Lay Participation - The feel good factor?

[ProVobis]

I was brought up in the Latin Mass. There was no participation at all.

Some see it that way, but mostly in retrospect. There weren’t many complaints back then as far as I can tell.

I served many Masses in the days when servers made the Latin responses for the people and basically performed all the non-priestly functions at the altar.

I attended many Masses where I didn’t serve.

But my participation in both cases was the same.

 

[pataburd]

I did not read through this thread…for lack of time…but I would like to say that I have attended a few EF masses- and while the liturgy was beautiful I did find it frustrating that I could not hear the priest and thus was not able to enter in as fully as I would like to. I also appreciate being able to add my physical voice to the prayer of the church in the OF- for me this really does help me to fully participate in the prayer of the mass.

e_a,
It took a good while before I adjusted to the structure of the EF. Like everything else new to us, we don’t achieve an appreciable grasp of it after only a few encounters.

Also, particularly during Low Mass, the laity certainly does have opportunity to lend their voice to the prayers and responses.

While I do attend daily Mass in the OF, I look forward–more and more over time–to participating in Sunday Mass in the EF. : )

Cordially,
PAB

 

[JamestheOlder]

Some see it that way, but mostly in retrospect. There weren’t many complaints back then as far as I can tell.

I served many Masses in the days when servers made the Latin responses for the people and basically performed all the non-priestly functions at the altar.

I attended many Masses where I didn’t serve.

But my participation in both cases was the same.

That’s because you were specifically TRAINED to participate. I was, too, as a server. My mother, a teacher and college graduate, prayed the Rosary during Mass because she could not follow the Mass, partly due to the subdued voice of the priests and no microphones.

There, generally, was no lay participation in the TLM…it was not required, nor encouraged. That was one reason we had to ring bells at various times during the Mass…to alert the “lay” that something important was (about to) happening.

 

[JReducation]

People have expressed a belief that there was a direct correlation between the mass before 1962 and vocations, as well as the changes in the mass and the decrease in the number of priests and religious. I explained that this was not the case. Religious life was already off-track by the first-half of the 20th century and the Major Superiors were getting ready to do something about it, long before the changes in the mass. I gave examples of some of the situations that had arisen and how they were contrary to the vision of the founders and how the Major Superiors tried to fix the problem by returning to the origins.

I’m not sure it is interesting or disconcerting that not a single soul has acknowledged that there was a problem that had nothing to do with the mass and that it needed to be fixed, regardless of the form of the mass. Is it that we don’t want to accept the facts that we had serious problems that had nothing to do with the mass? Or is it that we want to blame everything on the changes in the mass?

I thought that the explanation would get at least an “Oh, I didn’t know that” or “It’s a good idea for religious orders to return to their roots, even if it means some sacrifices all the way around” or “I rather have religious out of compliance with their founders and keep the numbers up.”

The silence speaks about our inability to deal with this without making connections between events and conditions that are unrelated.

The changes were real and they had some good effects and some disastrous ones as well, as do all changes. It takes years to get things right. Don’t think for a moment that things were peaceful and everyone was happy after Trent codified the mass. Had that been the case, St. Pius V would not have had to revisit the issue after the Council and had St. Pius been able to fix everything, at least three more popes and another council would not have revisited it.

Let’s avoid connecting dots that don’t go together. Otherwise, we’re just talking on this thread and no one is really learning much. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I enjoy learning and scholarship.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pataburd]

That’s because you were specifically TRAINED to participate. I was, too, as a server. My mother, a teacher and college graduate, prayed the Rosary during Mass because she could not follow the Mass, partly due to the subdued voice of the priests and no microphones.

There, generally, was no lay participation in the TLM…it was not required, nor encouraged. That was one reason we had to ring bells at various times during the Mass…to alert the “lay” that something important was (about to) happening.

Amazing how two different people can come away with two such different–almost diametrically opposed–experiences of the Mass!

Concerning your statement about lay participation being neither required nor encouraged in the TLM, pre-Vatican II/pre-Novus Ordo: could you please provide a reference to official Church teaching to that effect at the time?

