The "Participation" Myth

[GangGreen]

To be clear, I always say the responses and typically sing when I go to the OF.

However, the fact is that a Mass can be completed without the participation of the laity. All that is needed is a priest, an altar, bread, and wine.

If one does the postures as necessary and sings the songs internally and prays the prayers internally, how are they not participating? Why do people insist that they are not participating? If a person is mouthing the prayers and not saying them out loud, why are they not participating? If a person is listening to the music and lifting their spirit up to God because of the music, how are they not participating?

Could we not say that the person who is internally doing all of this and is giving his everything to God is participating MORE in the sacrifice than someone who is doing all of that externally, but just going through the motions?

Or are we saying that the people who do everything internally are acting against the will of the Church and are in some way sinning? If that’s not the case, then why is out loud participation so necessary?

 

[2HeartsSlave]

To be clear, I always say the responses and typically sing when I go to the OF.

However, the fact is that a Mass can be completed without the participation of the laity. All that is needed is a priest, an altar, bread, and wine.

If one does the postures as necessary and sings the songs interiorly and prayers the prayers interiorly ,how are they not participating? Why do people insist that they are not participating? If a person is mouthing the prayers and not saying them out loud, why are they not participating?

Or are we saying that the people who do this are acting against the will of the Church and are in some way sinning? If that’s not the case, then why is out loud participation so necessary?

Perhaps because they have an agenda to further…perhaps because they are misguided…who knows.

 

[pnewton]

Or are we saying that the people who do everything internally are acting against the will of the Church and are in some way sinning? If that’s not the case, then why is out loud participation so necessary?

Perhaps they are sinning. That is not something anyone can judge. It could be a sin for a priest to deliberately delete parts of the Mass that he know should be in there if he does so out of rebellion from the Church, let’s say, calling God a she. That would be for God alone to judge. Is pride the motive? Is a rebellious spirit overruling the Holy Spirit? Then it is a sin.

Could we not say that the person who is internally doing all of this and is giving his everything to God is participating MORE in the sacrifice than someone who is doing all of that externally, but just going through the motions?

This is a classic false dichotomy. Choosing to be silent, one can either worship internally or day dream. Speaking alone, one can either know what one says, or go through the motions.

I guess I do not understand what the problem is. The Church has given the instructions of when the laity speak. That should end discussion for a Catholic. Just do what we are instructed. Easy.

Can we participate in total silence for an hour? Sure. When the Church says that is what we are to do, then we obey that.

 

[GangGreen]

Perhaps they are sinning. That is not something anyone can judge. It could be a sin for a priest to deliberately delete parts of the Mass that he know should be in there if he does so out of rebellion from the Church, let’s say, calling God a she. That would be for God alone to judge. Is pride the motive? Is a rebellious spirit overruling the Holy Spirit? Then it is a sin.

This side steps the point. If the person is completely following and praying the Mass but in silence, how are they doing anything in singularity or rebelling?

This is a classic false dichotomy. Choosing to be silent, one can either worship internally or day dream. Speaking alone, one can either know what one says, or go through the motions.

I guess I do not understand what the problem is. The Church has given the instructions of when the laity speak. That should end discussion for a Catholic. Just do what we are instructed. Easy.

The problem is the fact that a sizable portion of people in the OF DO NOT ever open their mouths. I don’t know what their internal disposition is, but if one of the most important aspects of the Mass is this idea of external participation, then why don’t these people “participate” and what’s the solution to this issue? I don’t care where you go, this happens everywhere. You can say, mind your own business and this is fine. However, it doesn’t make the problem disappear.

There’s also this idea that music MUST be done in a way that enables the people to sing along. Thus chant and polyphony are discouraged because the laity cannot “participate.” However, I routinely see almost no one singing except the Cantor/Choir. I guess these people are rebelling against the Church for not singing?

That’s why I say it’s a myth that this so called external participation should be a requirement for the Mass. Maybe it’s my preference for the EF, or Latin, or just liking to hear chant and the like and hearing that excuse more often than anything else as the reason why those things are bad. We forget that the Mass is a sacrifice, one that the priest and only the priest can carry out. The purpose of the laity is to offer our prayers for that sacrifice. Last time I checked, I’m not required to use my mouth to pray. I can if I desire to though.

 

[liturgyluver]

Gangreen, responses are still required at the EF, albeit to a much lesser extent than the OF. But as Pnewton said earlier, the point is that the church has explained what the people’s role is in the liturgy, and what they are expected to say in order to foster unity and fellowship… In doing so we cast our personal preferences aside and join together with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Imagine the opposite scenario where someone turns up at an EF mass and starts saying the bits they think are missing! One does not overide the other.

Gregorian Chant was actually one of the factors that contributed to the development of the liturgical movement and renewal of liturgy. Today its use is commended if, all other things being equal, it aids participation in the liturgy which it will at some parishes, but not at others. I would agree that in terms of singing that the church, and we all, need to work harder but the answer is not to regress to the assembly becoming what Pope Leo described as “dumb and idle spectators”, but instead to strive to attain what the Church asks us to do and what it says is very important.

