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

[Genesis315]

St. Pius X actually used that phrase in relation to the faithful singing the chants.

However, generally speaking what it means is that people should be praying the liturgy, offering their sacrifices in union with the One Sacrifice offered by the priest, etc. What the Council is saying is that this should be done instead of reading the bulletin, doing private devotions, etc. since the liturgy is the public prayer and act of worship of the Church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

I will remember it when someone suggests a soccer shootout in the church building.

It means nothing in terms of what was actually being spoken about here.

 

[THurifer2]

I will remember it when someone suggests a soccer shootout in the church building.

Hyperbole alert!

It means nothing in terms of what was actually being spoken about here.

It does to me and the few others who have private messaged me about this topic.

With that in mind I will pull myself away from the bikering you seem to like to pull people into and address the issue.

The methods and means of active participation in the liturgy is to be deternined by the magisterial authority of the Church and no-where else.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Seems putting down the use of lay ministers is inappropriate for this thread.

That is good to see.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The methods and means of active participation in the liturgy is to be deternined by the magisterial authority of the Church and no-where else.

I am glad someone other than myself is willing to say that.

Thanks!

Let’s hope the nonsensical exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally come flooding in because you dared state it.

 

[THurifer2]

Let’s hope the nonsensical exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally come flooding in because you dared state it.

You could have said they will be on me like a dog on a steak…sorry I couldn’t resist.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

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’.

I agree. Unfortunately many have taken it to mean that liturgical experimentation is the order of the day. Documents have come out from the Vatican about this and nobody seems to care. The “liturgical experts” keep moving with their mess they call a mass.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I agree. Unfortunately many have taken it to mean that liturgical experimentation is the order of the day. Documents have come out from the Vatican about this and nobody seems to care. The “liturgical experts” keep moving with their mess they call a mass.

So the only ones we really have to blame are those who left us with the unclear wording.

 

[az_4_faith]

**

So the only ones we really have to blame are those who left us with the unclear wording.

Or mis-translated or poorly-translated the Latin.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

**

Or mis-translated or poorly-translated the Latin.

Naw - those who left us with it were around when the translations were made – there was plenty of time to make corrections etc.

 

[Brendan]

So the only ones we really have to blame are those who left us with the unclear wording.

No, the wording was clear. As mentioned above, both Pius XI and Pius XII took great pains to make clear what was meant by the term. So the Vatican Council Fathers could not be faulted for using an already defined term.

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

 

[az_4_faith]

No, the wording was clear. As mentioned above, both Pius XI and Pius XII took great pains to make clear what was meant by the term. So the Vatican Council Fathers could not be faulted for using an already defined term.

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

My point exactly.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

No, the wording was clear. As mentioned above, both Pius XI and Pius XII took great pains to make clear what was meant by the term. So the Vatican Council Fathers could not be faulted for using an already defined term.

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

Yet those involved in writing the documents did not suddenly disappear when the translations were done.

IF they did not speak up at the time, did not add anything to reinforce that particular definition, how can anyone be blamed for problems?

 

[THurifer2]

Yet those involved in writing the documents did not suddenly disappear when the translations were done.

This would be a valid point…IF the problems occured overnight or the term you use “suddenly”/

The problems came about not suddenly but gradually as people began to twist and turn and attempt to re-define what was documented.

What we have now is a confused liturgy and general division among Catholics… as evidenced by the vast amount of bickering that occurs almost exclusively to the Liturgy and Sacraments forum…which is also evidenced by the occaisional raid of the traditionalist forum by progressives who are evidently so bored that they feel the need to stir the pot…

 

[jmv]

I will remember it when someone suggests a soccer shootout in the church building.

It means nothing in terms of what was actually being spoken about here.

OK, let’s break this thing down.
You said " What exactly in the quote, or the whole document, rules out or prevents these things?".

By saying this, you are proposing as fact that “if something is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”

Another poster attempted to prove the opposite is true by contradiction (“not all things that are bad are explicitly forbidden”).

We start by assuming that it is true that “If it is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”

We also know that rollerblading in the sanctuary is not explicitly forbidden.

Therefore, rollerblading in the sanctuary is ok.

However, we also reasonably know that rollerblading isn’t ok so we have a contradiction. This means that one of our initial assumptions must be untrue.

In this case we made 1 assumption (“If it is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”).

Therefore this assumption is false.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This would be a valid point…IF the problems occured overnight or the term you use “suddenly”/

The problems came about not suddenly but gradually as people began to twist and turn and attempt to re-define what was documented.

Did those who 'began to twist and turn etc" wait till everyone who was involved with writing the documents went on to their reward?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

OK, let’s break this thing down.
You said " What exactly in the quote, or the whole document, rules out or prevents these things?".

By saying this, you are proposing as fact that “if something is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”

Another poster attempted to prove the opposite is true by contradiction (“not all things that are bad are explicitly forbidden”).

We start by assuming that it is true that “If it is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”

We also know that rollerblading in the sanctuary is not explicitly forbidden.

Therefore, rollerblading in the sanctuary is ok.

However, we also reasonably know that rollerblading isn’t ok so we have a contradiction. This means that one of our initial assumptions must be untrue.

In this case we made 1 assumption (“If it is not explicitly forbidden, it is ok.”).

Therefore this assumption is false.

Indoor rollerblading in such a small area is foolish with obstacles.

 

[Brendan]

Yet those involved in writing the documents did not suddenly disappear when the translations were done.

IF they did not speak up at the time, did not add anything to reinforce that particular definition, how can anyone be blamed for problems?

They did. Pope John Paul reiterated that to the US bishops in their 1998 ad lima visit. (see post 13). That almost 10 years ago, so it should have been cleared up in the US, assuming the bishop were doing their jobs correctly in their dioceses.

And, of course, there is Pope Benedict’s book and his encyclical.

So, it’s not a question of Council Fathers not making an effort to clear up any misconceptions, it’s that some people who should know better still insist on doing otherwise.

And it has been a long standing principle of Church Law that it is authoritative in the Latin only. So no one really should have been pushing “active participation” without having a very clear understanding of what “participatio actuosa” meant.

 

[jmcrae]

Yet those involved in writing the documents did not suddenly disappear when the translations were done.

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.

 

[Brendan]

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

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.