"full, conscious and active participation"

[ProVobis]

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.

So one can’t fulfill his obligation at a Mass in a foreign language?

 

[Brendan]

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”".

Read one of my posts above, it goes into the Latin. The English translation does not really portray what the Council was telling us to do.

The word used by the Council was not the adjective ‘activa’ that would have described HOW were were supposed to participate. ( to participate actively)

Rather, the word used “actuosa” is a noun, it describes WHAT we are to participate in, we are to participate in the acts (in the Thomistic sense) of the Mass.

The the ‘active’ is not a HOW but a WHAT.

The actio of the Liturgy of the Word, for example, proclaimation of the Word and the teachings of the Church (homily). We participate in that actio when we listen attentively and do not let our minds wander.

LIkewise the actio of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass. The minsterial priesthood offers Christ Himself to the Father. We, as the common priesthood of the Baptized, also offer a sacrifice. We sacrifice what we can, ourselves.

So we participate in the actio when we offer ourselves, our faults, our joys to the Father during the time the priest is confecting and offering the Eucharist.

As you can see, participation in both of those actia are best done silently. Which is important as those are the two main actions (actia) of the liturgy)

Pope Benedict has a whole chapter on this in “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, I highly recommend it

Here is a good section

what does it [active participation] mean…? Unfortunately the word was very quickly misunderstood to mean something external, entailing a need for general activity, as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action…the point is that, ultimately, the difference between the *actio Christi *and our own action is done away with. There is only one action, which is at the same time His and ours — ours because we have become ‘one body and one spirit ‘with Him”

and

This sequence requires, as a *sine qua non *on the part both of the priest and of the faithful, a profoundly reverent, totally concentrated and self-abasing attitude of faith and prayerfulness, as well as a sense of stupor before the great divine mysteries celebrated in the liturgy. The question today is whether we do possess within ourselves such interior dispositions, or whether everything has become a matter of mere intellectualism, routine and a carrying out of a series of ritualistic acts or habits.

Does this give you a better understanding on what the Council was asking for by Actuosa participatio?

 

[Brendan]

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?s.

YES, the whole point is your interior disposition. How well do you listen to the Readings, how well you unite yourself to the Cross and Ressurection of Christ.

See above.

External motions and verbal responses can AID in the that, but it’s not the point of actuosa participatio

 

[Brendan]

One additional level of support for Pope Benedict is S.C. 48

1. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator [38], they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

The actio of the Mass is a singluar one, “the sacred action”. That is the actio was are to participate in.

It then goes on to describe the dual liturgical actions of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. And the various actions were are to fully and consciencely particpate in.

 

[Georgia]

So one can’t fulfill his obligation at a Mass in a foreign language?

Great point!

Maybe I should have been clearer. What I was asking about is a deliberate non-participation. Does merely showing up satisfy requirements?

A priest we once had said singing, responses, etc. were not optional and that a person had to participate fully. Yet, it seems that I often hear my voice alone during responses in masses that are well attended.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Great point!

Maybe I should have been clearer. What I was asking about is a deliberate non-participation. Does merely showing up satisfy requirements?

A priest we once had said singing, responses, etc. were not optional and that a person had to participate fully. Yet, it seems that I often hear my voice alone during responses in masses that are well attended.

Yes, they do. Simply by showing up to Mass and being there (and being a bump on the log), even if one is in the state of mortal sin and is cut off from God, they receive actual graces from just being at Mass.

 

[Corki]

Great point!

Maybe I should have been clearer. What I was asking about is a deliberate non-participation. Does merely showing up satisfy requirements?

Do you mean deliberate or obstinate? If you just sat there and pouted, obstinately refusing to participate, you would still be fulfilling your obligation but may be incurring another kind of sin (possibly related to pride or anger).

 

[Brendan]

Great point!

Maybe I should have been clearer. What I was asking about is a deliberate non-participation. Does merely showing up satisfy requirements?

The Canonical requirements are to simply ‘assist’ at any Mass in a Catholic Rite on the day or the evening prior.

So even if the person sits there playing Angry Birds in the back pew, they met the obligation.

