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

[Eilish_Maura]

They still didn’t speak or read English, either, and it’s not like they can install Vatican spies in every parish church to make sure everyone is following the rules.

They probably trusted that the translations were being made accurately, and that failures to implement everything accurately were due to normal human failings.

And when they were not followed surely word got back and surely the translators were hired for their skill and were supervised.

There was still time for those originally involved in writing the documents to make the clarifications.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Really, the translation is fine. It just should be read without knowning how previous Popes defined the term.

Likewise, it should not have been read to mean external participation as an emphasis.

The Mass for the faithful has always been an internal encounter with Christ, and Vatican II made no claims to change that, so I wonder why some people thought it did.

Or why those in authority (ESPECIALLY pre 1998) allowed it to be thought of that way.

 

[Brendan]

Or why those in authority (ESPECIALLY pre 1998) allowed it to be thought of that way.

I have no personal knowledge of why some authoriries acted as they did, either from ignorance or intent.

Either way, the issue is now authoratively resolved as to what “active participation” means in a liturgical sense.

 

[CradleCath]

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

What, either in the quote or within the complete document suggests that these things are recommended??

 

[CradleCath]

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’.

You’re right. What I don’t like or understand is that many seem to believe that participation…full attention & understanding of the Liturgy was something new & attribute it to Vat. II. This mind-set suggests that those of us who claim to have “fully pariticipated” in the Mass, prior to the council are either lying or a distinct minority. Nothing could be further from the truth. I entered Catholic school shortly after WWII & let me tell you…I KNEW the Mass.

I & most others who received their catechesis from Catholic nuns of the 40’s & 50’s were taught far better than those who were educated in their faith after Vat. II., by lay teachers. (BTW., I was one of those lay teachers & I do not believe that 2 hrs. of Catechesis once a week = living the faith as we did in the parochial schools, DAILY). We were taught that no other prayer superceded that of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we had our Latin/English Missals & we followed them.

Contrary to what many of you have heard, we did NOT pray the rosary during Mass, nor did we simply recite the prayers & responses of the Mass by rote, while we looked around discovering which of our friends we’d shake hands with later. We were totally absorbed by the SACRIFICE that was being recreated** for **us, instead of BY us. Those who believe that the Catholic Church was born in the 60’s are mistaken. It’s been 40 yrs., since I’ve seen the kind of rapt attention at Mass that was evident before the guitars & “Blowin’ in the wind” turned the Liturgy into such a mundane affair.

There, I have vented. Please proceed.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

What, either in the quote or within the complete document suggests that these things are recommended??

I don’t believe the authors were doing any kind of fortune telling.

I do believe they would have specified things that were not acceptable to avoid problems as much as possible.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… 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. **…

Liturgical celebrations include more than the Mass. So it is not just about Holy Communion. They want active participation in, for example, the Liturgy of the Hours as well. Take this part of Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC): “113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.” The full document is at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html .

I would see active participation as well described by this part (of SC): “30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.”

And “actions” are similar to “having a job”. As in this part: “41. … Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers”

The 1973 Directory for Masses with Children is very direct in the association of participation and ministries:

“22. The principles of active and conscious participation are in a sense even more significant for Masses celebrated with children. Every effort should therefore be made to increase this participation and to make it more intense. For this reason as many children as possible should have special parts in the celebration: for example, preparing the place and the altar (see no. 29), acting as cantor (see no. 24), singing in a choir, playing musical instruments (see no. 32), proclaiming the readings (see nos. 24 and 47), responding during the homily (see no. 48), reciting the intentions of the general intercessions, bringing gifts to the altar, and performing similar activies in accord with the usage of various peoples (see no. 34).”

 

[Brendan]

John, each one of your posts serves more to clarify the internal particapation, that as examples of external participation

for example:

To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."

Note that SC notes that the acclamations, responses etc… can be PROMOTERS of active particpation, not active participation in and of themselves.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers"

Note again that the active participation is the participation in the single prayer, the Eucharistic Prayer, the remainer descripes positions, not actions.

