Lay Participation - The feel good factor?

[Iotaunum]

Very often when discussing the traditional Mass people bring up the issue of “lay participation”. I just had a conversation in the last few days and this issue came up again, as it did many times before. There exists a certain amount of ignorance among people of the traditional Mass. Most people whom I have spoken to claim that the Latin Mass only allows the laity to be “spectators” and all the* “work”* is done by the Priest. They claim that the laity are “left out”. Now, most people viewing the “traditional Catholicism” forum here will know that the laity are not mere spectators at the Latin Mass - however, it seems that the amount of people who hold this view is very large indeed, and it claims many Bishops and priests among its ranks. It seems as if the push for more “active” participation among the laity is growing, and the laity are demanding bigger roles in not only the liturgy but also Church government.

Church history and the writings of the Popes and Saints have shown that there is no “need” for more active lay participation in the liturgy - by which I mean it is not required to fulfil your duty of assisting at Mass, and lets face it, the traditional level of participation has gotten a whole lot of saints into Heaven! For me personally, I am happy with the participation at the Latin Mass and when I look around I am pleased to see how involved everyone is and how closely they follow with their missals. My personal opinion is that a lot of “active lay participation” in the parishes I have been to seem to be driven by the “feel good factor”. This is only an observation, and I know there are many people involved who this does not apply to.

I would like to ask everyone a few questions relating to this. Why do lay people nowadays feel the “need” for more active participation in the liturgy? Why is it that people are no longer satisfied with the traditional level of participation? What does participation mean to you? Does one have to be up at the altar, or saying the prayers out loud to fully participate? If the laity nowadays participate “more fully” do those who attend the traditional Mass participate in a lesser manner?

I don’t want this to be a debate - I want to hear from everyone, particularly those who are involved in the more active participation at the New Mass. I think there is still a lot of misunderstandings on both sides, and I think discussing the issue of participation will be helpful to everyone and will clear up some of the misconceptions which still seem to be prevalent today.

 

[puzzleannie]

being there IS the full active participation of the laity, being their not simply physically but mentally and spiritually, most of all with all the hurts and needs for healing and all the yearning for closer union with Christ. There is no further word or action needed on the part of any member of the congregation except to be there with all your mind, heart, soul and will, with Christ, at his sacrificial death and rising as it is made present for our benefit. that was true no matter what century, no matter what language, no matter what rite in which Mass has been celebrated.

 

[asd72]

From what I understand, liturgy in the early church had the laity involvement, so maybe they were also basing it on that.

Hippolytus of Rome composed 'The Apostolic Tradition in 215 AD, a sample…

Priest: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: And with your spirit.
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
Congregation: We lift them up to the Lord.

(Ref The lambs supper, Scott Hahn)

 

[Iotaunum]

being there IS the full active participation of the laity, being their not simply physically but mentally and spiritually, most of all with all the hurts and needs for healing and all the yearning for closer union with Christ. There is no further word or action needed on the part of any member of the congregation except to be there with all your mind, heart, soul and will, with Christ, at his sacrificial death and rising as it is made present for our benefit. that was true no matter what century, no matter what language, no matter what rite in which Mass has been celebrated.

I agree fully. I always think of being at Mass as being at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. What would I do to participate? I would kneel before Christ and pray. I have always been satisfied with the participation at the Latin Mass, which is why I want to ask others why they feel the need for more active participation.

 

[Melchior_1]

From what I understand, liturgy in the early church had the laity involvement, so maybe they were also basing it on that.

Hippolytus of Rome composed 'The Apostolic Tradition in 215 AD, a sample…

Priest: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: And with your spirit.
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
Congregation: We lift them up to the Lord.

(Ref The lambs supper, Scott Hahn)

You’re not supposed to mention Scott Hahn in this board, didn’t you know that?!

(Joking. Sort of).

 

[Iotaunum]

From what I understand, liturgy in the early church had the laity involvement, so maybe they were also basing it on that.

Hippolytus of Rome composed 'The Apostolic Tradition in 215 AD, a sample…

Priest: The Lord be with you.
Congregation: And with your spirit.
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
Congregation: We lift them up to the Lord.

