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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello,
So, I would not be too quick to discount Pope Benedict.
I find it interesting that a number of people who urge certain things in the Liturgy will use any person they can find to support their position - and it usually ends up being a self-tauted liturgical ‘expert’ who usually is in direct defiance of the Church. So ‘sister sludge’ from ‘I am my own church’ women’s community (no cloistered convent for them) says we can do this and that and the other thing, and she’s a liturgical expert and her word is binding on everyone. Oh, the Holy Father said that - well he’s just one man with one opinion - and in my opinion not a very good opinion. 🤷

Listen to the Holy Father!
 
Hello,

Here is a good article on the meaning of “full, conscious, and active participation” and what it means:

Participation - Msgr. Richard Schuler

Here is an article written by my Bishop on the same topic:
Moderators (please forgive the length, but this article doesn’t currently have a stable URL)

Bishop George V. Murry, S.J.
How to go to Mass


As I visit the parishes of our diocese and celebrate the Mass, I am often asked by parishioners this intriguing question: “What is our role at Mass?” They know the role of the priest. He prays over the bread and wine and, through the power of the Holy Spirit, transforms those simple gifts into the body and blood of the Lord for our salvation. Is it the role of the laity to watch and assist the priest or is there action that they are intended to take?

This year we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Within its pages, we can find an answer to the question about the role of the laity.

After describing the priestly office of Christ and the paschal mystery made manifest in the liturgy, the Constitution mentions over 17 times the phrase “full, conscious, active participation.” The most often-quoted passage is this:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, 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 Pt 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their Baptism.

The Constitution says that this is the aim to be sought before all else. In other words, the aim of each and every liturgy is not great music, not a brilliant homily, not a sacred space to take your breath away, not creativity, not professionalism, as worthy and necessary as these are. The aim of every liturgy is full and active participation by all the people in God’s work of saving and setting us free in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the role of the laity and it is the attitude with which all of us should approach the Mass.

So let us look carefully at the phase “full, conscious and active participation.” What do we mean by the word “participate”? For most of us who live in the United States and who participate in voting, or in our children’s education or in our parishes, the word “ participate” means “having our say” or “lending a hand.” To “participate” in the liturgy is something else, however. Liturgy demands that we enter into a mystery that is greater than ourselves. Liturgy demands submission of will and heart to God. In short, to participate in the liturgy is to place ourselves within the mystery of love and allow ourselves to be transformed.

Full and active participation only makes sense when it is first, conscious, which means we must know what it is that we are doing. Every part of the liturgy – Mass in particular – is rooted in the Scriptures and has a deep and profound meaning. Do we know what every gesture, word, ritual action means? Conscious participation demands that.

Full participation means that every thing that we do, we should do with all our heart, all our mind, and all our strength. It means to be alert to everything that happens during the liturgy. Full participation demands that we be deliberate and attentive.

Finally, active participation is to remember that we are embodied spirits; or as the Constitution states:
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.
So there we have it. Full, conscious, and active participation is the great challenge and the great opportunity for the laity at the liturgy. It is also a way of being that will transform us and if we are transformed we might fully, consciously, actively participate in transforming the world.

Please allow me one concrete example. Full, conscious, and active participation in the Communion Procession is an incredible moment of connecting our lives with the paschal mystery. Our Holy Father, when he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a wonderful meditation on the Eucharist in a book entitled: “God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life.” In meditating on the Feast of Corpus Christi, he advocated an understanding of the procession accompanying it as a model for every Communion Procession. As we walk away from our pew, we in essence move out of ourselves, out of our prejudices, likes and dislikes, move away from our limits and barriers. We walk away from hurt and harm, from meaninglessness, from blindness, grief, loss, and soul-deadening pain. Walking away, we process to the Lord and when we reach Him – in that moment, in that encounter – He soothes our hurt and harm; gives our lives meaning; provides spiritual sight instead of deadening blindness; finds us when we are lost; gives us medicine for our sin-sick souls; and carries us in his arms to safe shelter, harbor, and home. And then, as if that were not enough, he leads us back to his Body, the Church, to stand with one another having been transformed through love.