We all do have a “job” at Mass. The Ministerial Priest offers the Sacrifice of Christ, and we, as the Common Priests, offer ourselves.

Some of the faithful offer certain service to the priest in his role as Ministerial priesthood, but that will always be secondary to our role as Common priests.

If it were otherwise, everyone would have to be ministers at the altar, not just a select few,and no one would be in the pews. The call to full, active and conscience partipation is not just for a select few, but to all. And we answer that call by virtue of our Baptism.

 

[palmas85]

Actually it is one of those vague, nebulous terms that due to the multitude of ways it can be interpreted has caused so much misunderstanding in exactly what the Council intended to be done.

I don’t really think anyone knows exactly what it means or what the Council envisioned.

 

[Brendan]

Actually it is one of those vague, nebulous terms that due to the multitude of ways it can be interpreted has caused so much misunderstanding in exactly what the Council intended to be done.

I don’t really think anyone knows exactly what it means or what the Council envisioned.

Read Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, he’s got a whole chapter on what it is, and what it is not.

I can’t think of anyone’s opinion on the matter that I would value more than his.

 

[palmas85]

Read Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, he’s got a whole chapter on what it is, and what it is not.

I can’t think of anyone’s opinion on the matter that I would value more than his.

Even if the Holy Father wrote a whole book on what he thinks it means, it could still be validly interpreted in many other ways. Truthfully, I think that was intentional on the part of those that coined the phrase.

In the end result, whatever he wrote is just what you said, his opinion and nothing more.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Even if the Holy Father wrote a whole book on what he thinks it means, it could still be validly interpreted in many other ways. Truthfully, I think that was intentional on the part of those that coined the phrase.

In the end result, whatever he wrote is just what you said, his opinion and nothing more.

An intentional part of the Holy Spirit’s plan - to leave it open ended.

 

[Brendan]

Even if the Holy Father wrote a whole book on what he thinks it means, it could still be validly interpreted in many other ways. Truthfully, I think that was intentional on the part of those that coined the phrase.

That would be Pope Pius XI, followed by Pope Pius XII, Both were pretty clear what it meant. Do you have record of anyone misinterpreting them?

In the end result, whatever he wrote is just what you said, his opinion and nothing more.

Not everyone’s opinion in this matter has equal wieght, I can’t think of anyone whose opinion would weigh more. And give a choice between his opinion and another theologian’s, I see no reason not to take his.

 

[palmas85]

An intentional part of the Holy Spirit’s plan - to leave it open ended.

I somehow doubt that.

 

[palmas85]

That would be Pope Pius XI, followed by Pope Pius XII, Both were pretty clear what it meant. Do you have record of anyone misinterpreting them?

Not everyone’s opinion in this matter has equal wieght, I can’t think of anyone whose opinion would weigh more. And give a choice between his opinion and another theologian’s, I see no reason not to take his.

The phrase has been interpreted in many different ways over the years. Or would you argue that everyone is in full agreement in exactly what it means?

 

[benedictgal]

Even if the Holy Father wrote a whole book on what he thinks it means, it could still be validly interpreted in many other ways. Truthfully, I think that was intentional on the part of those that coined the phrase.

In the end result, whatever he wrote is just what you said, his opinion and nothing more.

However, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss what Pope Benedict has to say on the matter. Why? Not only is he our Supreme Pontiff, but, he was actually at the Second Vatican Council and experienced, first-hand, all of the immediate effects and severe misinterpretations. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he tried to clear up the misguided “spirit” of Vatican II. As Pope, he is now trying to steer the rudder.

Granted, the book in question was written a few years before he became Pope; however, if you read carefully what he has to say and look at the direction the Church is heading, I would say that “Spirit of the Liturgy” is his blueprint for the liturgical overhaul we so desperately need. And, this most assuredly includes a solid definition of what “active participation” is supposed to mean, not what we “think” it should mean.

 

[CradleCath]

Even if the Holy Father wrote a whole book on what he thinks it means, it could still be validly interpreted in many other ways. Truthfully, I think that was intentional on the part of those that coined the phrase.

