Pope condemns abuses in TLM

[VociMike]

The Church having sensitively witnessed this, now teaches us that the most important liturgical change of V-II was to require active participation in the liturgy.

I’m curious, are you suggesting that there can be no participatio actuosa in the TLM? Or simply that there can be, but sometimes there was not?

In like fashion, can one attend a NO Mass and still by and large avoid participatio actuosa?

 

[drforjc]

The Church having sensitively witnessed this, now teaches us that the most important liturgical change of V-II was to require active participation in the liturgy.

I think, though, that B16 and others have rightly pointed out that the proper understanding and implementation of “participation **actuosa” **(the actual latin phrased used in SC)is not necessarily to be translated as “active” if by that one means the whole assembly must always be doing/saying something. There is such thing as active listening and sacred silence. Also, the GIRM still refers to the choir, for example, having a distinct and important role.
One can indeed fulfill participation “actuosa” in the “old” mass by uniting his heart and mind with the “action” at the altar, although I think the idea of a dialogue mass is helpful in encouraging precisely this union.
Thus, SC’s plea for participation actuosa is not actually a “change” in the liturgy per se, but a renewed encouragement to engage heart and mind with the liturgy.

 

[Titus]

I’m curious, are you suggesting that there can be no participatio actuosa in the TLM? Or simply that there can be, but sometimes there was not?

In like fashion, can one attend a NO Mass and still by and large avoid participatio actuosa?

S.C wanted the people to be able to recite the responses, not just the server.

 

[Titus]

I don’t really have an opinion here, and I’m not a TLM person, but I was just reading an article that did not have much good to say about the 1965 Missal, so I’m passing that along to add (hopefully) to the discussion.

catholictradition.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#8070905219972459579#8070905219972459579

In response:
traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/

There’s a lot there, but it pretty much spells out how the 1965 Mass fulfilled S.C

And CatholicNick- in what way was it a butchered TLM?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

But from what I read in this thread so far, it seems the laity can also attend the liturgy without proper motive, and occupy the pew mindlessly, believing they have fulfilled their Sunday obligation.

The Church having sensitively witnessed this, now teaches us that the most important liturgical change of V-II was to require active participation in the liturgy.

One’s physical presence at Mass fufils the obligation to attend. It is not ideal that one merely attends. However there were certain problems in eliminating private devotions like rosaries at Mass, one of the which is that some people can’t read very well, so it is intimidating to them be given a missalette, and being asked to read the epistle a source of dread.
Many more people can’t follow Mass in Latin. However that is not considered such a source of humiliation.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m curious, are you suggesting that there can be no participatio actuosa in the TLM? Or simply that there can be, but sometimes there was not?

In like fashion, can one attend a NO Mass and still by and large avoid participatio actuosa?

Isn’t it true that actual participation is what VII called for, not active participation? “Actuosa participatio”, means actual participation, not active participation as it is falsely or improperly translated.

Active participation then, has no place in the Mass if we are to follow the proper meaning of “Actuosa participatio.” Actual participation is achieved by raising your hearts and mind to the Sacred mysteries of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and is in the words of Pope St. Pius X “praying the Mass.”

 

[Joysong]

Isn’t it true that actual participation is what VII called for, not active participation? “Actuosa participatio”, means actual participation, not active participation as it is falsely or improperly translated.

Actually, those were not the words the Council chose, Paramedicgirl. It might be a good idea for all of us to review what the mind of the Council envisioned in formulating the document S.C.

stjosef.at/council/search/SC14.htm

1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, **this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; **and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

You would be pleased to know, I’m sure, that our pastor instructed the cantors to recite this phrase to begin each liturgy, so our parishioners know it well and can recite it from memory; i.e., "We invite your “full, active and conscious participation as we celebrate this liturgy.”

 

[BobP123]

Actually, those were not the words the Council chose, Paramedicgirl.

On the contrary. These were the words in Latin, the official text.

1. Valde cupit Mater Ecclesia ut fideles universi ad plenam illam, consciam atque actuosam liturgicarum celebrationum participationem ducantur, quae ab ipsius Liturgiae natura postulatur et ad quam populus christianus, “genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus adquisitionis” (1 Petr. 2,9; cf. 2,4-5), vi Baptismatis ius habet et officium. Quae totius populi plena et actuosa participatio, in instauranda et fovenda sacra Liturgia, summopere est attendenda: est enim primus, isque necessarius fons, e quo spiritum vere christianum fideles hauriant; et ideo in tota actione pastorali, per debitam institutionem, ab animarum pastoribus est sedulo adpetenda.

 

[VociMike]

Actually, those were not the words the Council chose, Paramedicgirl. It might be a good idea for all of us to review what the mind of the Council envisioned in formulating the document S.C.

You have to understand that the official documents of Vatican II were written and released in Latin, not English. Here’s the Latin original of the two paragraphs you quoted:

1. Valde cupit Mater Ecclesia ut fideles universi ad plenam illam, consciam atque actuosam liturgicarum celebrationum participationem ducantur, quae ab ipsius Liturgiae natura postulatur et ad quam populus christianus, “genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus adquisitionis” (1Petr 2,9; cf. 2,4-5), vi Baptismatis ius habet et officium.

Quae totius populi plena et actuosa participatio, in instauranda et fovenda sacra Liturgia, summopere est attendenda: est enim primus, isque necessarius fons, e quo spiritum vere christianum fideles hauriant; et ideo in tota actione pastorali, per debitam institutionem, ab animarum pastoribus est sedulo adpetenda.

As can be seen, the phrase is indeed “actuosa participatio”. There is much debate over the intended meaning of “actuosa”, and much of that debate can be found with internet searches.

 

[VociMike]

On the contrary. These were the words in Latin, the official text.

The old one-two punch.