 

[johnmann]

GangGreen, the strawmen are unnecessary. Nobody is saying that Mass is invalid if the laity don’t participate.

You could also sit with your eyes closed for the entire Mass without making any sounds or gestures. You could. You wouldn’t be excommunicated. It wouldn’t invalidate the Mass.

Do the red. SAY THE BLACK.

 

[pnewton]

This side steps the point. If the person is completely following and praying the Mass but in silence, how are they doing anything in singularity or rebelling?

I only said it is possible they are sinning. Sin is a matter of the heart. If one acts contrary to what they believe God wants them to do because of pride or sloth, then it is a sin. This assumes that the Catholic understands at least basic ecclesiology and is acting from sinful motive, as opposed to some physical or mental issue.

The problem is the fact that a sizable portion of people in the OF DO NOT ever open their mouths. I don’t know what their internal disposition is, but if one of the most important aspects of the Mass is this idea of external participation, then why don’t these people “participate” and what’s the solution to this issue? I don’t care where you go, this happens everywhere. You can say, mind your own business and this is fine. However, it doesn’t make the problem disappear.

Of course it doesn’t make the problem disappear, but this does not mean they are judged. None of us are perfect and we are all on the same pilgrimage to get past our own self and act as God calls us.

There’s also this idea that music MUST be done in a way that enables the people to sing along. Thus chant and polyphony are discouraged because the laity cannot “participate.” However, I routinely see almost no one singing except the Cantor/Choir. I guess these people are rebelling against the Church for not singing?

Now singing is a whole other issue. There might well be mental impairments for many. After all, one cannot sing, at least much, what one does not know. It is my argument for not throwing out new music every single week, as well as going fringe with the music, with excessively complex new songs or excessively complex Latin songs.

That’s why I say it’s a myth that this so called external participation should be a requirement for the Mass. Maybe it’s my preference for the EF, or Latin,]

The thing is, the Catholic Church is not using the extraordinary form very much. The current Mass is not based on a myth but on the direction the Church has gone. It is not uncommon for things to change for the explicit purpose of teaching the laity, as when one species was used to teach that even a single species contained the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, or when the Church returned to both species as a fuller sign. It is better to seek what is being taught than to rail against the lesson plan.

 

[Joannm]

A priest once told me that when he hears the responses from the people and hear them sing it lifts his heart to God and enhances his celebration of the Mass. When few people verbally participate he feels like it is just him there and there is more temptation to drift his mind and the words become just rote. He says active participation by the people makes him feel the praise and worship of God and he ends up celebrating a more reverent Mass. By the way this is a very conservative priest, not one who is putting on a show so to speak. The Mass is a dialogue between the Church and God. The priest, the ministers, the assembly, each have their role in the dialogue. Yes, God can hear our thoughts and our prayers, but he gave us voices and the liturgy gives us times when we use our voices in praise of God.

 

[Jeanne_S]

A priest once told me that when he hears the responses from the people and hear them sing it lifts his heart to God and enhances his celebration of the Mass. When few people verbally participate he feels like it is just him there and there is more temptation to drift his mind and the words become just rote. He says active participation by the people makes him feel the praise and worship of God and he ends up celebrating a more reverent Mass. By the way this is a very conservative priest, not one who is putting on a show so to speak. The Mass is a dialogue between the Church and God. The priest, the ministers, the assembly, each have their role in the dialogue. Yes, God can hear our thoughts and our prayers, but he gave us voices and the liturgy gives us times when we use our voices in praise of God.

Amen!

 

[ProVobis]

It doesn’t call for the individual to be saying every response every time, but calls for the responses to be said by the people as a body. It urges the people to join in the responses as they are able.

At the same time realizing the congregation isn’t like a college class where everyone is presumed to have taken the same prerequisites. Catholics are far from homogeneous. People do speak different languages, are of different ages, pick up what they hear at different speeds, recite at different speeds, like different pieces of music, etc. AFAIK each Mass is for everyone’s benefit, not just those who know the words to the English songs or have the Mass memorized in Spanish. Otherwise you’re going to segregate crowds and parishes into Spanish youths, over-60 congregations, mod music lovers, Polish immigrants, etc. Oh wait…

 

[TimothyH]

Scripture tells us that we are to love God with all of our heart, all of our mind, and all of our strength. Strength implies that we love God with our physical bodies.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Scripture tells us that we are to love God with all of our heart, all of our mind, and all of our strength. Strength implies that we love God with our physical bodies.

-Tim-

24/7, not only at Mass.

 

[TimothyH]

24/7, not only at Mass.

Amen.

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew&chapno=5&startverse=23&endverse=24

-Tim-

 

[Denise1957]

What’s going on inside is much more important than the outside. Sometimes both go together. Some people may feel more of a spiritual connection from the exterior participation and some may get nothing from it at all. It is important to remember. This goes for whichever form of the Mass that you like and in whatever language you hear it in.

I think that you raise a good point here. We can assume the best intentions of those who don’t actively participate.

Ironically, there seem to be less folks who actively participate (saying all responses) at the OF than at the EF, in my experience anyway. I’ve not understood why it is that folks don’t participate more in the OF, but you’ve offered a good reason above.

