Lay Participation - The feel good factor?

[JReducation]

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.

I agree. We need to stop blaming everything on Vatican II and the changes in the mass. The world around us had changed. The men and women who were entering seminaries and religious communities were part of that world. They didn’t grow up in bubbles. They brought with them the good and the bad that world had to offer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JamestheOlder]

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?

I was going to reply, but Br. JR, AndyP and lazlo have done an excellent job of explaining the participation which I experienced as a Catholic school child (daily TLM Mass), seminary student (daily TLM Mass, with 26 more going on at the same time at the side altars), and adult Catholic, and my whole-hearted support for the NO, albeit, as it SHOULD be celebrated.

And so, I shall shut up.

Well…one more thing, ProVobis…the reason the crowds could hear Jesus is that he was not facing away from them when He preached…and He talked in the vernacular of the day.

'Bye.

 

[ProVobis]

and He talked in the vernacular of the day.

The way I read the gospels, His miracles spoke. What’s vernacular got to do with it?

…have done an excellent job of explaining the participation which I experienced as a Catholic school child

Nothing like ganging up. Maybe I’d rather hear it from you, if it’s okay.

And what are you trying to convert me to? I’m not opposed to the OF, just the English translations.

 

[archangel04]

It still amazes me that it’s those who grew up with the TLM or are part of the boomers gen (not all) are the ones who really dislike or really don’t care for the EF, which is fine. Yet, you have those who are my age range 21-34 who act as if we have found some hidden treasure (the EF). In all honestly I really knew nothing about participation of the mass, and I served as an altar boy for 10 years, and yet I could not tell you what some parts of the mass meant or it’s symbolism. in 2008 I heard something about some Latin mass and I investigated more, and yes it took me some work and investigation, and realize that perhaps this was the mass for me. Here I had found that “participation” that people had told me about but never really did it myself. Now I actually sing at the mass, something I never did at the OF. Now I am in no way disrespecting the OF and see it as valid, I grew up with it, but this just goes to show you that not all spiritualities are for all, although many lead to God and are valid options. This also shows that the EF is not just for some old retired small group, but that many of us have hungered for this type of spirituality and reverence that was missing in our lives.

 

[archangel04]

The way I read the gospels, His miracles spoke. What’s vernacular got to do with it?

Nothing like ganging up. Maybe I’d rather hear it from you, if it’s okay.

And what are you trying to convert me to? I’m not opposed to the OF, just the English translations.

Agreed, that perhaps could have been seen as a “cheap shot” by that poster. No doubt that Christ actions were part of His Word, unlike other prhophets, this was,is, God incarnate. Jesus perhaps faced the people because He is God.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesus perhaps faced the people because He is God.

Could be. But I would think that how He Himself worshipped in the Temple would be of more significance. Or how people acted when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies. (I imagine in awe.) And thanks for the support.

 

[archangel04]

Could be. But I would think that how He Himself worshipped in the Temple would be of more significance. Or how people acted when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies. (I imagine in awe.) And thanks for the support.

No doubt, since Christ did keep the Law, that comment was more towards the OP, as it seemed he was using Christ actions for supporting only “facing the people”.

 

[JReducation]

Could be. But I would think that how He Himself worshipped in the Temple would be of more significance. Or how people acted when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies. (I imagine in awe.) And thanks for the support.

Being Jewish, I can tell you that for our ancestors, the Holy of Holies, or what we call the sanctuary of the Temple was physically very different from a Latin Church and therefore it evoked a very unique response from the people. The closest thing that we have in Catholicism to that sanctuary of the Temple would be found in the Eastern Catholic Churches that use an iconastasis. Except that in the Jewish tradition you did not see or hear what went on inside. In Oriental Catholic Churches that have the screen you can hear and at times even see. The Sanctuary was more like a chapel, closed off to the public eye. This was a much later development in Judaism, actually started by Solomon. Traditionally, the sacrifice was offered before the people with the high priest facing the people. Gradually, it was moved into this hidden chamber. So the response was one of mystery, but it was not triggered by theology. It was triggered by the environment in the Temple.

It is very unlikely that Jesus ever entered the sanctuary. The closest that we believe he ever came to the ranks of the priests was probably a Pharisee. Yes, contrary to popular belief, there were very good men among the Pharisees and very holy ones too. The modern Rabbi comes from that line. Jesus was often referred to as Raboni.