Your commentary on the bells actually demeans the Mass, not to mention denying the importance of sacramentals during worship.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s because you were specifically TRAINED to participate. I was, too, as a server. My mother, a teacher and college graduate, prayed the Rosary during Mass because she could not follow the Mass, partly due to the subdued voice of the priests and no microphones.

It appears that you’re agreeing with me that it was possible to participate in the Mass in the pre-Vatican II days. I’ll have to concede the point only few were so trained but was this a systemic problem with the liturgy or just the slowing growth of the Mass-education process and lack of microphones? It wasn’t because enough weren’t getting some religion training in the Catholic schools.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s not forget that there were historical not legal reasons for the silence of the laity during mass. The most important one is that most lay people did not know how to read until the 1800s. By that time, people were used to having the server do their part. Even with the dawn of missals, people followed along, but did not say the prayers.

I don’t remember, from Church history classes, that there was ever a ruling against lay participation. I believe that it was just the situation. The proof, as I posted earlier, is to be found in religious houses where most religious could read and also spoke Latin. They were very vocal in the mass. It was the same mass that was being celebrated down the road at the local parish.

That’s how we got the different usages among the religious. I’m not talking about rites, such as Carthusian, Carmelite and Dominican. Those are different. I’m talking about religious communities that followed the Roman Rite, but over the years ended up having a different form. In those forms, there is a lot of vocal participation from the congregation.

These religious houses didn’t have many ordained men. They only ordained some; but they had many men. What they did was to have one of the ordained celebrate the mass for the community and everyone else, ordained or not, attended, just as lay people would in a parish. The difference was that these men could read Latin. Actually, they could read, pure and simple. They didn’t just follow along. They responded to all the prayers. There were no servers in these houses. They were unnecessary. However, it is true that some of the religious were acolytes. They performed those functions during the mass.

Reading is the only difference that I can see between the religious house in the Roman Rite and the parish in the Roman Rite. After you’ve done something for such a long time, by the time you can read and have hand missals, it is an established custom that no one thinks about too much. It’s like eating turkey at Christmas. I’m sure that it has its origins, but who remembers?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

Concerning your statement about lay participation being neither required nor encouraged in the TLM, pre-Vatican II/pre-Novus Ordo: could you please provide a reference to official Church teaching to that effect at the time?

Canon Law 1917

jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html

The only right of the laity is to receive sacraments, and the only obligation is to be present at mass, confess their sins onc a year, and receive the Eucharist at Easter time.

The Laity was not even required to give donations to the Church, the Church was supposed to live from the beneficia, the land. This sixth precept to contribute for the Chgurch is later invention. The laity was considered nobody.

 

[pataburd]

I’m not sure it is interesting or disconcerting that not a single soul has acknowledged that there was a problem that had nothing to do with the mass and that it needed to be fixed, regardless of the form of the mass. Is it that we don’t want to accept the facts that we had serious problems that had nothing to do with the mass? Or is it that we want to blame everything on the changes in the mass?

JR,
I don’t think posters are denying that problems were afoot (long) before the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. (After all, problems have been a constant throughout Church history.)

However, some would argue that these problems/defections found an unusually opportune outlet through which they could culminate: in the confusing and destabilizing aftermath of Vatican II.

And nowhere else do these problems arise in sharper relief, nor have such direct impact upon the Faithful, than in the Sacred Liturgy.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[pataburd]

Canon Law 1917

jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html

The only right of the laity is to receive sacraments, and the only obligation is to be present at mass, confess their sins onc a year, and receive the Eucharist at Easter time.

The Laity was not even required to give donations to the Church, the Church was supposed to live from the beneficia, the land. This sixth precept to contribute for the Chgurch is later invention. The laity was considered nobody.

Dear laszlo,
Precisely where, though, does the Canon discourage lay participation in the Mass?

If the “only right of the laity is to receive the sacraments”, I don’t necessarily see where we were being short changed! : ) How can one depict access to the Sacraments as something somehow “lacking” for the laity?

True lay participation in the Mass culminates in our bringing the fruit of Christ’s sacrifice to bear in our particular, secular spheres of activity and influence; this is the “activity” proper to laymen.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[ProVobis]

The laity was considered nobody.

