood in this way. The “obligation” to go to mass was more important for fear of mortal sin (I’m not saying it’s no longer an obligation…it is)

Really, Aquinas used those same terms, in fact, in Thomistic Ethics, for every duty or obligation is a corresponding right. Since one has an obligation or duty to attend Mass, one has a right to do so. . He was rather pre-Vatican II

The very term ‘Liturgy’ is "work of the people’ and that term was coined well before Vatican II., so yes, it was understood in the pre -Vatican II days.

As far as fear of Mortal Sin, the Church has taught (and always so) that one should seek to do the Will of God in all things, and to do it willingly and joyfully. St. Theresa of Avilla and most especially, the Little Flower were clear on that. The duty to go to Mass was by no means excluded.

\

 

[YoungTradCath]

YoungTrad…you are so arrogant! Who the hell do you think you are to label me that way??? You don’t know me!!! What are you trying to prove? You don’t know anything about what it means to be a Catholic Chistian!

As a respected liturgist who has studied for many years I think i know what I am talking about. YOU DON’T. You have a lot of growing up to do. What do you want?!! Are you trying to drive me away? Is that it? You ask questions…I answer them…then in your arrogant insulting way you say something that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

As a matter of fact I am being driven away from this uncharitable board. I am finding very few Catholics here like the ones I love and serve… Only a bunch of legalistic hateful people.

If this kind of Catholicism makes you happy…God forgive you. I feel sorry for you.

I didn’t author that post with an ounce of hate or spite. I am not arrogant. I simply shared my experiences and my own opinion as to why they have been my experiences. I see that you disagree, which is alright.

With the number of people requesting information–codified information from authoritative Church sources–it seems that I am not the only one who would like an answer to the question: how did the theology of the mass change after the Second Vatican Council? That is an extremely important question in response to your posts.

My intent in my latter paragraphs was not to insult you, but rather to express my observations. In fact, all my insults go to the society and cultural expectations of that era, not to the people of that generation. You’re right, what I said was not strictly related to this thread. However, I wrote it to express my opinion as to why certain people hold those views, which is, IMO, good for creating a historical-analytical context. I admit, I was a bit frustrated, and I attempted to approach from a different angle, but I certainly was not hateful or spiteful. I am sorry if if was taken that way. I tend to view threads like these from a semi-academic, rather than personal, viewpoint, and so my post was not intended to insult anyone.

I do not want to drive you away, and I don’t think anyone else does either. But when such a shocking statement is made to the effect of, “Mass theology is different now,” it should be backed up with documents or references for others to check. That is a huge statement to some of the more hardcore types on these boards.

 

[Anna_Claire]

I just don’t get why traditional minded folks (and as Catholics we all hold on to certain traditions…don’t we? so it can be said we are ALL traditional) get angry and demand citations from documents. Yes, they are important but to always be quoting as if our religion is based on legalities instead of on Christ’s teachings just makes no sense to me. Also, I don’t understand why some people feel a need to dissect a comment by quoting not only the comment, but adding their own comments along with citations from documents (lol)…it’s like reading a novel!! I will skip over those and won’t give answers. Hey…I have a life and it’s not all about these forums.
Anyway…I accept your apology Young Trad and offer mine as well. Let’s discuss with charity from now on. The problem, if we do not, is we are creating and promoting division in the church. Let’s just agree to disagree…no one here is the magisterium. Peace.

 

[Corki]

YoungTrad…you are so arrogant! Who the hell do you think you are to label me that way??? You don’t know me!!! What are you trying to prove? You don’t know anything about what it means to be a Catholic Chistian!

As a respected liturgist who has studied for many years I think i know what I am talking about. YOU DON’T. You have a lot of growing up to do. What do you want?!! Are you trying to drive me away? Is that it? You ask questions…I answer them…then in your arrogant insulting way you say something that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

As a matter of fact I am being driven away from this uncharitable board. I am finding very few Catholics here like the ones I love and serve… Only a bunch of legalistic hateful people.

If this kind of Catholicism makes you happy…God forgive you. I feel sorry for you.

Anna,

Please back up a bit. I don’t think YoungTrad or any of the others who disagree with you are being legalistic. In fact, it is YOU who claim (in spite of many references to the contrary) that a person MUST do and say things in order to fully participate at Mass. It is the other side that is making the case that, while physical and vocal activity is good, silent participation is also full, conscious and active. **You **are excluding people in your definition of who is participating at Mass. No one here is saying that there is anything wrong with wanting to say every response, do every gesture and sing every song. However you are saying that those who don’t are wrong. That’s not very charitable or inclusive.