I agree that the ambiguous documents of the council were intentionally written that way. The Progressives at Vatican II, led by Karl Rahner, quickly realized that…though their ideas re ecumenism, socialism masked as “social concience”, the elevation of modern man to an almost God-head & the reduction of both duties & respect due the clergy… were successful. Still there were other issues such as birth control, divorce & remarriage, the sin of homosexual acts that they knew they’d never be able to push through. Therefore they made ALL the documents ambiguous & open to “interpretation”. This satisfied the opposition and left the door open for their current to develop the topic further in the direction they wanted.

An excellent book on the workings of the council is called “The Murky Waters of Vatican II”. by Atila Sinke Guimaraes

 

[palmas85]

However, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss what Pope Benedict has to say on the matter. Why? Not only is he our Supreme Pontiff, but, he was actually at the Second Vatican Council and experienced, first-hand, all of the immediate effects and severe misinterpretations. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he tried to clear up the misguided “spirit” of Vatican II. As Pope, he is now trying to steer the rudder.

Granted, the book in question was written a few years before he became Pope; however, if you read carefully what he has to say and look at the direction the Church is heading, I would say that “Spirit of the Liturgy” is his blueprint for the liturgical overhaul we so desperately need. And, this most assuredly includes a solid definition of what “active participation” is supposed to mean, not what we “think” it should mean.

We’ll just have to wit and see what the Holy Father does then about the issue then won’t we?

By the way, I merely pointed out that what he has done is offer an opinion, thats all. If he takes some concrete actions to solidify and clarify what these terms mean, great.

I’m just not real optimistic at it happening.

The fact that he was at Vatican II is something we need to think about though. Where exactly did he stand then and where exactly does he stand now?

 

[benedictgal]

We’ll just have to wit and see what the Holy Father does then about the issue then won’t we?

By the way, I merely pointed out that what he has done is offer an opinion, thats all. If he takes some concrete actions to solidify and clarify what these terms mean, great.

I’m just not real optimistic at it happening.

The fact that he was at Vatican II is something we need to think about though. Where exactly did he stand then and where exactly does he stand now?

Sacramentum Caritatis and the Moto Propio are some of the very concrete measures that he has taken since his election as Supreme Pontiff. So, I would not be too quick to discount Pope Benedict. Furthermore, he has also begun :cleaning his own house," if you will. He has already replaced both his Master of Cermonies and the director of the Sistene Chapel choir. I believe he is also laying the groundwork (if it hasn’t been done already) to get an Office of Liturgical Music in place.

Furthermore, the stand he had during the council has not changed. He maintains the same position he has always held. He makes that rather clear in his book, Milestones. Because I have lent it out (and beloved friend has not yet returned it ), I don’t have the exact source. However, he remains pretty much the same on things. This is actually a good thing because he is not wishy-washy. That’s a very good characteristic to have, especially if you are the Pope.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

It is those who read the Vatican II documents without reading Mystici corporus and seeing what the definition was what brought about problems.

That may because of a certain attitude among a certain group of people who think that a new religion was started at Vatican II. I was reading a Q&A column of a certain Priest. The question had to do with Imprimatur’s and Nihil Obstat’s for religious books and such. The Priest answered correctly that these should be looked for and that they indicate permission to print from the Bishop and free from overt and explicit doctrinal errors.

Then he went off the deep end and said that while these are present in older books, anything from before Vatican II can only have limited value and influence for modern Catholics. That’s what he wrote in the column.

My initial thoughts (after I had somewhat calmed down) were - goodbye Bible. Being one of the oldest writings before Vatican II, it must be among the least valuable and influential books for Catholics today. That’s what his reasoning leads to - and that’s what many Catholics agree with today, at least that is what their actions indicate. Goodbye great works of the Saints; goodbye Christology and most other doctrinal decisions (almost universally all were declared before Vatican II). Goodbye Catholicism - that’s were that erroneous logic leads. No thank you!