Not in the eyes of God.

 

[JReducation]

JR,
I don’t think posters are denying that problems were afoot (long) before the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. (After all, problems have been a constant throughout Church history.)

However, some would argue that these problems/defections found an unusually opportune outlet through which they could culminate: in the confusing and destabilizing aftermath of Vatican II.

And nowhere else do these problems arise in sharper relief, nor have such direct impact upon the Faithful, than in the Sacred Liturgy.

Cordially,
PAB

Even if the liturgy had not been touched, because the religious life and the priesthood were being pulled way back, some back more than 1,000 years, such as the Benedictines and Carmelites, it was going to cause an “earthquake” that was going to affect the laity, especially in the liturgy and in Catholic education. The exodus was unavoidable and the reduced numbers entering was predictable.

What Vatican II did was to give superiors permission to do what they had been asking to do since the 1950s. Perfectae Caritatis was written just for them. It gave them the guidelines for going backward.

Many people blamed the changes on Vatican II, not knowing that these had already been on the table and had been requested. With the death of Pope Pius XII, many requests were tabled. When Bl. John XXIII came in, he asked everyone to wait for the Council. These folks just waited until the document was issued. That’s the connection with Vatican II.

Had there not been a Council, the permissions would have been given anyway. The difference may have been that each community would have asked independently, so the changes would have taken place more gradually instead of the entire chess board moving at the same time.

As I said, there were casualties. Some people left and some communities were never able to recover their roots. Neither the OF nor the EF can fix that. More or less participation is not going to help much either. The vocations are going to come from a change in the family. As parents become more Catholic, so will their children.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AndyP2010]

JR,
I don’t think posters are denying that problems were afoot (long) before the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. (After all, problems have been a constant throughout Church history.)

However, some would argue that these problems/defections found an unusually opportune outlet through which they could culminate: in the confusing and destabilizing aftermath of Vatican II.

And nowhere else do these problems arise in sharper relief, nor have such direct impact upon the Faithful, than in the Sacred Liturgy.

Cordially,
PAB

This line of reasoning only can only be upheld if you divorce the Church from the greater society at large, as if the 60s happened only in the church and the rest of society was still as it had been. Scott Hahn in one of his books talks about people dressing for Mass as if they where going to a ball game. Well at one time people dressed to go to ball games as if they were going to Mass. Notice that in these old photos the fans are wearing coats and ties. Reverence and beauty had to be lost outside of Mass before they could be lost inside of it.

 

[laszlo]

Not in the eyes of God.

That is correct. This is the reason why the XXI Ecumenical council changed the policy.

 

[laszlo]

Dear laszlo,
Precisely where, though, does the Canon discourage lay participation in the Mass?

If the “only right of the laity is to receive the sacraments”, I don’t necessarily see where we were being short changed! : ) How can one depict access to the Sacraments as something somehow “lacking” for the laity?

True lay participation in the Mass culminates in our bringing the fruit of Christ’s sacrifice to bear in our particular, secular spheres of activity and influence; this is the “activity” proper to laymen.

Cordially,
PAB

Meditate of this

Luke 22:15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

He wants us with all of our senses. Hear, touch, feel, being close.

And also “If one wants the ends, he shall want the means too”. The Church until recently did not provided the means to the active participation. The only allowed participation was the parallel or receiving passively as you pointed out.

 

[john_aurelius]

Is there a reason why the laity shouldn’t be more involved in the liturgy?

They are the members of Christ, they may not be the teaching member but it is our prayers, our collection of money on the plate…

Not to mention, clergy couldn’t do everything these days. They are constantluy complaining about being overworked etc. Why cant lay people read the scriptures in Mass, or distribute communion?

At least let us pray…

 

[ProVobis]

That is correct. This is the reason why the XXI Ecumenical council changed the policy.

I don’t follow. Trent defined the doctrine to keep parts of the Mass in low tones and explained why. This is not simple “policy” to change. How does introducing microphones for the entire Mass fall into accordance with the defined doctrines of the Church? Did Christ use microphones before crowds of several thousand? Maybe the fact that they were silent allowed them to hear Him? Silence is participation too, isn’t it?

