Lay Participation - The feel good factor?

[RyanBlack]

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.”

Bad example. The Church began to withhold the cup for reasons having largely to due with concerns about profanation of the sacrament, not due to the misunderstanding of some that both species contain both the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[laszlo]

Bad example. The Church began to withhold the cup for reasons having largely to due with concerns about profanation of the sacrament, not due to the misunderstanding of some that both species contain both the body and blood of the Lord.

Do you have any document for that? l was taught that withholding the cup happened during the great epidemic, and the reason was to diminish the possibility for infection. [the viruses or bacteria are not part of the ‘substantia’ of the vine and those are not transsubstantiated, ther are just present at the same space frame]

 

[Danquayle76]

Bad example. The Church began to withhold the cup for reasons having largely to due with concerns about profanation of the sacrament, not due to the misunderstanding of some that both species contain both the body and blood of the Lord.

The Council of Constance begs to differ:

dailycatholic.org/history/16ecume2.htm

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread.** For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. **Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Regarding 4./, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that ‘set aside to God, felt to be remote, and this feeling fills them up.’ What do you mean by this exactly? I don’t know of anyone who attends the EF to feel that God is remote at this Mass. It’s quite the opposite, actually. Perhaps you have attended an EF and personally felt God to be ‘remote,’ but why do you (seem) to presume that God is remote to others at the EF, and that this feeling fills them up? I mean, this is quite rediculous; and is, one one level, rather humorous that you should think this (if I’m indeed interpreting your motives correctly), but disturbing, too, at the same time. Please explain.

Also, why do you seem to insist that those who attend the EF think that they are better people than those who attend an OF? You are a bit obsessive with this idea, don’t you think? I see very few Catholics here who think that they are better than eveyone else because they prefer the EF.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Council of Constance begs to differ:

dailycatholic.org/history/16ecume2.htm

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread.** For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. **Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.

Actually, what you have quoted actually proves my point. From the above, it states, “Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread.” The “various dangers and scandals” have to do with concerns about profanation of the sacrament. This is widely documented and very well known.

What you have quoted was the teaching of the Council against the heretical teaching that those who receive under the sign of the bread receive only the body of our Lord, and not his blood as well. This heretical belief arose and became widespread enough to merit the attention of a synod of the Church because the cup had become restricted to the clergy. It was not initially restricted to the clergy for the purpose of combatting the heresy that only the body of our Lord is received under the sign of the bread.

 

[laszlo]

Regarding 4./, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that ‘set aside to God, felt to be remote, and this feeling fills them up.’ What do you mean by this exactly? I don’t know of anyone who attends the EF to feel that God is remote at this Mass. It’s quite the opposite, actually. Perhaps you have attended an EF and personally felt God to be ‘remote,’ but why do you (seem) to presume that God is remote to others at the EF, and that this feeling fills them up? I mean, this is quite rediculous; and is, one one level, rather humorous that you should think this (if I’m indeed interpreting your motives correctly), but disturbing, too, at the same time. Please explain.

Also, why do you seem to insist that those who attend the EF think that they are better people than those who attend an OF? You are a bit obsessive with this idea, don’t you think? I see very few Catholics here who think that they are better than eveyone else because they prefer the EF.

I was 32 years old when the new form came in, form that one over 12 years attended daily mass. People were present. In Hungary when there was a cantor they sang their vernacular sons, some good some banal. In the silent Masses, and that was the majority they prayed the Rosary, walked the stations of cross, lined up for confession, or just walked around between the side altars searching for a priest who is just before the offertory, to catch a valid Mass. They knew that Mass is sacred, but that was the affair between the priest and Christ, far away from them. Even today the TLM does not emphasizes the main point : Christ is among us. The priest says soto voice the most important part, people do no hear, do not catch with their eyes and ears what is happening, to touch the Sacrament by hand is considered something very bad. This makes it sacred, separate from their life and world. They are blind to what Emmanuel = God among us means.

I participated for 2 years in the Fisheatres, and over half years here. This group is much better, but still the often used NO Mass is pejorative, and crude pejorative, the nazis and communist used such negative associations to influence others. Both believed that they are the full valued men, superhumans. There is just one human nature.

 

[Will_S]

Even today the TLM does not emphasizes the main point : Christ is among us. The priest says soto voice the most important part, people do no hear, do not catch with their eyes and ears what is happening, to touch the Sacrament by hand is considered something very bad. This makes it sacred, separate from their life and world. They are blind to what Emmanuel = God among us means.