But I’m not sure how you’re connecting the office and ministry of the Jewish High Priest and that of the Catholic priest. The Jewish High Priest foreshadowed Christ’s priesthood, we know that. However, the sanctuary and the people of then and the sanctuary and the Latin Church of today is where I’m not getting the connection. I would equate the sanctuary of the Latin Church to that of the Temple of today. In fact, they’re very similar. You can see their common roots in the Diaspora. You’ll have to help me out here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PA650]

It still amazes me that it’s those who grew up with the TLM or are part of the boomers gen (not all) are the ones who really dislike or really don’t care for the EF, which is fine. Yet, you have those who are my age range 21-34 who act as if we have found some hidden treasure (the EF). In all honestly I really knew nothing about participation of the mass, and I served as an altar boy for 10 years, and yet I could not tell you what some parts of the mass meant or it’s symbolism. in 2008 I heard something about some Latin mass and I investigated more, and yes it took me some work and investigation, and realize that perhaps this was the mass for me. Here I had found that “participation” that people had told me about but never really did it myself. Now I actually sing at the mass, something I never did at the OF. Now I am in no way disrespecting the OF and see it as valid, I grew up with it, but this just goes to show you that not all spiritualities are for all, although many lead to God and are valid options. This also shows that the EF is not just for some old retired small group, but that many of us have hungered for this type of spirituality and reverence that was missing in our lives.

The simple answer is having the Missal of Blessed John XXIII celebrated alongside the Missal of Paul VI in a parish setting. Thus, the majority of liturgical issues that plague Catholics of the Roman Rite will cease and I’ll be able to have a Sunday morning Mass experience without any great issues.

 

[JReducation]

The simple answer is having the Missal of Blessed John XXIII celebrated alongside the Missal of Paul VI in a parish setting. Thus, the majority of liturgical issues that plague Catholics of the Roman Rite will cease and I’ll be able to have a Sunday morning Mass experience without any great issues.

If I may give you an idea, you can do what we (friars) do. We ignore everyone. Then we can attend to what is happening at mass in either form and we sleep well at night too.

St. Francis said that one should avoid conflict and if one could not avoid them, because they were at your front door, then you should ignore them. Padre Pio, a faithful son of Francis said that worry was useless. St. Maximilian Kolbe, another faithful son of Francis told his brothers to forget everything else and remember love, nothing else could be that important. Peter of Alcantara, another great Franciscan and spiritual director of St. Teresa for a while, told her that unless she learned to ignore what everyone else was saying she would never experience silence and without silence you cannot hear the voice of God. I come from along tradition of people who simply ignore the squabbles and let those who are responsible for dealing with them do so. As St. Clare would said to the pope when he asked her about her other houses, “I have enough to do without making someone else’s job my own.” She was not worried about them. She knew that when they needed her, they would write. And they did write.

The moral of the story is that when someone asks for help, you never deny them. Outside of that, protect your silence by ignoring the noise around you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PA650]

If I may give you an idea, you can do what we (friars) do. We ignore everyone. Then we can attend to what is happening at mass in either form and we sleep well at night too.

St. Francis said that one should avoid conflict and if one could not avoid them, because they were at your front door, then you should ignore them. Padre Pio, a faithful son of Francis said that worry was useless. St. Maximilian Kolbe, another faithful son of Francis told his brothers to forget everything else and remember love, nothing else could be that important. Peter of Alcantara, another great Franciscan and spiritual director of St. Teresa for a while, told her that unless she learned to ignore what everyone else was saying she would never experience silence and without silence you cannot hear the voice of God. I come from along tradition of people who simply ignore the squabbles and let those who are responsible for dealing with them do so. As St. Clare would said to the pope when he asked her about her other houses, “I have enough to do without making someone else’s job my own.” She was not worried about them. She knew that when they needed her, they would write. And they did write.

The moral of the story is that when someone asks for help, you never deny them. Outside of that, protect your silence by ignoring the noise around you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your insightful response, Br. Jr. Also, your Franciscan perspective is greatly appreciated.

 

[InquisitorMax]

A mass can be said without a congregation. You just need a server. Letting lay people get involved is a concession. I think it’s distracting and a lot more work for the priest. You can also obscure that fact that Mass is a sacrifice directed at God.

More laypeople in the sanctuary does not mean the congregation gets more graces. It just creates a more mundane atmosphere.

 

[Will_S]

Well…one more thing, ProVobis…the reason the crowds could hear Jesus is that he was not facing away from them when He preached…and He talked in the vernacular of the day.

Well since you have so much experience with the Traditional Mass, I’m sure you are well aware that the sermon is preached both facing the people and in the vernacular in the Traditional Mass.

In other words: what’s your point?

 

[pataburd]

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.

What you observe is an indicator of the high levels of secularization that have been normalized around/within the Mass itself. The people today who wear flip-flops to Mass typically dress more thoughtfully for dinner out on the weekend.

Although I do not completely dismiss your analogy, you seem to overlook the attitudinal change (which accompanies the apparent change), specifically toward the “other-worldliness” of the Mass, which should draw us toward something different than the casual, day-to-day, “level playing field” approach we take with everything else outside the Mass.