 

[john_aurelius]

were they required to be quiet while they were eating too? Don’t talk with your mouth full?

 

[ajpirc]

You are probably right, I think it might increase vocations. And you know what else would increase vocations? If we decided to pay priests $150,000 a year and give them summers off. What’s that you say? It’s a bad idea for many reasons and shouldn’t be done, even though it might have the effect of increasing vocations? Hmm.

Increasing the pay of priests and giving them more vacation time to attract people to the priesthood is bribing. That is why it’s a bad idea. Giving the lay less participation in what is the job of the clergy will give a distinction between what God is calling them toward. How is that a bad idea? It has nothing to do with bribing people toward the priesthood.

Now-a-days, when people are feeling the call to the priesthood, they probably always choose becoming a layman because they can physically participate in the liturgy and in Church leadership and affairs without ever becoming a priest. Why become a member of the clergy if you can do the same thing while a lay person (excluding the sacraments, of course)?

 

[JReducation]

Is there a reason why the laity shouldn’t be more involved in the liturgy?

They are the members of Christ, they may not be the teaching member but it is our prayers, our collection of money on the plate…

The money on the plate is very wrong way of thinking. We don’t buy our way into the Church. That was the thinking of many people in the past and it brought excommunications and divisions. The lay faithful are bound by Canon Law to support their parish and the apostolic work of religious. We can’t commercialize the Church or reduce it to some kind of democratic republic where we should be allowed to do this because we pay taxes.

Not to mention, clergy couldn’t do everything these days. They are constantluy complaining about being overworked etc. Why cant lay people read the scriptures in Mass, or distribute communion?

It’s not a matter of can’t. The proper reader at mass is an invested Lector who must always be an adult male. In the absence of those who have been installed as Lectors, other people may be asked to read. There is nothing wrong with that. However, in the Extraordinary Form, the readings are not done by the laity. It’s part of the form. It’s not something opposed to the laity. Anyone who presents it that way, misrepresents the form.

As far as distribution of Holy Communion, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the Latin Church are the ordained. It’s not a matter of the laity being able to do it. It’s a matter of who is supposed to do it. The EMHC may be used when you don’t have enough ordinary ministers.

At least let us pray…

I don’t follow. Trent defined the doctrine to keep parts of the Mass in low tones and explained why. This is not simple “policy” to change. How does introducing microphones for the entire Mass fall into accordance with the defined doctrines of the Church? Did Christ use microphones before crowds of several thousand? Maybe the fact that they were silent allowed them to hear Him? Silence is participation too, isn’t it?

Actually, this was not a doctrine that Trent promulgated. It was a law. Doctrines flow out of revealed truths that have been handed down to us through Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

The way that the mass is celebrated cannot be a doctrine. If that were the case, it would be binding on all 23 Catholic Churches. The fact that we do not have the same rites and the same forms within those rites, tells us that the form is not a divine revelation; therefore, it’s not a doctrine. God does not hand us doctrines just for the Latin Church. His covenant is with his people, not one segment.

We tend to confuse the decrees of Trent. Some were doctrines. They apply to all Catholics, regardless of your Church. Some were disciplines that applied only to the Latin Church. Popes can change disciplines.

Increasing the pay of priests and giving them more vacation time to attract people to the priesthood is bribing. That is why it’s a bad idea. Giving the lay less participation in what is the job of the clergy will give a distinction between what God is calling them toward. How is that a bad idea? It has nothing to do with bribing people toward the priesthood.

Now-a-days, when people are feeling the call to the priesthood, they probably always choose becoming a layman because they can physically participate in the liturgy and in Church leadership and affairs without ever becoming a priest. Why become a member of the clergy if you can do the same thing while a lay person (excluding the sacraments, of course)?

If you ask the men who are coming to the diocesan seminary or to religious communities why they want to be priests, of course they mention the Eucharist. It’s the climax of the Christian life. However, they are also very clear about a way of life. This is not something that the lay person can duplicate. Even a secular priest, who is as secular as a married man, lives a way of life that is different from his secular counterparts. These guys are not looking just to do something, but to be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF