So exactly what is meant by "...fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations..."?

[Lepanto]

Even Catholics who have only a passing knowledge of the council may know, vaguely, that the council promoted something like “fully conscious, and active participation” of the laity.

They may know nothing else about the council, but they may have heard this phrase and they feel empowered now.

But what did the council fathers actually say?

“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.”
–Sacrosanctum Concilium, article 14
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

More importantly, what did the council fathers actually mean when they wrote this?

Did they mean that it’s now OK to blur the distinction between priest and laity? Did it permit lay homilists? EMHCs? Liturgical dancers? Everybody gathering around the altar? Communion in the hand? Etc… Is everyone supposed to be “doing” something now that they hadn’t been doing? Is everyone supposed to have a “job” at the Mass now?

No. In my opinion, they meant this: **that the highest form of participation in the Mass is the worthy reception of Holy Communion. ** Not terribly flashy or earth shattering, perhaps, but I firmly believe that that is what they meant. Nothing more, and nothing less. Unfortunately, some people have misunderstood (intentionally or unintentionally) and misappropriated that phrase.

So exactly what is meant by “…fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations…”???

(BTW – I saved this topic for my 1,000th post! )

 

[Phemie]

I think it means being there with full attention and understanding of what is going on. What is doesn’t mean is that we have to sing every hymn (GIRM is clear on that), receive under both species, or any number of things that have been done ‘in the spirit of Vatican II’.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Did they mean that it’s now OK to blur the distinction between priest and laity? Did it permit lay homilists? EMHCs? Liturgical dancers? Everybody gathering around the altar? Communion in the hand? Etc… Is everyone supposed to be “doing” something now that they hadn’t been doing? Is everyone supposed to have a “job” at the Mass now?

What exactly in the quote, or the whole document, rules out or prevents these things?

 

[jmcrae]

As I understand it, it means that we are to pray not only with our lips, but also with our hearts - that we are to be thinking the words that are coming out of our mouths, and understanding them, and actually meaning them.

I think it goes back to St. Teresa of Avila’s instructions on Mental Prayer - that we are to be attentive with our whole mind when we pray; not just reciting by rote while thinking of other things, or speaking words that we don’t know the meaning of.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

If you can’t come up with even one answer to the questions, “what were the readings about”, or “what color was father wearing” I would guess you weren’t fully conscious (or have severe hearing and vision problems). I imagine most people have to keep pulling their attention back to the liturgy because of external or internal distractions but if you didn’t even try to unite yourself with what was going on at the altar you flunked active participation.

So, what was the homily about at your parish last Sunday? And how did it relate to the readings?

 

[Lepanto]

What exactly in the quote, or the whole document, rules out or prevents these things?

It didn’t rule out or prevent a lot of things.

But if that’s the case, is it OK to play roller-blade hockey in the sanctuary? If not, why wouldn’t it be acceptable?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It didn’t rule out or prevent a lot of things.

But if that’s the case, is it OK to play roller-blade hockey in the sanctuary? If not, why wouldn’t it be acceptable?

Does drama help discussion?

IMO - no - most times it just ends up being insulting and makes the drama queen seem a bit foolish.

 

[Lepanto]

Hyperbole is a valid method of dialog and debate when making a point. (Jesus is famous for His hyperbole.)

And my question remains valid. And unanswered.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Hyperbole is a valid method of dialog and debate when making a point. (Jesus is famous for His hyperbole.)

And my question remains valid. And unanswered.

Well since hyperbole is defined as:

 exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

consider this my answer:

 

[NetNuncio]

Here the documents have fallen victim to translation. The term “active participation”, “actuosa participatione” in Latin, when we consider the spirit in which Sacrosanctum Concilium was written, is far better rendered “ACTUAL participation”.

This gives a much different connotation, particularly that participation does not have to be outwardly noticeable. Cardinal Levada once mentioned a possible retranslation of the Vatican II documents. I wonder if that will happen.

Adam

 

[puzzleannie]

for the laity, full active participation is doing what the laity are supposed to be doing at any given time: listening, praying, responding, sitting, standing, kneeling, singing, whatever the rubrics call for at each point, including generous amounts of meditation and contemplation of Our Lord here present. Assisting with liturgical ministry when asked, and when there is genuine need, is indeed a worthy thing, but that is ministry, and while it need not get in the way of full active participation, it is not the same thing.

the old lady in the black babushka in the back with her rosary may be more fully participating in the mysteries than the person engrossed in the missal & singing full throttle, there is no way to judge what is going on interiorly, where full participation actually occurs.

 

[benedictgal]

What exactly in the quote, or the whole document, rules out or prevents these things?

There are many people who succumb to the alleged “spirit of Vatican II” and “read things into” the documents as opposed to what those documents actually say. Hence, we have a plethora of do-it-yourself exercises in creativity that depend more on personal idiosyncracies and tastes than the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum.

We must also take to heart what Pope Benedict writes in Sacramentum Caritatis regarding “active participation”:

Authentic participation

1. The Second Vatican Council rightly emphasized the active, full and fruitful participation of the entire People of God in the eucharistic celebration (155). Certainly, the renewal carried out in these past decades has made considerable progress towards fulfilling the wishes of the Council Fathers. ***Yet we must not overlook the fact that some misunderstanding has occasionally arisen concerning the precise meaning of this participation. It should be made clear that the word “participation” does not refer to mere external activity during the celebration. In fact, the active participation called for by the Council must be understood in more substantial terms, on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relationship to daily life. ***The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium ***encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not “as strangers or silent spectators,” but as participants “in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly” (156). ***This exhortation has lost none of its force. The Council went on to say that the faithful “should be instructed by God’s word, and nourished at the table of the Lord’s Body. They should give thanks to God. Offering the immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, they should learn to make an offering of themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other” (157).

We need to take those words to heart. And, we need to teach our young people the importance of true participation, the kind noted by our Holy Father. That is important.

 

[Brendan]

Pope Benedict devoted an entire chapter of his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” to describing what is “active participation”

He basically looks at what is the “actio” of the Liturgy. In the Liturgy of the Word, the “actio” or action being accomplished is the proclaimation of the Word of God. The laity participate fully in this actio when they listen attentively to the Word proclaimed.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the “actio” is the Sacrifice of Christ Himself in attonement of our sins. The faithful, Pope Benedict says, participate fully in this actio when they offer themselves along with the Sacrifice the priest offers.

In each case, active participatation, says the Pope, is accomplished through silence.

Pope John Paul said the same thing to the US bishops in an 1998 ad lima visit

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

If you have questions about what is meant by Active Pariticpation, I would HIGHLY recommend Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. It describes the Councils intent far better than my brief outline.

 

[benedictgal]

Pope Benedict devoted an entire chapter of his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” to describing what is “active participation”

He basically looks at what is the “actio” of the Liturgy. In the Liturgy of the Word, the “actio” or action being accomplished is the proclaimation of the Word of God. The laity participate fully in this actio when they listen attentively to the Word proclaimed.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the “actio” is the Sacrifice of Christ Himself in attonement of our sins. The faithful, Pope Benedict says, participate fully in this actio when they offer themselves along with the Sacrifice the priest offers.

In each case, active participatation, says the Pope, is accomplished through silence.

Pope John Paul said the same thing to the US bishops in an 1998 ad lima visit

If you have questions about what is meant by Active Pariticpation, I would HIGHLY recommend Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. It describes the Councils intent far better than my brief outline.

You get a double AMEN from me on that!

May I also add that in the Gospel, while Martha was busy “actively” going about cooking dinner and getting everything for Jesus, Mary sat at His feet and listened to every word He had to say. Martha asked Jesus to scold Mary because she felt that she wasn’t being active enough. Jesus admonished Martha and told her that Mary had chosen the better part, and “it should not be taken from her.”

In my opinion, Mary was just as active a participant in Jesus’ visit as was Martha. The same can be said for the Mass. The Marthas in the faithful, the ones who sing loud, proclaim the readings or exercise some duty participate just as strongly as the Marys in the group who quietly follow the Mass with their hearts and pray from the depths of their souls.

 

[porthos11]

Active participation is “participatio actuosa”, meaning, the participation that is made possible only by our being baptized. While it does include the externals, it is first and foremost the exercise of our common priesthood in the Holy Sacrifice. This means that even though a Muslim or Hindu attends Mass and gets every word and posture correctly, it is impossible for them to have participatio actuosa.

On the other hand, a baptized Catholic can have full participatio actuoso without saying a single word (e.g. disability, language barrier), yet assenting fully to what is going on. If he attends a Mass in Swahili, and cannot for the life of him identify where in the Mass he is now, simply telling himself that he is making this prayer his own is already participatio actuosa.

Reference: catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/120/ArticleIndex/35

 

[Brendan]

Active participation is “participatio actuosa”, meaning, the participation that is made possible only by our being baptized. While it does include the externals, it is first and foremost the exercise of our common priesthood in the Holy Sacrifice. This means that even though a Muslim or Hindu attends Mass and gets every word and posture correctly, it is impossible for them to have participatio actuosa.

Exactly, that was another point that Pope Benedict discussed in his book.

That the faithful participate BECAUSE of their position in the common priesthood of the baptized.

The role of worship is to offer sacrifice. The ministerial priesthood offers Christ Himself to the Father. The common priesthood offers themselves as a sacrifice. It is in that offering that they participate in the actio of the Mass and the degree in which they make that offering is the degree in which they actively participate.

That is why, as Pope John Paul mentions, silence doesn’t exclude active participation, in fact active participation REQUIRES silence.

For it is during the Consecration, when the faithful are mostly silent, they they have the opportunity to participate most fully.

 

[THurifer2]

Does drama help discussion?

.

It does help illustrate the point.

There are those (modernist in thinking) that seem to think that if it isn’t forbidden then it must be OK.

BTW throwing out a rhetorical question is similarly antagonizing as using “drama”.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It does help illustrate the point.

There are those (modernist in thinking) that seem to think that if it isn’t forbidden then it must be OK.

BTW throwing out a rhetorical question is similarly antagonizing as using “drama”.

That particular hyperbole illustrated NOTHING worth considering or worthy of any answer than what was given.

 

[THurifer2]

By the way has anyone read the book > The Mass and Modernity< ?

It is an excellent book that illuminates the driving force behind the horrible mess the “spirit” of Vatican II has made of the “REAL” Vatican II.

 

[THurifer2]

That particular hyperbole illustrated NOTHING worth considering or worthy of any answer than what was given.

I am at work my co-worker and I both thought the hyperbole was an effective way of getting the point across I hope Lepanto continues with effective use of them.