Thank you for your kind words, ASD
instead of reverent… silence… we all have to be altar boys, walking around and speaking
Neither I nor the Councililar documents express this sentiment. On the contrary, sacred silence is an integral part of any Liturgy. However, this does not exclude altogether the presence of
any of activity. Like so much of Catholicism, it is “both/and,” rather than “either/or”:not either silence or activity, but silence
and activity, each at its own proper time.
The issue with the server is that many of the his acclamations were very personal yet were expressed by him as a representative rather than by the people whose senitments they were supposed to have expressed. For example, that the altar server make a confession of sins
on the people’s behalf was simply an awful idea. That one’s sins be confessed by proxy is very distant from the spirit of true humility, contrition, and personal responsibility that Christian life demands of us. While I could bear the argument that some of the server’s responses ought have been left in the hands of an acolyte, many of them really need to be, or hold much greater significance when, said by the people. As I understand it, in the dialogue Mass, the congregation would offer the Confiteor and other responses with the server, but otherwise they did not. This is simply a very large problem that the Council sought to rectify.
I honestly can’t understand why they thought that was a good idea…
While I do not have sources to indicate the opinion that people expressed, I think it is fair to say that quite apart from their feelings, the recitation by the people themselves of such prayers as the Confiteor
ontologically improved their experience of the Mass. In other words, quite beyond what they felt, when the people were able to confess their
own sins before God rather than standing by as it was done for them, they ontologically benefited more from the experience - in other words, there was a much greater metaphysical effect upon their souls in the confession of their own sins, than there was when their sins were confessed on their behalf. This does not intend to suggest that every aspect of the Pauline Missal, or even the Dialogue Mass, was more beneficial. The point is that those aspects of participation in which the Council called for the people to take part were indeed beneficial.
It’s as if the bishops decided that speaking out loud with my neighbors is community; but praying in silence and stillness with them is not.
Again, not either/or, but both/and. Clearly both are forms of community, but are both are appropriate for the Mass? Now my opinions don’t matter. What does matter is the bishops assembled in general council under the genuine guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our opinions are of little value compared to the decision off the Church in a general council.
Again, however, here is the key: all things in their own proper time. The judgment of the bishops was not that silence was not community and communal song or speach is, but rather that both are and that the Mass in its contemporary form was lacking in one of these two aspects. After all, in the Heavenly Liturgy which of which the Mass is an earthly form, we will be singing aloud with the angels, crying “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus.” Does it not then make sense that we ought to at least in
some way express community in this way in the Earthly Liturgy? Insofar as this does not overshadow the silence but leaves the silence it’s own even primary place, I believe it should. Now in practice, clearly the silence
has been overshadowed, and in most places even eliminated. This is contrary to the Council’s call, as can be seen from PJM’s post:
**SC # 30 **To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
So again, the issue is a matter of following the Council’s true instructions. I also believe that the issue of “speaking out loud” has a lot to do with what i said above: making those responses which ought to be personal truly personal, such as confessing sins, wishing peace upon the Priest’s spirit, etc.
To clarify, besides maybe lay readers and EMHC, what are the “Liturgical actions taken by the whole congregation” now
The Psalm response, the Confiteor/Kyrie, giving their assent in the various amens (a very underrated part of the Mass, btw… in saying amen at various times, the people assent to the Liturgical actions carried out by the priest, not indeed taking upon themselves his unique role, but assenting to his actions with their own wills and thereby moving their wills in accord with Divine grace. For example, in the amen following the Eucharistic prayer, the people submit their wills in accord with its petitions and intercessions), the “Et cum spiritu tuo,” the Sanctus, Mysterium Fidei, Gloria, the hymns (hopefully good ones of course), etc.
The problem, of course, is that that’s exactly what has happened…
This is true. However, again, this relates to the abuses, rather than that which was actually called for and instituted. Silence and stillness are called for in both SC and the Pauline Missal; unfortunately, it is rarely afforded in practice. I do see, however, hope that the ball can be stopped.
Please spell that out more.
The liberals have it all wrong insofar as they assert that “active participation” requires
constant activitiy,
constant noise, even boisterous noise, as some have mentioned, that it requires the congregation to participate in the clerical actions of the Liturgy, moving about, etc.
God bless
