Lay participation in the traditional Mass

[Joysong]

Dear Unfinished,

Although I promised to follow up your post after I looked up some references, on second thought, I decided to let go. You folks have your own manner of worshipping, and your own understanding of how it should be. We would only antagonize one another to try and cast a new mold.

It occurred to me that the internet is a volumnous source of information, so if what I posted from the CCC did not answer anyone’s questions, I feel certain you will find what you are looking for through the search utilities. There are many posters who are also knowledgable, particularly JKirk and Itsjustdave, if you get stuck.

Best regards,
Carole

 

[brotherhrolf]

906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

We were split off from our original parish in 1964. The new parish’s first Masses in Latin were said at the local public gym. When we began to switch to the NO with the hybrid Masses in 65 - 66, we went to a country club. There was no rectory or a church until late 67.

I could not tell you how many 6AM Masses I served with only Father and I in attendance in living room of the three bedroom suburban house which was used as the rectory before the rectory and Church were built. It was a TLM and Father never, ever, rushed. Mass with the two of us usually took around a half-hour. The last time I saw Father was when I had just finished Navy boot camp in 71 and was home on leave. I knelt and asked for Father’s blessing just as I knelt and kissed Archbishop Hannan’s ring when he consecrated our church.

As a choir member, on more than one ocassion I tried to kneel to kiss our beloved Bishop Ott’s ring but humble man that he was, he would not allow it. He would not even let us (DW and I) rise to greet him at our choir Christmas parties. The difference between these two servants of HMC and that “rapper” priest thread here is jaw dropping.

When the rectory was built in late 66, there was a house which served as the convent next door. The Sisters would be in attendance as well. I have served Masses in our NO Church. I have sung for over 18 years in our NO Cathedral. But the silence and tranquility and focusing solely upon the presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar in those days, I cannot forget. Community is all well and good, but God, I think, is found in the silence.

 

[Pug]

“To follow the priest in saying the prayers of the Missal is the most fruitful way of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

This Mediator Dei quote is talking about the laity fruitfully offering the Holy Sacrifice of the mass. Yet later on you say

Only the priest may offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

There are two concepts going on here. The laity both can and cannot offer the Holy Sacrifice. I gather from this that it is acceptable, at least as of 1947, to say that the laity offer the sacrifice, but only according to their own manner, which is not the same manner as that of the priest.

Another thing to keep in mind when considering lay participation is that the Mass was not directed to the people, but to God. Many Novus Ordo Masses today are performances- it is from this mindset that we get liturgical dancers, bad music and worse. The average parish church today has the priest wearing a clip-on microphone, sometimes with other mics around the sanctuary, even fixed to the altar, so that the congregation can hear every word that comes out of his mouth. In the traditional Mass, it matters little whether the congregation hears the priest or not

I think this relates to the concept that there was calvary, but when mass is said, there is the application, and that the people at the mass get more or less “fruit”, depending on internal disposition. Maybe the mic is there to increase that disposition for those at a NO mass, and the silence partly functions the same way in a TLM?

It is interesting to me that you say the mass is not directed to the people. I don’t want to make an assumption here, so I’ll just tell you some of my thoughts. The sacrifice is directed toward God. But we have the whole sacramental economy that seems to me to have as a purpose to bring the fruit of salvation to men, or to communicate God’s love to us, or something. But then at the end that sort of turns around so that Christ offers the Bride made spotless to the Father. God is glorified, men are sanctified, and by them being sanctified, this also glorifies God.

BTW, I don’t think a person has to be present at the sacrifice/mass for that mass to have an effect on them. The sacrifice works just fine to help the whole Church anyway. Also, having people hold hands around the altar drives me nuts.

 

[LilyM]

But the silence and tranquility and focusing solely upon the presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar in those days, I cannot forget. Community is all well and good, but God, I think, is found in the silence.

You should have been at 7.30 am mass with me this morning then, brother - there were a handful of us plebs there along with a parcel of Missionaries of Charity sisters - a truly inspiring group of women.

No mugging or showboating by the priest (not that he ever does anyway), no singing, no rush, just plenty of room for rich prayerful silence :yup: :angel1:

 

[moira]

There is a method of participation in which Catholics have engaged for centuries which is not described as active, but described as Vatican II summed it up “actuosa participatio”, actual participation, not active as it is falsely translated.

And actual participation is praying the Mass along with the priest. At least, that is my understanding.

 

[Brenda_V]

There is a method of participation in which Catholics have engaged for centuries which is not described as active, but described as Vatican II summed it up “actuosa participatio”, actual participation, not active as it is falsely translated.

And actual participation is praying the Mass along with the priest. At least, that is my understanding.