What then is the role of the laity at Mass? As lay members of the Church, you should fully, consciously and actively participate in the liturgy with all your being, so that you may experience and proclaim to each other that it is none other than Jesus Christ who walks with us On the Road to Jerusalem.
 
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.👍
As I said, we’ll just have to wait and see. It is curious though that you say that he is pretty much the same on things from the Council until now.I may be wrong, but I really don’t believe that is the case at all. From everything I’ve heard the Holy Father was pretty much traumatized by several incidents involving radical Catholic students while he was a university professor and those incidents above all else led to his conservative stance on many issues today. .

Replacing the Master of Ceremonies, the Choir Director and adding an Office of Liturgical Music are really nothing more than cosmetic changes with no real impact on the liturgy itself.

Hey I don’t discount him, I just don’t think he is going to rock the boat too much, too soon and too often.

Now when he starts to tackle the real problems of the Church in a forceful direct manner, he will have my full support. But these small cosmetic changes really don’t mean much in the scheme of things.

The open defiance with which not a few Bishops have shown towards the Motu Proprio has been an excellent opportunity for the Holy Father to show exactly where he stands and what he is made of. Yet, what has he done to reign them in? He can issue all the proclamations he wants, if the Bishops basically tell him to go climb a rope and het out of their Dioceses and he does nothing, then what has he really accomplished?

And worse than that, what has he shown?
 
As I said, we’ll just have to wait and see. It is curious though that you say that he is pretty much the same on things from the Council until now.I may be wrong, but I really don’t believe that is the case at all. From everything I’ve heard the Holy Father was pretty much traumatized by several incidents involving radical Catholic students while he was a university professor and those incidents above all else led to his conservative stance on many issues today. .

Replacing the Master of Ceremonies, the Choir Director and adding an Office of Liturgical Music are really nothing more than cosmetic changes with no real impact on the liturgy itself.

Hey I don’t discount him, I just don’t think he is going to rock the boat too much, too soon and too often.

Now when he starts to tackle the real problems of the Church in a forceful direct manner, he will have my full support. But these small cosmetic changes really don’t mean much in the scheme of things.

The open defiance with which not a few Bishops have shown towards the Motu Proprio has been an excellent opportunity for the Holy Father to show exactly where he stands and what he is made of. Yet, what has he done to reign them in? He can issue all the proclamations he wants, if the Bishops basically tell him to go climb a rope and het out of their Dioceses and he does nothing, then what has he really accomplished?

And worse than that, what has he shown?
First of all, what I mentioned does not constitute a cosmetic change. If you want a cosmetic change, I’ve got some Bare Escentuals you might like. 😉

Replacing the MC and the Sistene Chapel choir director show that the Holy Father is putting his house in order. He is setting the example for the rest of the bishops and priests, for that matter, to follow.

Your comments remind me of the differences between what St. John the Baptist preached and what Jesus actually did. Recall that the great Forerunner told the Pharisees that the one who was to come would have his winnowing fan in his hand and start clearing out the threshing floor. In other words, Jesus would be coming on to the scene like a house on fire.

Of course, that didn’t necessarily happen. Yep. Even though Jesus told the Pharisees and the scribes where to go quite a few times, he didn’t rain fire and brimstone on their parade. In fact, he even chided Sts. John and James for wanting to unleash the wrath of God on those Samaritan towns that didn’t want the Lord to come. This led John the Baptist to ask, via his followers, if Jesus was the One or were they to await another. Jesus tells him to look about and see what he has already done.

I love the Holy Father. You will not find a bigger Benedict-backer in this forum than me. Would I have liked him to start running rampant on the renegades? Yes. But, contrary to how the media has portrayed him, that’s not Joseph Ratzinger’s style. Nonetheless, we have seen some very positive changes coming down the pipes from the Holy See in these three short years. If the musical previews from World Youth Day 2008 are any indication, I suspect that we will see more.
 