Otherwise, it would get into the legalism that Anna decried. Ait then becomes, how much is the minimum. What if you don’t strike your breast during the Penitental Rite? Did Mass count?

A priest we once had said singing, responses, etc. were not optional and that a person had to participate fully. Yet, it seems that I often hear my voice alone during responses in masses that are well attended.

We do those out of willing obedience to the Magisterium. But the Church could issue a Missal that had us do nothing external at all, and it would have no impact on our requirement to fullly and consciencely particpate in Mass. The primary participation that the Church is looking for Liturgically is internal.

It’s worse, Liturgically speaking, to let your mind wander during the readings or homily than it is not to respond or sing.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Yes, they do. Simply by showing up to Mass and being there (and being a bump on the log), even if one is in the state of mortal sin and is cut off from God, they receive actual graces from just being at Mass.

Yes but for those that leave early…I don’t believe they get the full graces…

For me, when I am serving as an EMHC, I am participating fully and when I am just in the pew praying along…I am participating fully. In fact sometimes I prefer in that way…for awhile I was asked to help fill in a lot and I really just wanted to have the quiet solitude of praying along with the Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

A priest we once had said singing, responses, etc. were not optional and that a person had to participate fully. Yet, it seems that I often hear my voice alone during responses in masses that are well attended.

Maybe the church you were at was particularly lame in their responses. Perhaps he was just frustrated.

 

[MissRose73]

I would say “full, conscious and active participation” means the following to me personally:

*Spending some time in prayer and/or reading before Mass starts - arriving about 10 minutes to do so

*Singing of the hymns/songs and refrains to the Responsorial Psalm

*Making responses to prayers

*Paying attention during the homily & readings & Gospel

*Giving something in the collection no matter the amount

*Offering the sign of peace to others nearby

*Receiving Holy Communion

*Leaving Mass only after the priest has processed out at the end of Mass

 

[Sarabande]

I used to be confused by the phrase, and many times growing up, the lay teachers would always tell us that we weren’t actively participating at mass if we didn’t do all of the externals… sing, say the responses out loud, etc.

Over the last few years, though, we’ve had a lot of priests raise the topic in homilies at different parishes I’ve attended. All of the priests have spoken of it in their homilies in the way a few here on the thread described it, also bringing up the comments by Pope Benedict XVI. They mentioned in their homilies that they recognized how many people have been confused or misunderstood the phrase. Although they, in no way, downplayed the externals at mass, they also said that one can actively participate at mass without doing all of that and that there was nothing wrong at all with it. Their most common example was actively listening and being engaged as opposed to just passively listening, and explained the difference while at mass. That could be either listening to the readings, the homilies and even to the music. The last I could understand very much so.

Although I am one who usually will do the verbal responses and will be singing and I am almost always involved in the music liturgy as a singing musician, there are times where I can actually be more prayerfully engaged and active at mass when I am not singing. I can actively listen to the music and to the words (even when it is in a different language that I’m not completely fluent in) and let it envelope me so that I am feeling even more prepared to receive Christ.

Although it is not too common, I have experienced certain priests make congregations repeat the responses. I have even cantored weddings where the priest would make the guests sing the gospel acclamation or even the psalm refrain again if he didn’t think the they were singing out enough. I personally don’t like that approach because I think it breaks the line or the flow of the mass. It takes me out of the prayer “zone” so-to-speak. If that is what they really want their congregations to do, I think they should talk about it in their homilies. For weddings, some of them have been where at least half of the guests weren’t even Catholic. You can’t expect them to know the responses.

 

[asd72]

I think when we sing and say the responses we are to be in a prayful state, remembering who we are addressing. We should be aware of the invisible realities which are taking place, and offer up ourselves on the altar with Jesus. I find it hard with being distracted, fearing offering myself fully, and lack of faith, but it is a work in progress, we can only do our best and ask God for help.

 

[MarkThompson]

Read one of my posts above, it goes into the Latin. The English translation does not really portray what the Council was telling us to do.