Well said. This is my understanding of “active participation”. I have yet to figure out why Readers and EMHC’s makes for “more active participation”. I am either very dense or have never been in a Parish that promotes this as “active participation” - and I am going for the latter as I am a very bright person. There are only so many “positions” for Readers and EMHC’s at any rate so the majority of the congregation just can not participate in this manner.

I am 48 so I have a very vague memory of Latin Masses - mostly that it was boring except during the Consecration (my mom made sure my sister and I understood what was happening then) but I am going to guess that many children will say the same thing about the NO Mass as well .

(Just an aside, Ceasar - I did not see your starting this post as re-starting a closed one, just bringing to the fore a subject that came up in the closed one that should have been made into its own thread anyway.)

I do know that I have attended Mass in many other countries in their native tongue (the vernacular) and was still able to follow along even though it was a NO Mass. This was over 30 years ago though so I don’t know if I would be able to anymore with the way everyone talks about how NO masses are not following the GIRM and what not.

Brenda V.

 

[maryalene]

I think you make some good points Caesar, but I disagree with your assertation that the new rite makes Mass into a performance. I think the reason you see abuses such as litergical dancers is not so much to entertain the congregation as much as it is a misguided attempt to provide as many opportunities as possible for the laity to be an active part of the Mass. I think this is also why some parishes have 20 EMHCs - they want to involve as many people as possible. (Note: I am not defending these practices as I do not agree with them.) As for the priest having a microphone, I think that is just common sense. The new rite involves a lot of responses by the congregation to the priest’s prayers. We can’t respond if we can’t hear him.

 

[Leeta]

Our orthodox young priest makes the NO mass into a showboat during and through out the homily by directly addressing altar boys and laity and turning around to face the altar boys behind him or walking back and forth in front of the altar and up and down the aisle. It is not called for of course , but it definitely makes a performance, very sincere, but still a performance. It drives me nuts, but I can’t go anywhere else for daily Mass. I think the priest needs attention. He forgets that only God can fulfill our needs, not he personally. So it ends that he and his personality dominate and overwhelm the Mass and he is a true believer!
I tjust goes to show there is no point in reinventing the wheel. We have the Old Mass and lets make it more available

 

[BobP123]

There is a method of participation in which Catholics have engaged for centuries which is not described as active, but described as Vatican II summed it up “actuosa participatio”, actual participation, not active as it is falsely translated.

And actual participation is praying the Mass along with the priest. At least, that is my understanding.

You got it. Just like you stand at attention, take off your cap, put your hand over your heart, etc. when someone sings the national anthem. Perhaps a poor analogy but nevertheless no one can accuse you of being unpatriotic simply because you can’t sing to the same beat or language of the singer.

 

[BobP123]

As for the priest having a microphone, I think that is just common sense. The new rite involves a lot of responses by the congregation to the priest’s prayers. We can’t respond if we can’t hear him.

This reminds me of something that happened at a Novus Ordo service as told by a Protestant minister who was present and noting the apparent perfunctory responses of the congregation.

The microphone malfunctioned and the priest asked “What’s wrong with the mike?” To which the congregation responded, “And also with you.”

 

[palmas85]

Our orthodox young priest makes the NO mass into a showboat during and through out the homily by directly addressing altar boys and laity and turning around to face the altar boys behind him or walking back and forth in front of the altar and up and down the aisle. It is not called for of course , but it definitely makes a performance, very sincere, but still a performance. It drives me nuts, but I can’t go anywhere else for daily Mass. I think the priest needs attention. He forgets that only God can fulfill our needs, not he personally. So it ends that he and his personality dominate and overwhelm the Mass and he is a true believer!
I tjust goes to show there is no point in reinventing the wheel. We have the Old Mass and lets make it more available

Doesn’t really sound like a very orthodox priest.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think you make some good points Caesar, but I disagree with your assertation that the new rite makes Mass into a performance.

For this, I would once again simply recommend reading The Spirit of the Liturgy. The problem addressed here is not the rite itself but the strange practice of celebrating the rite facing the people, something entirely without basis in all of Catholic history (this does not mean that congregations would not at some points wind up “face to face” with the priest because of his eastward orientation). The danger I am sure the Cdl. addresses is that the assembly becomes a closed circle looking at itself instead of a group collectively facing God, but I’m pretty sure he mentions the danger of the priest becoming a performer, too.

 

[Windmill]

Ratzinger was an amazing cardinal, and he is going to be a great pope. It’s interesting that he headed the CDF, yet he was so concerned about the liturgy, something the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments oversees. Now that he is the head guy, rest assured he knows what is going on and where things should go.

It’s also interesting about his election as pope. He has written so extensively before his election that there is no illusion about where he stands on many “issues”. The only question is, what “issues” will he try to tackle?

Ratzinger is just plain cool.