I’ve got some Bare Escentuals you might like. 😉
OK, you’ve piqued my curiosity…what are “Bare Escentuals”? :confused:

I’m afraid to google it. :o

Would I be embarassed to be “…fully, consciously, and actively participating” with them? 😉
 
Hello,

It’s cosmetic make-up - bareescentuals.com/
I didn’t mean to include something not quite germaine to the discussion, but, I thought that some humor, at this point, was necessary before we all break out the uzis.

I really do believe that the Holy Father is pointing us in the right direction regarding the Liturgy. I think that he initially believed that the Second Vatican Council was going to be the “springtime” of the Church that Pope John XXIII wanted it to be. However, when the radicals started launching off into something that the Second Vatican Council never meant, that’s when Joseph Ratzinger decided that the “spirit” wasn’t quite where it should be.

In other writings, he makes some very valid points as far as language is concerned, noting that Latin was not meant to be vanquished. In fact, he makes that point quite clear in Sacramentum Caritatis to the effect that he is requesting that seminaries once again teach the Church’s language to future priests.

Furthermore, his points about active participation are spot on target. As I quoted that long passage from Sacramentum Caritatis early on in this thread, I don’t think I need to repost it.

I may add this to his statements. There has to be an element of both Martha and Mary in our participation. We need to pray the prayers that correspond to us in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But, we also need to conceive them in our hearts and souls. The Martha/Mary syndrome is not necessarily a bad thing. The two personalities are not diametrically opposed. We need to have both elements in our participation.
 
First of all, what I mentioned does not constitute a cosmetic change. If you want a cosmetic change, I’ve got some Bare Escentuals you might like. 😉

Replacing the MC and the Sistene Chapel choir director show that the Holy Father is putting his house in order. He is setting the example for the rest of the bishops and priests, for that matter, to follow.

Your comments remind me of the differences between what St. John the Baptist preached and what Jesus actually did. Recall that the great Forerunner told the Pharisees that the one who was to come would have his winnowing fan in his hand and start clearing out the threshing floor. In other words, Jesus would be coming on to the scene like a house on fire.

Of course, that didn’t necessarily happen. Yep. Even though Jesus told the Pharisees and the scribes where to go quite a few times, he didn’t rain fire and brimstone on their parade. In fact, he even chided Sts. John and James for wanting to unleash the wrath of God on those Samaritan towns that didn’t want the Lord to come. This led John the Baptist to ask, via his followers, if Jesus was the One or were they to await another. Jesus tells him to look about and see what he has already done.

I love the Holy Father. You will not find a bigger Benedict-backer in this forum than me. Would I have liked him to start running rampant on the renegades? Yes. But, contrary to how the media has portrayed him, that’s not Joseph Ratzinger’s style. Nonetheless, we have seen some very positive changes coming down the pipes from the Holy See in these three short years. If the musical previews from World Youth Day 2008 are any indication,** I suspect that we will see more**.
I truly hope so.

If you really think replacing a choir director and a Master of Ceremonies is really going to have much of an impact than you are much more optimistic than I. If the Bishops don’t pay much if any attention to his directives, do you really think they will pay much attention to those two things? I somehow doubt it.
 
Here is a good article on the meaning of “full, conscious, and active participation” and what it means:

Participation - Msgr. Richard Schuler
That is an excellent article, and I suggest it as well.
Here is an article written by my Bishop on the same topic:

Bishop George V. Murry, S.J.
How to go to Mass




This year we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Within its pages, we can find an answer to the question about the role of the laity.
I am looking forward to Pope Benedict writing something to commemorate the 45th anniversary; I’m hoping he does, at least, and I have every reason to believe it will be a rallying cry for all Catholics who wish to see a more reverent, faithful, solemn, and traditional celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
 
