The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Pius XII
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    It wasn't all that long ago that this passage was written:

    "22. By its very nature, the Mass requires that all present take part in it, each having a particular function.

    "a) Interior participation is the most important; this consists in paying devout attention, and in lifting up the heart to God in prayer. In this way the faithful "are intimately joined with their High Priest...and together with Him, and through Him offer (the Sacrifice), making themselves one with Him" (Mediator Dei, Nov. 20, 1947: AAS 39 [1947] 552).

    "b) The participation of the congregation becomes more complete, however, when, in addition to this interior disposition, exterior participation is manifested by external acts, such as bodily position (kneeling, standing, sitting), ceremonial signs, and especially responses, prayers, and singing.

    "The Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, in his encyclical on the sacred liturgy, Mediator Dei, recommended this form of participation:

    "'Those who are working for the exterior participation of the congregation in the sacred ceremonies are to be warmly commended. This can be accomplished in more than one way. The congregation may answer the words of the priest, as prescribed by the rubrics, or sing hymns appropriate to the different parts of the Mass, or do both. Also, at solemn ceremonies, they may alternate in singing the liturgical chant (AAS 39 [1947] 560)".

    "When the papal documents treat of "active participation" they are speaking of this general participation (Mediator Dei: AAS 39 [1947] 530-537), of which the outstanding example is the priest, and his ministers who serve at the altar with the proper interior dispositions, and carefully observe the rubrics, and ceremonies.

    "c) Active participation is perfect when "sacramental" participation is included. In this way "the people receive the Holy Eucharist not only by spiritual desire, but also sacramentally, and thus obtain greater benefit from this most holy Sacrifice". (Council of Trent, Sess. 22, ch. 6; cf. also Mediator Dei: AAS 39 [1947] 565: "It is most appropriate, as the liturgy itself prescribes, for the people to come to holy Communion after the priest has received at the altar".)"
    - See more at: http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mus.html#sthash.lYUv6pOE.dpuf

    This was published before the Second Vatican Council, of course. So why do we allow people to argue that 'the Council' asked for 'participation'?

    In fact, 'the Council' neither abrogated nor modified one single word of the above text.

    "25. In solemn Mass there are three degrees of the participation of the faithful:

    "a) First, the congregation can sing the liturgical responses. These are: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi, Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias. Every effort must be made that the faithful of the entire world learn to sing these responses.

    "b) Secondly, the congregation can sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing the easier ones: Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei; the choir, then, can sing the Gloria, and Credo."
    - See more at: http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mus.html#sthash.lYUv6pOE.dpuf

    Same document. And one can, with no twisting at all, read SC as a linear descendant of the above.

    What changed?
    Thanked by 4JulieColl francis Ben HeitorCaballero
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I've always wondered what juridical weight the three degrees of participation in De Musica Sacra actually had since it seems to me they were genuine mandates of one degree or another and were clearly meant to be implemented semper, ubique et ab omnibus.

    In other words, I don't think they were mere suggestions by the Holy Father.

    However, there doesn't seem to have been a widespread effort to implement them. At most all you'll find is a mention of the "Dialogue Mass" as if it was some experimental thing, but the nature of this section of the document doesn't seem to indicate that it was an "option" but instead that teaching the faithful an incremental program of the three degrees of participation was clearly the desire of the Pope and the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Yes.

    But now that we have achieved that in the OF (more or less), the claim is made by many--including some on this forum--that 'it was Vatican II (SC) that effected this.'

    In fact, SC did not change a thing except to allow a limited utilization of vernacular.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    One needs to also lool at Musicam Sacram 1967 to properly understand what the directives of the counsel were.

    The more I study Vatican II, the more I see it was a case of many people walking miles on an inch of permission.
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    The more I study Vatican II, the more I see it was a case of many people walking miles on an inch of permission.


    The concept of "active participation" has been distorted. We could argue forever in the forums...OR...we could read the documents.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    Or both.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    I vote for UNDERSTANDING the documents as written.
    Thanked by 1Ben
Add a Comment