As for your training in the Liturgy, if we had to base an assessment on what you have posted at CAF (not just in this thread) you seemed to be very well versed in the “how,” less informed on the “why” and even less on the theology of the Mass. If you want to throw credentials around, I am a masters educated, certified Catechist. I have been to classes taught by some of the most liberal leaders our diocese has to offer and none would have gone so far as you to exclude others from their definition of active participation at Mass.

The Church is a big tent. There are many ways to participate fully at Mass. Your way is not necessarily better for everyone just because it meets your personal needs.

I just don’t get why traditional minded folks (and as Catholics we all hold on to certain traditions…don’t we? so it can be said we are ALL traditional) get angry and demand citations from documents.

To be fair, I believe the request for documentation came as a response to your claim that the theology of the Mass was different between the OF and the EF. If it was even possible for the theology to be different for the different forms (and I submit it isn’t possible), then it would be documented. Theology is teaching and the teachings of the Church are documented.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Full, active participation always meant being prayerfully united to what is happening in the sanctuary - even if one is silent. And yes, this was taught in the “pre-Vatican II” days (I hate that phrase… as if before a council it was a different church or something!).

Somehow this became understood as relentless “activity.”

 

[agapewolf]

This is an honest question.

I don’t understand what the word “Active” is supposed to mean in “full conscious, active” if being silent and participating internally is all that means. To me, that is the “conscious” part. The word active is something different. It is indeed “Activity” Otherwise, it should just say “full and conscious”

I’m not suggesting everyone needs to be in a “ministry” at mass. Most should be in the congregation, some in the choir, perhaps a reader and if necessary EMHC. Other than that, we are called to “full, conscious active” as the GIRM prescribes. This means being silent when it calls for it, responding when it calls for it, and singing when it calls for it. That is “action”.

 

[Brendan]

I just don’t get why traditional minded folks (and as Catholics we all hold on to certain traditions…don’t we? so it can be said we are ALL traditional) get angry and demand citations from documents. Yes, they are important but to always be quoting as if our religion is based on legalities instead of on Christ’s teachings just makes no sense to me.

Anna,

You made a claim that the Church has changed the theology of the Mass since Vatican II. Is it unreasonable to ask for support for that claim.

That is true in any intellectual disciplne.

For example, if someone was on a Physics board and made a claim that a certain Physics conference declared that E=mc3, one could reasonably expect requests for the claimant to provide information on peer reviewed articles, references to where in the Physics conference that was declared etc…

If the person was given papers by Einsten noting that E actual equal mc2 and the person resonded that “Einstein is wrong” and said she could not understand why they demanded documentation?

You could see how that would not come across all that well and how the physics affecinados would not be too impressed.

And you could see how they would expect an intellectually honest person to either back up their claim with supporting documentation ( peer reviewed articled, conference minutes etc…) or to admit that the claim was in error.

Also, Vatican II called for an educated, informed, thinking laity. I beleve we agreed such was the case earlier in the thread.

If so, do you really think that what the Council meant by that was that any indepth discussion on concillular documents would be a “legalism”

Can the teachings of Christ be somehow different than what the Council taught

 

[Corki]

This is an honest question.

I don’t understand what the word “Active” is supposed to mean in “full conscious, active” if being silent and participating internally is all that means. To me, that is the “conscious” part. The word active is something different. It is indeed “Activity” Otherwise, it should just say “full and conscious”

Active means to purposefully join with the priest’s sacrifice of the Mass. One can certainly do that internally. In fact, that’s exactly how all of us do that during the Eucharistic Prayer, especially during the Consecration. Conscious is to simply pay attention. One does not even need to be Catholic to participate consciously but one has to be joined in the intent of the Mass - with the priest and with the Church - to be actively participating. (note Brendan’s notes above re the actual language in Latin)

As an example that might help, many people who do corporate training teach a technique known as “active listening”. This is entirely internal and is close to the definition of “active” that is called for at Mass.

I’m not suggesting everyone needs to be in a “ministry” at mass. Most should be in the congregation, some in the choir, perhaps a reader and if necessary EMHC. Other than that, we are called to “full, conscious active” as the GIRM prescribes. This means being silent when it calls for it, responding when it calls for it, and singing when it calls for it. That is “action”.

But the requirment is not for “action”, it’s for active.

 

[Georgia]

If you go to Mass, stand up, sit down, never respond, never sing, and never recite prayers as directed, have you participated to the point of satisfying your Sunday obligation?

It would seem to me that you would have to actively participate in some way. I understand that we cannot see how or if a person prays, but it would seem we would have to at least join in the spoken prayers of the Mass.