The word used by the Council was not the adjective ‘activa’ that would have described HOW were were supposed to participate. ( to participate actively)

Rather, the word used “actuosa” is a noun, it describes WHAT we are to participate in, we are to participate in the acts (in the Thomistic sense) of the Mass.

FWIW, actuosa is indeed an adjective, not a noun. Actuosus, -a, -um means “full of activity, very active.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

IMO:

1. Make the responses you’re supposed to make, if you can.
2. Assume the postures you’re supposed to assume, if you can.
3. Pray, regardless of the language.

That’s it. The attitude of having to be one of the nineteen EMHCs or thirty greeters to be “fully” participating is a worn-out remnant of the post-Vatican II hypefest and is insulting to anyone who does not. Do we go to mass for the sake of participating just to participate? I hope not, because I could just as easily go play laser tag on Sunday mornings if “participating” in something is all that matters, and it’s distressing when someone thinks so. It’s always funny when you go to a parish that has someone to light candles, someone else to turn on the lights, someone else to retrieve the incense, someone else to pour wine in each of the chalices but one, someone else to retrieve the hosts, someone else to say “hullo thar” to everyone, someone else to put the cloths on the altar, someone else to “announce” the start of mass, someone else to assist the clerics in vesting if needed, someone else to perform each insignificant, menial task “just because we can”… well, you get the idea.

My point is that oftentimes, it seems the very act of participating in something overshadows every single real reason why we attend mass in the first place, and church staffs perpetuate the attitude.

 

[couponfit]

I have had priests and others tell me it is actually “doing” a ministry in mass, i.e. EMHC, lector, sacristan, usher, I think you get the picture, which shows full & active participation. This came up when I talked to one priest about adjusting the number of EMsHC to the need for the mass, if we only need two EMsHC then why have six? In his defense, he was ordained before Vat II and this may have been the message way back when. This is not a priest bashing thread; he is a good priest, 78 years old and still serving the Church of Christ.

I believe this is one of the most miss-used phrases from the liturgy documents.

In my study of Sacred Liturgy in formation, the action of being a member of the congregation and taking part in that role is full, conscious and active participation.
What does this statement mean to you?

What are other’s thoughts on this subject?

It means finding a role that brings you fulfillment spiritually towards christs teaching.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It means finding a role that brings you fulfillment spiritually towards christs teaching.

What if I want to have a bake sale in the nave during mass? Are my rights being infringed if I can’t?

 

[Corki]

It means finding a role that brings you fulfillment spiritually towards christs teaching.

That’s not a bad way to put it IF you are talking about how to live as a good Catholic. However, it is not a good criteria for Mass. While Mass hopefully is very spiritually fulfilling, we don’t go to Mass to “find” that. Mass is what we bring and give, not what we get.

 

[SteveGC]

That’s not a bad way to put it IF you are talking about how to live as a good Catholic. However, it is not a good criteria for Mass. While Mass hopefully is very spiritually fulfilling, we don’t go to Mass to “find” that. Mass is what we bring and give, not what we get.

Amen to that. I think the measure of what you gain personally from Mass is equal in proportion to the degree to which you put away preconceived ideas about your right or expectation to gain anything at all.

We are indeed to receive graces and spiritual nourishment for our daily journey and struggles, but I think too many tend to go to Mass with a disordered focus on this reception, rather than on giving themselves fully in worship.

I don’t mean anyone on this thread, necessarily. That post simply brought this to mind.

 

[Filii_Dei]

My viewpoint is somewhat different. In my own opinion, active participation in mass to promoting the worship of Christ in a reverential manner. It means meaning the prayers you say/sing, and being fully mindful of the liturgical acts, the whole mass acting as conduit for the entire faithful.

As such, it can be achieved finding a ministry. However, that ministry cannot in any way interfere with the solemnity of the mass. Hence, EMHCs are justified only by their expediency in distributing communion and not by its opportunity for laity to “participate actively”, and this flaw should be recognised as such.

Otherwise, are we to condemn the schola cantorum or the altar servers for finding a liturgical ministry where they participate actively by leading the congregation or assisting the priest respectively? Can we not encourage them for finding a ministry that does not prohibit reverence but instead promotes it?