So in the spirit of discussion, I (as a not-quite-yet-Catholic) have a question. When I first started going to Mass, I did my best to find churches that had Missals so I could follow along, so I could know what everyone, including the priest, was praying, was reading. I wanted to be able to understand the Mass and what it was saying. Because of that (and I still do follow along with the Missal frequently but not always, in part to keep my mind from straying from the prayers) I have many of the priest’s prayers memorized and I pray the words along with him in my mind. I would NEVER want to be physically at the altar and I would never delude myself into thinking that I had the power to change the elements, etc. etc. I know I’m not a priest (and never would be… and anyway I’m both female and called to marriage), but I guess this is kind of what I see as part of “active participation” - praying with my heart and soul the words that the church prays. Is this totally wrong? Am I doing something un-kosher by praying along? 🤷
 
So in the spirit of discussion, I (as a not-quite-yet-Catholic) have a question. When I first started going to Mass, I did my best to find churches that had Missals so I could follow along, so I could know what everyone, including the priest, was praying, was reading. I wanted to be able to understand the Mass and what it was saying. Because of that (and I still do follow along with the Missal frequently but not always, in part to keep my mind from straying from the prayers) I have many of the priest’s prayers memorized and I pray the words along with him in my mind. I would NEVER want to be physically at the altar and I would never delude myself into thinking that I had the power to change the elements, etc. etc. I know I’m not a priest (and never would be… and anyway I’m both female and called to marriage), but I guess this is kind of what I see as part of “active participation” - praying with my heart and soul the words that the church prays. Is this totally wrong? Am I doing something un-kosher by praying along? 🤷
As long as you are not praying the priest’s words out loud, you are doing just fine. 🙂
 
It sounds to me like it means:
  1. Singing the hymns (if such there be)
  2. Joining in the recitation–or better, chanting–of responses and appropriate prayers.
  3. Listening attentively and prayerfully to texts that are read and sung by the ministers and choir.
  4. NO USING PRIVATE DEVOTIONS during the actual Liturgical act. There was a time when prayerbooks were full of prayers to say DURING Mass. I believe this is what the Pope was referring to when he said, “Don’t pray during Mass. PRAY the mass.”
 
It sounds to me like it means:
  1. Singing the hymns (if such there be)
  2. Joining in the recitation–or better, chanting–of responses and appropriate prayers.
  3. Listening attentively and prayerfully to texts that are read and sung by the ministers and choir.
  4. NO USING PRIVATE DEVOTIONS during the actual Liturgical act. There was a time when prayerbooks were full of prayers to say DURING Mass. I believe this is what the Pope was referring to when he said, “Don’t pray during Mass. PRAY the mass.”
I wish all the posts on this thread were this practical and to-the-point.
 
It sounds to me like it means:
  1. Singing the hymns (if such there be)
  2. Joining in the recitation–or better, chanting–of responses and appropriate prayers.
  3. Listening attentively and prayerfully to texts that are read and sung by the ministers and choir.
  4. NO USING PRIVATE DEVOTIONS during the actual Liturgical act. There was a time when prayerbooks were full of prayers to say DURING Mass. I believe this is what the Pope was referring to when he said, “Don’t pray during Mass. PRAY the mass.”
The First two are simply external reactions.

The correct list should be
  1. Listen attentively and prayerfully to the texts that are read, the psalm that is said\chanted and the homily given by the priest or deacon. Examine how the lessons learned may be applied in your life.
  2. As the priest consecrates the elements into the Blessed Sacrament, consecrate yourself to Christ. As Christ, through the priest, offers Himself to the Father in Sacrifice, offer yourself in Sacrifice to God.
  3. If you are able, recieve the Blessed Sacrament in a way that will use it’s Grace to conform your life to Christ.
 
Pardon me while I revisit something earlier where some ask where junk like liturgical dancing was prohibited in the documents (It is explicitly elsewhere, but I digress). Someone replied with an exaggerated example of playing sports in the sanctuary. This was a *reductio ad absurdum *argument which took the origninal argument to its logical conclusion. Since the concept of that approach seems to elude some people, we can distill the proposition to: If it is not explicitly prohibited in the document, then it is acceptable.

