ACTIVE PARTICIPATION?
LG’s thoughts on the practical meaning of V2's SC use of the phrase "Active Participation" after reading: Historical Falsehoods about Active Participation: A Response to Dr Brant Pitre (Part 1) by Gregory DiPippo
This article was recommended to me: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2024/12/historical-falsehoods-about-active.html
The debate over the meaning of "participatio actuosa" has been something I spent a lot of time studying in my "Trad" days almost 2 decades ago. They were mostly from Trad sources, however. I'll let the smarties debate over it in their publications, and the chips will fall as they may once I've considered all of the evidence that I come across. I won't pretend, as I suppose I used to, that I know all of the definitive objective truths on liturgy, historically, anthropologically, and theologically. There are already too many experts in this area on my FB friends list that I don't need to bother catching up. I do have some observations, however. Folks can take them or leave them. As usual, I have no ideology or faction to pander to. All of the various flavors in Western Catholicism are just as beautiful and annoying in one way or another to me. :-)
1. If by active, we mean doing something behaviorally, in the liturgy, which seemed to pave the way for "lay ministers" in the liturgy, as readers, cantors, EMHCs, then the vast majority of Catholics are not "active" at all. Less than 1% of the folks on a packed Sunday Mass are “doing something” in the ceremonials of the liturgy.
2. If by active, we are to include the vocal participation of the faithful in all the call and response dialogue that used to be between priest and altar server in the 1962 Missal, then what was actually gained in the reformed liturgy, as the so-called Dialogue Mass was already practiced, and only needed to be promoted more widely? Did we need an overhauled, alleged reform of the Roman Rite? Why was the so-called “interim Missal” in the US for English not enough to satisfy the prescriptions of Sacrosanctum Concilium?
3. A common critique of the pre-V2 liturgy in the US, as experienced and recounted by many who happily abandoned the old form, was that most of the faithful were praying the Rosary, or other personal devotions, BECAUSE they didn't understand the Latin, which seems like a fair critique. However, these were certainly not forbidden or foreign to the practical tradition in the church. This method of "hearing Mass" was listed in the writings of St. Leonard, in a TAN book titled Hidden Treasure. Another method is to meditate on the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, recommended by St. Francis de Sales. I made a booklet for this method here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dSWGwwGm7TEnyZ4NJFx-K9Rlphs88mcj/view?usp=sharing
4. I am not a mind-reader, of course, but I think we can rely on some intuition when observing overall body language and behaviors, and it appears apparent enough to me that the minds of the faithful are less distracted by the ecological dynamics of the pre-V2 liturgy than they are in the new.
5. I am not convinced that the mere vocalization of memorized responses necessarily means there is active, meaningful cogitation happening in the mind of the faithful to qualify as “active participation”.
6. To be fair, memorizations and recitations of Latin are probably no different, especially at the speeds I’ve heard priests and servers blitz through Low Mass. However, I would say that when there is a congruence between words being consciously thought and vocally said, there is no need or even much opportunity to actively reflect on the meaning of what is actually being said.
7. For me, it is interesting that by reciting the rote Latin prayers, which is an almost unconscious automatic process, after being memorized, it allows for an internal monologue or iconic representation to take place separately and independently. In other words, I can say the prayer, as I do even when I mostly attend the Novus Ordo, “Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium et manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam…” and simultaneously be imagining the Old Testament sacrifices being offered to the Father, insufficient in themselves to redeem, fulfilled in the new Covenant sacrifice of the Cross, etc. Or any number of other Biblical or theological mental representations that could be actively generated ex nihilo on the spot. I won’t say that this phenomenon or practice is impossible when reciting in one’s primary language, but I claim that it is more difficult to do so, at least in my own experience.
8. I've been to new rite liturgies that are what I consider more "reverent " or more "solemn". I know some folks will get hung up and triggered by the use of those terms. I just mean elements of silence, rubrical fidelity, ceremonial consistency, sacred music, as opposed to folk hymns, or God help us, theologically heretical popular "praise and worship" music. Maybe these are my subjective criteria. Fine. The do the red and say the black philosophy of New Mass is done in some places, but honestly, not in most of where I attend the Novus Ordo. There’s always something a bit off. The most common is, of course, Sacred Music.
9. I suspect the preferential liturgical divide between those who prefer more “down to earth” community-centered-oriented liturgy versus more strictly rubrical liturgy is a difference in personality styles. If I had to guess, I would think there are more Thinkers and Judgers at the TLM, and more Feelers and Perceivers in the NO, if one were to use the Myers-Briggs.
I probably have more observations I will add to this in the future. But after an 8 hour work day and a 2-hour college lecture, and 8 hours of social media doom-scrolling, I am done for the day.
Here are the quotes from DiPippo that stood out for me.
-LG
"I see no reason to think that Dr Pitre is among them; indeed, I think it very likely that he himself is among those whom others have deceived. "
"The Latin words of the Constitution are “actuosa participatio … summopere attendenda est”, which would be properly rendered “active participation … is to be given the greatest attention.” And it is in fact so rendered in the Italian, French, Spanish and German translations also available via the Vatican’s website. (I cannot vouch for the Arabic, Chinese, Swahili or various Slavic versions.) "
"This would have also been the perfect place to add that there is a solid case to be made that “actual participation” is a better translation of the words “actuosa participatio” than “active participation.” This case was laid out very thoroughly by Fr Peter Stravinskas in a paper which he delivered to the CIEL conference in Paris in 2003, and graciously allowed NLM to reprint in 2016."
"In regard to the Council’s statement that the people’s participation in the liturgy should be “full”, Dr Pitre very rightly points out (6:45) that this means fully participating in the parts which properly belong to them, “and only those parts which belong to them, and the people shouldn’t be doing what is exclusive to the priest, and vice versa.” For of course, it was the furthest thing from the Council Fathers’ minds to foster the participation of the laity by blurring this necessary distinction. This would have been a good place, therefore, to point out that “active” participation in the modern liturgy has been brought about in no small part by redefining “what is exclusive to the priest”, and giving to the laity liturgical roles that the tradition of the Church has always given to the clergy: the reading of the Scriptures, and the distribution of Communion. "
"in practical terms, Tra le sollicitudini has been completely overthrown by the post-Conciliar reform, since the confusion between activity and achievement, a confusion which the word “active” positively invites, often leads to the replacement of good music with bad music or no music, because it is easier for the congregation to sing bad music than good, and easier still to recite than to sing. "
"(This might have been the place to mention that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah refer much more often to the organization of trained cantors among the ministerial orders of the Temple, since the use of professional choirs will later be noted as one of the developments within the Church which putatively detracted from the participation of the laity.) "
"The Catholic faithful occupied the church, and the custom was therefore established that the people should hymns and psalms “after the manner of the eastern regions, lest the people pine away in the tediousness of sorrow…” "