I wonder if might be the case too, for some folks in the OF, that there’s not really any built-in room for quiet reflection as there is in the EF, and some just want to quietly think about spiritual things, and the responses might be a distraction? I dunno. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

 

[2HeartsSlave]

I think that you raise a good point here. We can assume the best intentions of those who don’t actively participate.

Ironically, there seem to be less folks who actively participate (saying all responses) at the OF than at the EF, in my experience anyway. I’ve not understood why it is that folks don’t participate more in the OF, but you’ve offered a good reason above.

I wonder if might be the case too, for some folks in the OF, that there’s not really any built-in room for quiet reflection as there is in the EF, and some just want to quietly think about spiritual things, and the responses might be a distraction? I dunno. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

No, you’re not wrong. That’s absolutely correct.

 

[OraLabora]

No, you’re not wrong. That’s absolutely correct.

Utter nonsense. I attend the OF at a Benedictine monastery. There are long silences after the readings, the homily, after the (Gregorian!) communion antiphon; the church and the Blessed Sacrament chapel are quiet before and after Mass.

From the GIRM:

Silence

1. Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times.[54] Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise and pray to God in their hearts.

Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence to be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner.

Let’s not turn this into another OF vs EF slugfest. It’s pointless, it’s damaging to unity, and it brings out uncharitable behaviour.

 

[Denise1957]

Utter nonsense. I attend the OF at a Benedictine monastery. There are long silences after the readings, the homily, after the (Gregorian!) communion antiphon; the church and the Blessed Sacrament chapel are quiet before and after Mass.

I hope you don’t mind if I suggest that perhaps the long silences at the times you’ve mentioned above are a bit unusual? I’ve attended a lot of parishes that offer the OF in the past year, and this isn’t the norm for the most part. Not that that’s a bad thing. I was just initially suggesting a reason why there wasn’t more active participation in the OF. I was trying to be sincere - really! No need for a slugfest.

 

[ProVobis]

Utter nonsense. I attend the OF at a Benedictine monastery.

I too have attended a Benedictine monastery and have my masters from their university.

I don’t think you can compare a monastery Mass with a Saturday evening Mass of local parishioners. That was the point I was trying to make. Seems like prior to VII the only difference in the Mass from parish to parish was the content and language of the sermon, which lasted about 10-12 minutes tops.

 

[OraLabora]

I hope you don’t mind if I suggest that perhaps the long silences at the times you’ve mentioned above are a bit unusual? I’ve attended a lot of parishes that offer the OF in the past year, and this isn’t the norm for the most part. Not that that’s a bad thing. I was just initially suggesting a reason why there wasn’t more active participation in the OF. I was trying to be sincere - really! No need for a slugfest.

Whether they are unusual or not is irrelevant to the statement made that the OF was somehow structurally deficient in this regard. The OF does have built-in places for sacred silence, and the rubrics in fact call for them as my quote shows. The monks are simply following the rubrics to a T, which is what they do, being superb liturgists.

If it isn’t the case in the average parish, then it’s an issue of discipline and not any inherent defect of the form of the Mass. That today that the EF is celebrated with great reverence is largely because the priests that do so, are doing so out of love for that form of the Mass, have undertaken to celebrate it or belong to societies that have as mandate to preserve the rite, and quite rightly they apply themselves. At the monastery, the monks are filled with the same love of the Mass and desire to see it out correctly. Except that it’s the OF Mass. But they do celebrate it with great care and discipline, flowing from their love of Christ.

If the EF were the normative Mass everywhere, I rather doubt that priests who don’t follow OF rubrics now would be any more inclined to follow EF rubrics, and priests who are simply sloppy would have much more opportunity for mistakes. Lack of discipline now seems endemic in our culture and our Church seems to be reflecting that sometimes.

Between, say the FSSP celebrating the EF and the monks celebrating the OF there is very little difference; they are really both sides of the same coin. Both are acting out of love of God, discipline and an authentic attention to the details of the liturgy borne out of their calling to obedience.

 

[Corki]

I think the myth of an absolute need for exterior participation is something that really needs to be done away with. Instead we should stress active participation in whatever way helps you connect with the Lord in the Mass. That could be interior or exterior prayer.

While I don’t think it’s a “myth”, there is a gap in the Catechesis of many Catholics regarding active participation. There is a lot of emphasis on what we say, sing and do and very little emphasis on the actual core requirement of active participation - to join our prayers with those of the priest celebrating Mass.

Most of the time, I just shrug it off. I participate as I am able - physically and spiritually.

But there are times when this attitude is dangerous. We live in a multi-cultural environment and our Masses reflect that. I can’t tell you how many times someone (english speaker) has told me that they weren’t able to go to Mass because the only one available was in Spanish. In their minds, a Mass in another language is not a Mass in which they can participate. They truly feel that if they can’t understand and participate vocally, they can’t go or that it doesn’t “count”.

This is why we have people who think it is “better” to watch a Mass on TV in their own language than to attend a Mass in another language. In their minds, they are “participating” in the former but not the latter when the converse is really the case.