This of course is dead wrong. The liturgy is not a lab for experimentation. There are many points about the Church being universal, but one of them is unity in worship, with differences being accidental or minor. So a traveling Catholic can go to any mass and get largely the same liturgy and not a free-for-all.

This is not about about being stuffy. It is about protecting the integrity of the liturgy AND to protect would-be innovators of the liturgy believe it or not. What can happen is that some weird thing gets introduced in the liturgy, it starts getting entrenched and widespread. Then the bishop cracks down on it and the people get all indignant and feel deprived and all What-has-happened-to-my-Church? One has no business getting upset about losing something that should not have been there in the first place. Or to put it simply, error has no rights. Better to start out keeping to the liturgy as given.
 
There have been some amazing responses to what at first appeared to be a simple and straight forward question. I have read all previous responses, so engrossed in the discussion - quite a number of great responses.

And now from the what it is worth department…
I don’t quite understand the line of thought that what is not expressly forbidden, is okay…my understanding is the church teaching is about “do” not “do not” that is, if the rubrics do not say to do something, it should not be done. That’s the first thing.

Next - Language is a funny thing. In some cultures it evolves rapidly, in others, less so. What as done in Vatican II and the ensuing documents was written for the universal church, as I understand it, not just for the church in one country or another. Ergo, each country’s people is going to receive and translate the “…fully conscious and active participation…” a little differently. And in some countries, every little community of faith is going to handle it differently.

Not that an imprimatur by me means a durned thing, but the references to the Holy Father’s teaching on the matter, and the articles from Msgr Shuler and Bishop Murry provide succinct seem to paint a pretty clear picture.

I am one of those sing to the rafters and make the bells vibrate participators, but can also see the beauty of silently, attentively and prayerfully focusing on each action in the Mass.

We all have the responsibility to form our conscience (and to begin that formation in our children) to better learn, understand and follow church teaching to the best of our ability.
The variety of responses to the initial question shows just how varied we all are in our formation – which is not necessarily a negative. This demonstrates the variety of gifts we bring to the Table in our “fully conscious and active participation at the liturgy.”

The best line of all the comments has to be “…I thought that some humor, at this point, was necessary before we all break out the uzis.”

Peace y’all.
 
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.
The phrase “validly interpreted” (my emphasis) above is symptomatic of a roadblock that this particular discussion (and all like discussions) (especially) in this country encounter. While, it may be true that there can be more than one interpretation of a written work, it is not at all true that every interpretation is valid or correct. Further (and it follows from the previous statement) it is not true that every interpretation is of equal value or weight.

For example (setting aside for the moment the fact that we have the Church to give a definitive interpretation of Scripture- Deo gratias!) an interpretation of the story of Cain and Abel that concluded that God condones murder would not be valid. It’s possible that a reader could come up with that interpretation, but that reader would have read the Genesis story badly, and his interpretation would be incorrect.

It would also be incorrect for a reader to claim that the false interpretation has as much value as one that took better account of the internal evidence in the story, or for a reader to claim that since the story can be misinterpreted it is therefore vague and ambiguous. It’s even false, I think, to claim that a work that has more than one valid (or correct) interpretation is therefore ambigious!!! (And Thomas Aquinas agrees with me. :D)

There’s a kind of intellectual rot in higher education in this country (that was around well before Vatican II) that supported and taught the ideas that any interpretation is true and all interpretations are equal. Additionally, higher education had (again, well before the Council) abandoned the reading of source material and started to value “expert opinion” over actually reading and discussing texts. These two attitudes (I think ) permitted some theologians, liturgists etc. to grossly misinterpret and misapply the teachings of the documents.

But the fact that the Council documents have been misinterpreted does not (see above) necessarily mean that they are ambiguous.
 
And I have to totally applaud those who are speaking to and referencing the Council documents themselves in this discussion…👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top