 

[BobP123]

The old one-two punch.

Certainly helps to have those Latin texts always available, no? Can’t trust those translators.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Certainly helps to have those Latin texts always available, no? Can’t trust those translators.

Thanks for posting the original Latin version, Bob.

 

[Joysong]

How would the latin word diffuse the meaning of the english translation? It seems to me the thrust of the document has the intent of both interior and exterior participation, whatever form that may take within liturgy. The word “conscious” is one that I like since it exhorts the pew-sitters to enter into the spirit of the liturgy, whether or not they are “active.” Listening can be “active” and so can silence be permeated with “actuosa” participation.

I respect that many of us on line have read only the english text, and I doubt that we are really that far off base in our understanding of it, even though most of us have never, and will never read the latin text.

Surely we are not splitting hairs with our “understanding” of it, are we? I believe the entire english translation is on the Vatican website, so if the majority of viewers kinda got it wrong because it was not in latin, wouldn’t they have issued a correction?

 

[VociMike]

The problem is that many people incorrectly interpret “active” as “doing something physical”, while the real intent is, as you say, both exterior and interior participation. Thus, one can actively participate by singing the introit, and one can also actively participate by listening to the introit.

I think it comes down to the (rather obvious) idea that if you’re going to be at Mass, then actually be at Mass, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The problem is that many people incorrectly interpret “active” as “doing something physical”, while the real intent is, as you say, both exterior and interior participation. Thus, one can actively participate by singing the introit, and one can also actively participate by listening to the introit.

I think it comes down to the (rather obvious) idea that if you’re going to be at Mass, then actually be at Mass, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally.

Very good interpretation. Just like Pope St Pius X said, “Pray the Mass.”

 

[Joysong]

Thanks, VociMike,

The problem is that many people incorrectly interpret “active” as “doing something physical”, while the real intent is, as you say, both exterior and interior participation.

Maybe they miss the first part of #14?:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.

I’ll bet we both have seen fully “active” while the mind is figuring out what to make for dinner or who will win the football game …
Without heeding the fully “conscious,” the internal joining of mind and spirit is void. I’m really glad my pastor took note of this and in his small way tried to instill a conscientious reminder each week.

God bless you!

 

[brotherhrolf]

How would the latin word diffuse the meaning of the english translation? It seems to me the thrust of the document has the intent of both interior and exterior participation, whatever form that may take within liturgy. The word “conscious” is one that I like since it exhorts the pew-sitters to enter into the spirit of the liturgy, whether or not they are “active.” Listening can be “active” and so can silence be permeated with “actuosa” participation.

I respect that many of us on line have read only the english text, and I doubt that we are really that far off base in our understanding of it, even though most of us have never, and will never read the latin text.

Surely we are not splitting hairs with our “understanding” of it, are we? I believe the entire english translation is on the Vatican website, so if the majority of viewers kinda got it wrong because it was not in latin, wouldn’t they have issued a correction?

Actually, the word conscious comes from the Latin con scientia (with knowledge) or so the Brothers taught me back in 1964. And, yes, I was an altar boy both before and after Vatican II. To drop back a few posts, Joysong, the Mass of 1965 was intended to be a transition Mass - a hybrid Mass - which would transition us to the NO. And, yes, the congregation was to be more active. I remember that most clearly.

And so we were. And maybe we ought to start a new thread for those of us who went through the transistion and what we were told and what happened after. I was an altar boy before Vatican II and I was an altar boy during the transition to the NO and I served the first year of the NO. And I’m not a happy camper just to let you know from where I come. We were sold a “bill of goods”. We were told from the pulpit that the NO would engage us as a people of God. I can only speak for myself. The graduating class of 1968 from my high school (at which I served) had a traditional Catholic graduation ceremony…In 1969, when I graduated, we sang “Sons of God” (the now politically incorrect hymn) as the entrance antiphon; “Sounds of Silence” (no, I am not making this up -Simon and Garfunkle) as the Offertory; “Bridge over Troubled Waters” as the Communion Antiphon; and “They’ll Know We are Christians by Our Love” as the recessional.

Almost 40 years later, I am still outraged. We were the 100th and last graduating class from a Catholic high school. Parce Domine to Simon and Garfunckle. Who hears my voice?

 

[BobP123]

How would the latin word diffuse the meaning of the english translation?

Seems to me like it should be the other way around, doesn’t it? Translation is tricky sometimes but you should never go back to the original word and try to change its meaning to suit your purpose. Doesn’t work in computer programming languages, doesn’t work in physics, doesn’t work in math, and neither does it work in conversational languages. Major wars have been started because of such attempts.

 

[Joysong]

Splitting an atom might be easier than trying to resolve a latin translation with a traditionist.

I think Bob, that the word in either language means the same, and as for intent, the Council certainly envisioned a participation that meant body, mind, spirit … in full consciousness. For the moment, I cannot understand why a traditionist would oppose this, for none of the “usual” arguments are coming to mind.

From the University of Notre Dame:

active
actuosus -a -um [active]; adv. actuose.

From this site:

actuosus, actuosa, actuosum
active, busy, energetic, full of life; acting with extravagant gesture;

 

[JLSacred]

The fool takes no delight in understanding, but rather in displaying what he thinks. Prov. 18:2

Splitting an atom might be easier than trying to resolve a latin translation with a traditionist.

I think Bob, that the word in either language means the same, and as for intent, the Council certainly envisioned a participation that meant body, mind, spirit … in full consciousness. For the moment, I cannot understand why a traditionist would oppose this, for none of the “usual” arguments are coming to mind.

From the University of Notre Dame:

active
actuosus -a -um [active]; adv. actuose.

From this site:

actuosus, actuosa, actuosum
active, busy, energetic, full of life; acting with extravagant gesture;