I assert the opposite. In the Traditional Mass it is obvious that God is among us. That is why we reverence Him so greatly in the Mass. In the new Mass one could easily miss the fact that God is made present on the altar. By withholding the host from the hands of the faithful, the Traditional Mass emphasizes the fact that this is not bread. Bread is easily taken into the hand, but this is Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity. In the new this is not obvious. What is obvious is that large numbers of people at a typical new Mass don’t act as if they believe in the real presence of Christ in the host.

I don’t doubt that your remembrances are correct. But destruction was not the proper response to the problems that existed.

Perhaps you could explain what, in your opinion, was wrong with the vernacular Masses of the 1967-1969 time frame that necessitated the 1970 missal.

 

[ajpirc]

In my opinion, less lay participation would actually increase vocations to the priesthood. If God were calling a young man to be a priest today, the young man might not have any distinction between a call to the priesthood or a call as a married layperson. This may be because God is calling him through the liturgy, where lay and clergy both participate, or through leadership in the Church, where many lay people are finding jobs these days. If there were less participation of the lay in Church involvement, a man could a lot more easily feel the calling because of the distinction between the two.

The lay should have less involvement in the Church to give them more involvement in the home, which is the domestic church. If the lay have more active participation in the domestic church, Catholics might once again be known for having many children. With more children in families, there are more men to be called to the priesthood.

It sounds like a good theory to me.

 

[archangel04]

I was 32 years old when the new form came in, form that one over 12 years attended daily mass. People were present. In Hungary when there was a cantor they sang their vernacular sons, some good some banal. In the silent Masses, and that was the majority they prayed the Rosary, walked the stations of cross, lined up for confession, or just walked around between the side altars searching for a priest who is just before the offertory, to catch a valid Mass. They knew that Mass is sacred, but that was the affair between the priest and Christ, far away from them. Even today the TLM does not emphasizes the main point : Christ is among us. The priest says soto voice the most important part, people do no hear, do not catch with their eyes and ears what is happening, to touch the Sacrament by hand is considered something very bad. This makes it sacred, separate from their life and world. They are blind to what Emmanuel = God among us means.

I participated for 2 years in the Fisheatres, and over half years here. This group is much better, but still the often used NO Mass is pejorative, and crude pejorative, the nazis and communist used such negative associations to influence others. Both believed that they are the full valued men, superhumans. There is just one human nature.

I havn’t seen many people use NO mass in a pejorative crude way as you state in a good while. Yet one thing I’ve notice about you in particualar is that you constantly repeat the same thing over and over again and that is “people don’t participate in the EF, they are seperated from God and only the priest truly participtes in the mass. In the OF only there can people truly participate” (Note the quote is mine and not an acutal quote) you repeat basically the same thing on almost every thread I’ve seen about the EF and starting to sound like a broken record. It amazes me that since I’ve started to attend the EF, I have felt that I truly am particiapting much more in the mass then before, and because of the EF I truly not have a better understanding of the OF. But thats just me, what do I know

 

[AndyP2010]

Perhaps you could explain what, in your opinion, was wrong with the vernacular Masses of the 1967-1969 time frame that necessitated the 1970 missal.

The Mass of 1970 saved the mass of 1962. Do not be deluded into thinking that those forces that attacked the Church in the 1970s and the OF in particular would have avoided doing the same to the TLM. I think that traditionalist often make the mistake by looking at those who attend their Masses and think only if everyone could have this and it would all be the same. They forget that they have self selected themselves into those congregations and that the general population of the Church is somewhere else. It would be more accurate to attend the most casual OF Mass and then imagine that same congregation attending your favorite TLM and that is the best case. Pope Paul by promulgating the 1970 missal insured that the forces of change would then focus all of their attention on the OF and the EF Mass was left alone until better days.

 

[JReducation]

I think we have to be careful on several points.

First, participation is not a new concept. The participation of the congregation seems to have fizzled out. It was never ruled out. The proof is in religious houses in the Latin Church. While the laity was becoming more quiet at mass, friars, monks and cloistered nuns continued to be very vocal at mass. They never went down the path of silence at mass. In male communities when only some men are priests, they even built their chapels in such a way that it allowed the entire community in the sanctuary, not just the priest who was presiding. In other communities, they went the other way, not even priests were allowed in the sanctuary, unless he was the presider. If he was not presiding, not only did he not celebrate mass that day, but also he sat with the congregation, which were his brothers in community.

