It's was long promoted, it seems, by missallete makers. However, in the OF, in 1988, the circular letter Paschale Solemnitatis foreclosed the option of the people reading part of the passion (at most, you can have lay readers, but a reader is not the congregation as a whole):

33. The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the parts of Christ, the narrator and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of Christ should be reserved to the priest.

* * *
It's important to remember that the Holy Week liturgies are *not* re-enactments. They are not passion plays. Even the Eucharistic liturgy in general is not merely a re-presentation of Calvary, but an anamnesis of the Paschal mystery, as well as Pentecost, and a foretaste of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb.

I'm not so sure that Paschale Solemnitaties #33 is a definitive statement against the congregational turbae. Couldn't the same text be used to suppress a choir turbae, as well?

Bob Batastini (from GIA) wrote eloquently about it some years ago.

He cited Adam's argument, as well as the fact that it is counter intuitive and possibly even offensive to ask the congregation to say, with enthusiasm, "Let his blood be on us and our children!"

and possibly even offensive to ask the congregation to say, with enthusiasm, "Let his blood be on us and our children!"

Oddly, I think this is fine.

Given the issue about whether this line (and others) is antisemitic, the act of having the congregation speak it does reinforce the right interpretation of who exactly "us and our children" are.

Not to mention the fascinating theological irony of the phrase - much like Caiaphas speaking of "One man should die to save the whole people" - since the blood of Christ does not bring guilt, but rather redemption.

Still, though-

mumblemublesbloodonsonercherdrenmhmhm

Not a fan.

Better than "they realized they were nekking".

because being a convert I really don't know what the norm is.

The Norm

I have chanted the Dominican setting of the Passion Gospel on Good Friday, as the Narrator, the Priest as Christ, and as many as three people on the Turba, which was chanted using organum whenever it was actually a group of people speaking in the Gospel, and with individual voices from the Turba choir taking parts spoken by individuals (such as Peter, Pilate, or Servants). This was back in the mid-1980s. Even without multiple voices for the Turba (and hence no organum), the Dominican setting is very good.

I actually have never heard the congregational turba done badly as Adam suggests, at least growing up in Michigan. I certainly don't see any good reason not to do it in the absence of a sung passion, though if the norms forbid it, he they should be obeyed.

Liturgical progressives are not monolithic.

Strangely, neither are Liturgical Trads.

(save the Liturgy, Save the World)

when I was a kid, made me start to consider my role in Jesus' passion

I kind of miss reading the People's part, but if it's not licit, I accept it. That being said, I agree w/ CGM's comment (above). As a kid, I was always uncomfortable during the Passion reading when it came time for me to shout, "Crucify him!", etc. And at the same time I did have this sense that it was good for me to feel uncomfortable b/c it made me think more deeply about how I contributed to Christ's Passion by my sins.

On the other hand, if you can get the people to SING the crowd parts, I'm not sure that would be prohibited. I wouldn't encourage it though.

The present-day CDWDS does not reach back to old SRC statements when they are asked to rule on various dubia which arise these days.

The decisions of the CDWDS are law. As such, they don't need to cite old laws to make their point unless they chose to. That they don't doesn't mean those laws are not in force.

Just as general laws of the Church have been codified twice during the past 100 years and it is no longer necessary for people wanting to know what the law is to have to search Gratian, the decrees and decretals, and various papal bulls, so, IMO, liturgical law similarly has been fairly "codified" in the praenotanda of the revised liturgical books.

Part of what has been codified in the current canon and liturgical law is the method of interpretation of the law that says that old laws are not automatically overturned by the fact that there are new laws (Canon 20). In this case, the new law particularly invokes the fact of a tradition that is being upheld. It therefore makes eminent good sense to look at the rules that governed that tradition to try to figure out what that tradition was.