Also, I think that the loss of reverence and beauty in the way the Mass is celebrated has had more causative influence on the world without, not vice-versa, as you perhaps imply. Surely, if the Church concedes to the secular pressures of the world outside of her–and inimical to her–then she effectively resigns her salvific function–perhaps functionality might be a better word–to a large degree.

And I am not talking about mere changes in appearance, but about the formal defection in the way the Mass is fundamentally seen and treated for what It is. Please understand that I am NOT blaming the Novus Ordo per se, rather the liturgical license that those with a destructive tendency tend to take with it versus the TLM. The latter, for now, proves more “tamper resistant”; and therein, I think lies its drawing power: for those who desire to experience, in the Mass they just stepped into, something ostensibly different from the business meeting or the baseball game they just stepped out of.

 

[pataburd]

…the reason the crowds could hear Jesus is that he was not facing away from them when He preached…and He talked in the vernacular of the day.

First, may we clear up the “facing away” or "with his back towards the people"misnomer about the orientation of the priest during Mass? Positively speaking, both the priest and the congregation face God while offering up the Sacrifice, not each other. Pope Benedict XVI, writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, makes a very clear case for the liturgical soundness of “ad orientem” (in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, I believe).

Second, Jesus–who confined His immediate efforts to the Jews in Palestine–indeed preached in the vernacular of His time. However, as His Church, His Body, became universal, the propagation of the Gospel did not continue in the Aramaic tongue. That would have made no practical sense. Now that the Church is universal, Latin is the "new vernacular’, if you will, distinctive of Christ’s new Society on earth.

If I were to travel to France later this month, I would perhaps feel more “at home” in the Traditional Latin Mass, precisely because the Mass would be said in Latin, which has become familiar to me (and with the English translation right alongside the Latin in my missal, that lingual familiarity is further enhanced). Of course, I would suffer a deficit during the homily, which I am willing to concede. : )

If, on the other hand, I were to attend a “fully developed” Novus Ordo celebration in Paris, for example, everything would be said in French (not the “Alleluias”, etc., but I think you understand what I am trying to say). The Mass would be much more difficult for me to follow (since I don’t know a lick of French). Furthermore, the “gestalt” of the Church’s universality (e.g. that sense of fraternity with my French brothers) would be weakened, since I have lost significant connections at the sensory (auditory) level.

In this case, for purely practical reasons–so I couldn’t be branded as a sentimentalist, I would prefer the TLM. : )

When you think about it, the widespread application of the vernacular–quite beyond the scope of Vatican II’s documented intentions, by the way–arguably does more to fragment the universal Church (Whose universality is temporal as well as geographical) than to unify it. (Here the emphasis would be on “unity by virtue of common liturgical practice”.)

So, there are two sides to every story–if I may shamelessly re-coin a phrase. The problem today is that most Catholics opposed to the TLM proffer the biased, two-headed coin of contention; a coin that has been forged by loads of unchallenged misinformation and unchecked misunderstanding.

The fact that the TLM tends to be suppressed and, on top of that, misreported in its absence, only heightens the misnomer. And that is truly a shame, a great disservice to Our Lord and a lamentable loss for the Faithful.

 

[MarkThompson]

A mass can be said without a congregation. You just need a server. Letting lay people get involved is a concession. I think it’s distracting and a lot more work for the priest. You can also obscure that fact that Mass is a sacrifice directed at God.

More laypeople in the sanctuary does not mean the congregation gets more graces. It just creates a more mundane atmosphere.

Historically, this is backward. The “concession” was letting priests celebrate Mass with only a single server. Low Mass was created to allow priests to say their daily Mass in places like cathedral chapters where you had a lot of priests. The Catholic Encyclopedia remarks:
During the first centuries it had been a common custom for a number of priests to concelebrate; standing around their bishop, they joined in his prayers and consecrated the oblation with him. . . . [C]oncelebration was in the early Middle Ages replaced by separate private celebrations. No doubt the custom of offering each Mass for a special intention helped to bring about this change. The separate celebrations then involved the building of many altars in one church and the reduction of the ritual to the simplest possible form. The deacon and subdeacon were in this case dispensed with; the celebrant took their part as well as his own. One server took the part of the choir and of all the other ministers, everything was said instead of being sung, the incense and kiss of peace were omitted. So we have the well-known rite of low Mass (missa privata). This then reacted on high Mass (missa solemnis), so that at high Mass too the celebrant himself recites everything, even though it be also sung by the deacon, subdeacon, or choir.
. . .
This high Mass is the norm; it is only in the complete rite with deacon and subdeacon that the ceremonies can be understood. Thus, the rubrics of the Ordinary of the Mass always suppose that the Mass is high. Low Mass, said by a priest alone with one server, is a shortened and simplified form of the same thing.