My guess is that the laity becomes silent, because most lay people didn’t know how to read. Lay people did not start following the mass with a missal until the 1800s when hand missals become more common and more people know how to read. They were not as common prior to 1800, probably because most people couldn’t read them. The religious had hand missals, because they copied them and later they printed them for their community. However, religious knew how to read, unless they were lay brothers and lay sisters. Even then, those who knew how to read answered the prayers. They didn’t have the dialogue between the priest and the server. It was more common between the priest and the community.

Second, participation does not always mean being on the sanctuary. It means being verbally engaged in the prayers of the mass. The Church sees a value in this. We should not attempt to contradict her. She’s not asking those who want to be silent not to do so. She’s saying that she wants to offer people in the Latin Church the opportunity to be verbally active.

Third, we have to be careful how we speak about “feel good”. There is nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. We do many things because they feel good. Feeling good is not a bad thing. When we do selfish things, because they make us feel good and we don’t give a hoot how they affect others, then we’re in trouble. Many people like the Extraordinary Form because they feel good at the mass. They may not use that phrase, but what they describe is a feeling of contentment, satisfaction, calm, peace, etc. I know very few people who come out of mass and say, “I felt horribly at that mass, but I’m so glad I did.” It just does not happen. If people didn’t care about how they feel at mass, they wouldn’t complain. They would just suck it up. God did not build us that way. We suck up only those things about which we feel good. Even martyrs felt good about what they were doing. That does not deny their suffering; but they were happy to suffer.

There is a wonderful story about feeling good concerning St. Maximilian Kolbe. It has traveled around the Franciscan family for years. I don’t know how much the lay faithful know about it. When he was a young lad, Raymond Kolbe had a vision. Our Lady was holding two crowns, a red one and a white one. Raymond asked her for an explanation. She told him that the red was for martyrdom and the white was for purity. She asked Raymond, which one he wanted. Raymond did not hesitate. He said that he wanted both. Our Lady agreed to his choice. During his life, he felt very good that he would be a martyr. He had no idea how or when. Nevertheless, he knew that it would happen and he would smile to himself when he thought about it or when he shared it with his spiritual directors and superiors. On that fateful day when the executioner walked in with the lethal injection, Friar Max smiled and extended his arm to welcome martyrdom. Witnesses say that he died a horrible death. Phenol burns the heart as it causes the aorta to snap, but Friar Max smiled. We have to be gentler with people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

I was 32 years old when the new form came in, form that one over 12 years attended daily mass. People were present. In Hungary when there was a cantor they sang their vernacular sons, some good some banal. In the silent Masses, and that was the majority they prayed the Rosary, walked the stations of cross, lined up for confession, or just walked around between the side altars searching for a priest who is just before the offertory, to catch a valid Mass. They knew that Mass is sacred, but that was the affair between the priest and Christ, far away from them. Even today the TLM does not emphasizes the main point : Christ is among us. The priest says soto voice the most important part, people do no hear, do not catch with their eyes and ears what is happening, to touch the Sacrament by hand is considered something very bad. This makes it sacred, separate from their life and world. They are blind to what Emmanuel = God among us means.

I participated for 2 years in the Fisheatres, and over half years here. This group is much better, but still the often used NO Mass is pejorative, and crude pejorative, the nazis and communist used such negative associations to influence others. Both believed that they are the full valued men, superhumans. There is just one human nature.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It’s good to finally have an idea about why you have the views that you hold regarding the EF. You mention that the main point of the Mass should be Christ among us. This is indeed interesting, but I thought that the main point of Mass has always been the representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, and thus the consecration the Holy Eucharist so that we may partake of it ourselves and have Christ within us after we partake of the Holy Eucharist. So even though we take the Body and Blood of Our Lord when we take the Holy Eucharist, you feel that this should also represent Christ among us? It seems that you feel that there shouldn’t be such an emphasis on the sacred, because it separates us from Him somehow? I’m not trying to be argumentative; I really do want to understand what you mean.

I agree with everything you said about the other forum that you mentioned. I used to post there, too, but gave up.

 

[ProVobis]

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

That could have been done with the old form, without microphones, in Latin, and ad orientem.

 

[ProVobis]

The Mass of 1970 saved the mass of 1962.

There may be a lot of truth in that. A revision (as Bugnini had desired) would have probably killed it but Pope Paul VI rejected that idea and called his Missal the NOM.