Just as general laws of the Church have been codified twice during the past 100 years

If you look at the liturgical commentaries of the 1960's you'll find that the authors still relied on the decisions of the S.C.R. then, despite the fact that those decisions had also been codified at least twice in, for example, "Additiones et variationes in rubricis generalibus breviarii et missalis romani ad normam bullae "Divino afflatu" et subsequentium S.R.C. decretorum" and in the norms promulgated by "Rubricarum Instructum". This was in accordance with the policy of "Rubricarum Instructum" which abrogated only "any decrees and replies on doubtful points issued by the [S.C.R.] which do not agree with this new form of rubrics."

Missale Romanum similarly abrogates the previous law "to the extent necessary," not generally.

And saying something is not prohibited in the liturgy when it is not specifically mentioned in the liturgical books does not seem to be sufficient either. In fact, many people who contribute to this forum would take great exception to that understanding, as it opens the liturgy to all kinds of abuses which are not specifically prohibited by law.

This is a completely underwhelming understanding of this point. (Which you probably realize, since you don't endorse it, but hand it off to "many people who contribute to this forum"). While it's true that the liturgical law is a positive law for the most part, telling you what to do and not what not to do, it can't be understood in an entirely positivistic way. Here we're talking about something with an extensive tradition behind it. Those things aren't banned just because there is a silence about them.

So until this Forum thread appeared, no one in the Church during the past 50 years ever questioned whether or not choral turba parts were OK in the chanted Passion on Passion/Palm Sunday and/or Good Friday?

A complete non sequitur.

Or if some folks did question it, none of them referred the dubium to the CDWDS?

I'm not aware of any decision of the CDWDS addressing this question. I assume you aren't either, since you have not mentioned it.

Or if someone did submit the question to the CDWDS, the congregation chose not to answer it, on the grounds that the SRC had already addressed the issue in 1899?

That seems to be a misunderstanding of what I wrote above. My point was a general one. That the SCR hasn't cited a particular body of law in making decisions since the Council doesn't mean that body of law is no longer in force. But even aside from the question of whether the law is in force, the document from the CDWDS refers explicitly to a tradition and it's reasonable for us to look at old legislation, even if it's not in force in trying to figure out what the tradition is. The revised Ceremonial of Bishops, for example, does this in the rules for incensation, citing the old Ceremonial of Bishops regarding incensation.

Incredible that this should have happened!

I'm not sure why we can't discuss this without resorting to hyperbole.

I directly addressed the points that you made in your response to my comment. You seem to not be addressing mine except to ridicule them.

Sam, please believe me when I say that I am not ridiculing anything you wrote. I have a very high regard for your scholarship.

You described my second posting as a non sequitur. And it was. I was not addressing (or "ridiculing") the points in your posting, simply wondering "out loud" how a question about choral turba parts, certainly a matter of some importance to more than a few people in the Church, was never addressed to the CDWDS after the liturgical reforms. I still find it incredible, and I don't know if my thinking such is hyperbolic or not.

So can the 1899 allowance for a "lay choir" be somehow expanded to mean "all the laypeople in the pews" ? Or is it really the case that the people in the pews never participated (verbally) in either of the Holy Week Passions until the innovations of the Missalette-makers in the 1970's? Just because I can't imagine Holy Week passions without the crowd being spoken by, well, the crowd within that given church building... doesn't mean that the crowd SHOULD BE speaking the crowd's words. And I guess that was the question that started this thread in the first place:

- What's the preferred Passion practice?
- What's not preferred, but allowed as the situation warrants?
- What's not allowed at all?

the paragraph's phrasing is not strong enough to construe

"Should" being one of those 'Roman' words ;-)

John Bertalot writes in one of his forwards :

When a congregation is invited to join in the reading of the Passion gospel for Palm Sunday, it is usually given the part of the crowd: those who were against Jesus and called for him to be crucified. This seems unfortunate...in this setting of the Passion of Our Lord According to Luke [1994] the congregation is invited to sing the part of Jesus- to see the story from his viewpoint.