(Ref The lambs supper, Scott Hahn)

Yes, it seems many people refer to the Church Fathers and early Church to justify the reforms, but I wonder to what extend was the participation of the present times similar to that of the early Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I admit I do not know much about the pre-Trent history of the Mass, but the Liturgies of the Eastern Rites always had congregational participation. So the call for more participation by the laity in terms of vocal participation with the prayers and the hymns is not a modern, feel-good thing. It has always been done and definitely the Holy Fathers of the Church see it right to make it so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, it seems many people refer to the Church Fathers and early Church to justify the reforms, but I wonder to what extend was the participation of the present times similar to that of the early Church?

Why is it so bad to refer to the Church Fathers? We should base all our faith on what they taught! They are our link to the Apostles and Christ! We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles and Christ, its hard to know what was taught back then unless we refer to the Church Fathers who have a more recent connection to them.

 

[Corki]

I would like to ask everyone a few questions relating to this.

Why do lay people nowadays feel the “need” for more active participation in the liturgy?

I think its a symptom of a society that expects everything to be more active and more multitasking.

Why is it that people are no longer satisfied with the traditional level of participation?

Culture shift carry-over into faith practice.

What does participation mean to you?

I’m a bad one to ask. I actually feel I participate more in the quiet Masses.

Does one have to be up at the altar, or saying the prayers out loud to fully participate?

Again, social formation. Even in school, everyone has to have a turn to be “student of the month” and everyone who “tries out” for the play gets a part. This has led, in some ways, to a sence of entitlement or ownership of the liturgy.

If the laity nowadays participate “more fully” do those who attend the traditional Mass participate in a lesser manner?

Absolutely not!

 

[asd72]

I guess it’s difficult to be totally sure, we can only go with what information we have. I think though that Annie has the right idea. There are loads of Eastern rites also and they are all equally valid. We just need to all respect each other.

 

[Iotaunum]

Why is it so bad to refer to the Church Fathers? We should base all our faith on what they taught! They are our link to the Apostles and Christ! We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles and Christ, its hard to know what was taught back then unless we refer to the Church Fathers who have a more recent connection to them.

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with consulting the Fathers and what they taught - I love to study the Fathers. However, I was trying to make the point that many innovations have occured in the names of the Church Fathers, whose circumstances were different and who, for the most part, did not practice anything like what some people claim they did. It is like those who claim Chapels should not be so ornate because the first Christians said Mass in the Catecombs. They miss the fact that they were being persecuted etc.

 

[At_Trent]

Mass is a prayer. It’s up to the laity to participate in either form.

The only difference in the two forms, as far as participation, is with the OF there is more audible participation. But that doesn’t mean “more participation”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with consulting the Fathers and what they taught - I love to study the Fathers. However, I was trying to make the point that many innovations have occured in the names of the Church Fathers, whose circumstances were different and who, for the most part, did not practice anything like what some people claim they did. It is like those who claim Chapels should not be so ornate because the first Christians said Mass in the Catecombs. They miss the fact that they were being persecuted etc.

Apologies, I misread your intention and I though you were questioning the wisdom of referring to the Church Fathers.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you are arguing against traditionalism here. You say that we cannot do as the Church Fathers did because their circumstances are different. But what if I come back to you and say let us drop the EF in favor of the OF completely because the circumstances today is different from when the Council of Trent was called? In fact, truthfully the circumstances today is even much different than it was in 1962. Was abortion legal then anywhere? Same sex marriage? Lewd shows on primetime network TV?

There are many things we can take from the practices back then. If you look closely, society really hasn’t changed much. The sins are the same, the heresies are the same. Often we are lead to believe the circumstance is different just because the “packaging” is different. Just because we have cars and airplanes and the internet today doesn’t mean or souls have changed. What applies spiritually back then certainly applies today.

Let me just share that today I served at the altar for a Funeral Divine Liturgy for one of our priests. The Funeral Rites were the same ones used 1500 years ago, as stressed by our Bishop. Is it not applicable today? I think it very much is.

 

[Stylites]

My personal opinion is that a lot of “active lay participation” in the parishes I have been to seem to be driven by the “feel good factor”.

Not meaning to detract from your thread about participation, especially since At Trent had an exellent answer already, but grace is the ultimate “feel good factor.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mass is a prayer. It’s up to the laity to participate in either form.

The only difference in the two forms, as far as participation, is with the OF there is more audible participation. But that doesn’t mean “more participation”.

I think its time the Church should make a stronger effort to make all Rites available to all Catholics everywhere. We are imperfect and have many limitations, therefore we should find the tradition that best suits our individuality and can bring us closer to God. As Blessed Pope John Paul II said, the true mark of the universality of the Church is its diversity. It is a gift from God, we must bring this gift to all. Those who seek solemn participation through the EF should get it, those who seek active vocal participation through the Byzantine Rite should get it, those who grow spirituality with the OF should get it, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Monica4316]

Very often when discussing the traditional Mass people bring up the issue of “lay participation”. I just had a conversation in the last few days and this issue came up again, as it did many times before. There exists a certain amount of ignorance among people of the traditional Mass. Most people whom I have spoken to claim that the Latin Mass only allows the laity to be “spectators” and all the* “work”* is done by the Priest. They claim that the laity are “left out”. Now, most people viewing the “traditional Catholicism” forum here will know that the laity are not mere spectators at the Latin Mass - however, it seems that the amount of people who hold this view is very large indeed, and it claims many Bishops and priests among its ranks. It seems as if the push for more “active” participation among the laity is growing, and the laity are demanding bigger roles in not only the liturgy but also Church government.

Church history and the writings of the Popes and Saints have shown that there is no “need” for more active lay participation in the liturgy - by which I mean it is not required to fulfil your duty of assisting at Mass, and lets face it, the traditional level of participation has gotten a whole lot of saints into Heaven! For me personally, I am happy with the participation at the Latin Mass and when I look around I am pleased to see how involved everyone is and how closely they follow with their missals. My personal opinion is that a lot of “active lay participation” in the parishes I have been to seem to be driven by the “feel good factor”. This is only an observation, and I know there are many people involved who this does not apply to.

I would like to ask everyone a few questions relating to this. Why do lay people nowadays feel the “need” for more active participation in the liturgy? Why is it that people are no longer satisfied with the traditional level of participation? What does participation mean to you? Does one have to be up at the altar, or saying the prayers out loud to fully participate? If the laity nowadays participate “more fully” do those who attend the traditional Mass participate in a lesser manner?

I don’t want this to be a debate - I want to hear from everyone, particularly those who are involved in the more active participation at the New Mass. I think there is still a lot of misunderstandings on both sides, and I think discussing the issue of participation will be helpful to everyone and will clear up some of the misconceptions which still seem to be prevalent today.

I participate in the Mass by praying. For me that is enough.

 

[Iotaunum]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you are arguing against traditionalism here. You say that we cannot do as the Church Fathers did because their circumstances are different. But what if I come back to you and say let us drop the EF in favor of the OF completely because the circumstances today is different from when the Council of Trent was called? In fact, truthfully the circumstances today is even much different than it was in 1962. Was abortion legal then anywhere? Same sex marriage? Lewd shows on primetime network TV?.

Since you asked me to, I must correct you. I am not arguing against traditionalism. I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic and if my posts come across any other way, then I must blame a stressful day at work or poor writing on my part. I see what you are saying and I agree with you - that’s if I understand you correctly!

What I would say regarding the Church Fathers and their writings and practices is that since they were not infallible and lived at very different times than us, when the Church was just emerging - we have to consider their practices and writings through the hindsight of Church doctrine, dogmas and tradition. For example, some of the Fathers taught doctrine which was later rejected by the Church. They were admittedly not infallible. Now when they all were in agreement on something it was the teaching of the Church. At the same time, some of the Fathers were persecuted and had to say Mass in places hidden from their persecutors. Now some will try and say: “see, this father did not have a High Altar and a Chapel” in order to justify some ugly new building with a undignified altar. What they don’t realise is that this does not support their position and these same Fathers would most likely love to have said Mass in a beautiful Cathedral with High Altar had they not been persecuted. It was not down to Choice. Similarly, in the very early Church some laymen may have had roles which was given them by necessity due to the Church only beginning to grow and the lack of priests. These roles should have been performed by priests preferably due to their ordination, but again some people will use this to try and justify taking roles performed by priests and giving them to the laity in this day and age. It was the same with the Papacy. The Pope always had supreme jurisdiction, but delegated it to a large extent at the beginning because it was so hard to communicate to all parts of the Church throughout the world. Patriarch therefore had more authority delegated to them. However, some people today will try and justify limiting the authority of the Holy Father and pushing collegiality and de-centralized government of the Church citing the situation of the emerging Church.

So, it is not so much about what was done back then, but what was right and licit back then and what should be done now that the Church has grown. Returning to what was practiced in the days of poor communication and persecution is not returning to tradition, rather when the Church had the means and freedom it settled more into the form our Lord gave it to have. One example would be what Pope Pius XII said in Mediator Dei; that to want the altar to return to its primitive table-like form would be “senseless historicism”. I think what happens to a large extent today is that people try and justify their “senseless historicism” by quoting the fathers.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I tend to think the modern post-1960’s obsession with “active” lay-participation in the (European) Roman Rite is a consequence of the Second World War. There wasn’t really all that much call for it except by radicals in the 1930’s. When America, the ultimate protestant democratic nation by culture, liberated Europe in the 1940’s, however, the door was opened. I firmly believe that Democracy and Republicanism are perfidious notion that, while different, always tend to corrupt a society, skewing it towards pluralism and mediocrity. It’s not “just” a coincidence that the so-called Summer of Love occurred in 1967, just two years after the close of the Council. The whole Church was infiltrated by our worthless existentially-angst-filled Western culture.

When Democracy makes its vile footprint to be stamped across the world, “equality” can only result. I mean the sort of attitude that yells “we must have equality”, in the name of all sorts of perversions and errors. The Church had strenuously taught that freedom-of-religion/conscience in politics is not integral to Church teaching … but then, dogmatic Americanism entered with the liberation of 1944, and brought the democratic urge to Europe (1919-1939 was hardly all that democratic, despite appearances) by occupation and culture-stamping. It’s all Protestant and “city on a hill” individualist stuff, with very deep psychological roots.

The attitude which has resulted from America’s aggressive imprinting of Democracy has created a “bottom-up” mentality across the world. Such beliefs, though political, always branch out into all parts of life. We can thank the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, Hitler (indirectly), and several diverse historical factors for these modern socialistic obsessions with “the people at all costs”.

 

[Danquayle76]

Why is it so bad to refer to the Church Fathers? We should base all our faith on what they taught! They are our link to the Apostles and Christ! We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles and Christ, its hard to know what was taught back then unless we refer to the Church Fathers who have a more recent connection to them.

I agree the Church Fathers are very important. But, we should remember many of the practices of the early church were discontinued for a reason. For example, in the early church both the wine and bread were distributed among the laity. However, this led some to wrongly conclude that the wine only became the blood of Christ and that the bread only became the body of Christ when in actuality both the bread and wine each become fully the body and blood of Christ. Thus, the Church began to withhold the wine from the laity to send home the message that the bread fully became the body and blood of Christ.

After Vatican II when the wine once again began to be distributed among the laity church leaders probably felt it was pretty safe to conclude that this old heresy was dead, but the current practice seems to have revived the notion. I recall a news story a few years ago in which the mother of a gluten-intolerant child was upset that the Church would not allow her teenage son to receive communion on a rice-patty. The priest at the center of this controversy had tried to tell the mother of this teen that her child could simply drink the wine and fully receive the body and blood of Christ. But the mother disputed this saying the Church was trying to deprive her son of “the body of Christ.”

 

[laszlo]

I would like to ask everyone a few questions relating to this. Why do lay people nowadays feel the “need” for more active participation in the liturgy? Why is it that people are no longer satisfied with the traditional level of participation? What does participation mean to you? Does one have to be up at the altar, or saying the prayers out loud to fully participate? If the laity nowadays participate “more fully” do those who attend the traditional Mass participate in a lesser manner?

1./ St Pius X felt the need for more active participation, and the Church decided that laity should be more than present: they should be part of the Mass, which is gathering, learning, offering; sacrifice, meal, mission. This is the reason of the new form

2./ The traditional participation, before St Pius X was simple presence.

3./ Going up to the altar is not necessary, but praying not parallel but together with priest, some parts alone w/o the priest, and listening to the whole Mass is. This is what the Church decided.

4./ A small percentage of the people need the sacred = set aside to God, felt to be remote, and this feeling fills them up; so their participation in the traditional form, even in the pre St Pius X way is OK. If there is anyone who feels that he/she is better person by attending a different form than the majority, so submit himself/herself to the temptation of Satan, the pride; that participation is inferior.