Pope Paul by promulgating the 1970 missal insured that the forces of change would then focus all of their attention on the OF and the EF Mass was left alone until better days.

Not entirely. Agatha Christie and several (?) Anglican bishops, of all people, inter alia, petitioned Paul VI to preserve the old Latin Mass and he granted their wish for special occasions in England.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It’s good to finally have an idea about why you have the views that you hold regarding the EF. You mention that the main point of the Mass should be Christ among us. This is indeed interesting, but I thought that the main point of Mass has always been the representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, and thus the consecration the Holy Eucharist so that we may partake of it ourselves and have Christ within us after we partake of the Holy Eucharist. So even though we take the Body and Blood of Our Lord when we take the Holy Eucharist, you feel that this should also represent Christ among us? It seems that you feel that there shouldn’t be such an emphasis on the sacred, because it separates us from Him somehow? I’m not trying to be argumentative; I really do want to understand what you mean.

I agree with everything you said about the other forum that you mentioned. I used to post there, too, but gave up.

I think that we have to keep in mind that the mass has several parts and that the sacrifice is the focal point, just as Christ’s life did not begin and end at Calvary. If we pay close attention to the Easter Triduum, we get a good look at what the mass is. The Triduum has three elements: the meal, the passion and death, and the resurrection. Those three elements are very present in the mass, in either form or in any Church, Latin and Eastern.

If I’m understanding what our brother is saying is that some people want to build an invisible barrier that keeps the sacred up on the altar. That has never been the faith of the Church. Even the Eastern Catholics who have iconostases deliberately do not build them to the ceiling as was the case in the temple at Jerusalem where the Holy of Holies was actually a separate room. The Eastern Christians do not build them that way, because they want the people to hear and to respond. The Iconostasis is meant to create the sense of awe and wonder, not to enclose the sacred in a space away from the faithful. That’s not the idea. This has never been the idea of the Latin Church either. Some Traditionalists seem to believe this. I’m not sure where they get this idea. It’s not something that we have ever taught.

At the mass we have Christ among us in the Word, in the sacrifice and in the meal, in that order. We should attend to all three. The sacrifice was deliberately put in the center by the early Church for obvious reasons. It follows the pattern of Christ’s life. He preaches and teaches. He suffers and dies. He rises and promises to remain with us until the end of time. It’s very beautiful and we should not negate the three movements, because they belong together: Christ incarnate, Christ crucified and Christ triumphant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

They knew that Mass is sacred, but that was the affair between the priest and Christ, far away from them. Even today the TLM does not emphasizes the main point : Christ is among us.

You forget that the altar servers, who were trained extensively in the Latin and rubrics, played a big role in this. They responded for the congregation and all their actions represented that of the congregation (moving the book toward the gospel side to preach to the barbarians to the north, presenting the cruets, washing the priest’s hands, etc.) as well. In the 60’s, the role of the server became trivialized and transferred to the congregation. But there was almost always ACTIVE participation outside the priest’s.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.”

The withholding of the cup by the Latin Church for the laity came way after the time of the Church Fathers. When I say Church Fathers, I mean early Church. I don’t recall a Church father ever teaching that. Also the withholding of the cup was only in the Latin Rite. The heresy wasn’t as widespread as Arianism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Okay, I get what you’re saying now. Although I don’t know why a table altar is bad. It never fell out of disuse in the other Rites. It makes sense for concelebration which you cannot do in a Latin High Altar.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I’m going to try and get the thread back on track, because it’s not really been answering the OP’s question so far. (Interesting discussion about using the Church Fathers to promote questionable practices though. I always learn something on this forum.)

A few years ago, while I was still attending the NO on sundays, I got involved with reading at Mass. For several years I attended that parish and didn’t know anybody. I felt isolated and wanted to feel like I was a part of a community. And then an opportunity came for me to be ‘involved’ in Mass and I was very happy to take it. I enjoyed reading because it made me feel like I was helping at Mass, bringing myself into it. Other lectors were involved in other things, such as distributing communion, ushering, etc. I loved feeling a part of that group, being able to chat to people and do things. So yes, the social aspect of it was very important to me and it made me feel good about myself.

After about 6 months I discovered TLM and that was it for me. Things suddenly clicked and I knew I found something that was missing before. My understanding of participation now is more profound and in line with what the church teaches about Mass.

 

[asd72]

Mundum,

What did you find that was missing before?

And what is the understanding of participation that you have now, and how is it more in line with church teaching about mass?