Active Participation of the Faithful according to the 1962 Missale Romanum
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    In Part III (General Rubrics of the Roman Missal), Chapter I (General Principles and Rules) of the 1962 Missale Romanum, the following rubric is found, which I recently discovered thanks to the help of Clerget and Elmar on this thread.

    272. The Mass, of its very nature, requires that all present should participate in it, in the manner proper to each one.

    The various ways in which the faithful can actively participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be so arranged that all danger of abuse is removed, and that the principal end of their participation is secured, namely a more complete worship of God and edification of the faithful.

    The active participation of the faithful was dealt with in greater detail in the Instruction on Sacred Music and Liturgy, promulgated on 3rd September, 1958.

    My question is this: Since it is generally held by theologians that the preconciliar rubrics bind (the celebrant only---this added for clarity) under pain of mortal sin, are priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form according to the 1962 Missale Romanum, obliged to instruct the faithful in the degrees of participation outlined in De Musica Sacra, in Chapter III, under the title "More Perfect Worship"?

  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Is it now held that preconciliar rubrics STILL bind under pain of mortal sin? That's a juridical/moral question that's not specifically addressed under the motu proprio so far as I am aware.
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 337
    Is it held that the rubrics of the Ordinary form now, to the degree that they specify things (they are much more loosey-goosey, by design), bind under pain of mortal sin?

    I also wonder if, apart from some of the specifications such as cutting needless repetitions, with this observation about active participation, the 1962 Missal fulfills the suggestions of Sacrosanctum Concilium?
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The "rubrics bind under pain of mortal sin" piece applies to priests, not laymen.

    Pius XII dealt with this in (I don't have it in front of me): it is misguided and wrong to require uniformity of action from the laity.


  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Yes, Chris, I agree that nowhere in the documents does it state that it is mandatory for laypeople to participate in the liturgy, and of course how could one enforce that---liturgy police?----but whether it is mandatory for pastors to instruct the faithful in the degrees of participation is another question.

    Romantic Strings, I don't believe the rubrics of the OF are binding in the same way as the preconcilar rubrics were/are. As to whether the 1962 Missal fulfills the suggestions of SC, then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke in 1998 on the 10th Anniversary of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesai Dei" about the "essential criteria" of the Constitution on the Liturgy and said they apply also to the old liturgy:

    This is why it is very important to observe the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I quoted above, including when one celebrates according to the old Missal!


    http://www.institute-christ-king.org/latin-mass-resources/ratzinger-latin-mass/
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Regarding your question, Liam, to my understanding, as you say, there has been nothing to change that discipline regarding the preconciliar rubrics, then why wouldn't it still be in place? Nothing has ever been said to abrogate it, so it would seem it still applies.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Because it's a preceptual obligation. So, the former fasting/abstinence precepts don't oblige gravely, it's not clear these would necessarily bind gravely. Do the old precepts concerning the praying of the Divine Office oblige gravely as they once did? Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's clear they do not, so much as it's not absolutely clear they necessarily do, and I would be more cautious about assuming or asserting they are so.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Point well taken, Liam, but while I believe nothing has come along which would change the gravity of violating one of the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, I in no way claim to be a moral theologian, and I certainly leave it to others with far greater training than I to debate that point.

    What I think is important, though, is that the discovery of this rubric makes clear the mind of the Church regarding the participation of the faifhful at the celebration of the EF. That this is the mind of the Church is indisputably clear, and regardless of the degrees of gravity attached to non-compliance, I'm sure we can all agree that this is what anyone seeking to fulfill the desires of the Church ought to do.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Julie,

    Following the rubrics of Mass includes making sure hands are held properly..... but there is no instruction in the rubrics of the Mass saying "Now the priest turns to explain the varying degrees of participation", so, it seems to me, such an instruction (even where it is sound cultural practice) can't bind in the same way as the requirement to observe the rubrics on pain of mortal sin.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    On the subject of violating the rubrics in the Ordo of Pope Paul VI, how is it actually possible to violate rubrics with so many options?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Peter Kwasniewski addressed the topic of the sinfulness of liturgical abuse at our sister site New Liturgical Movement in November 2014.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen JulieColl
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Chris' question is quite pert. How, indeed, does one violate a rubric that says '...in these or similar words'? It would seem that impromptu abuse was cleverly and fiendishly sanctioned by such excuses for liturgy. What, indeed, constitutes abuse when any priest can say whatever he pleases and interpret it as 'similar words'? There are priests by the tens-of-thousands who are so embarrassed at the gravitas and sanctity of what they are doing that they must constantly interrupt it with folksy verbiage lest the faithful (whom they really don't think much of) become alienated. (Oh, if they only knew how immensely alienating their foolish prattle actually is!)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Here's the material Julie has in mind, from the 1958 document De Musica Sacra [TL;DR note: busy readers can skip reading the quote]:

    More Perfect Worship [Note: this header is not in the Latin text.]

    23. The primary end of general participation is the more perfect worship of God, and the edification of the faithful. Thus the various means of congregational participation should be so controlled that there is no danger of abuse, and this end is effectively achieved.

    b. Participation of the faithful in sung Mass.

    24. The more noble form of the Eucharistic celebration is the solemn Mass because in it the solemnities of ceremonies, ministers, and sacred music all combine to express the magnificence of the divine mysteries, and to impress upon the minds of the faithful the devotion with which they should contemplate them. Therefore, we must strive that the faithful have the respect due to this form of worship by properly participating in it in the ways described below.

    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.

    Recommended Chants [Not in the Latin text.]

    In connection with this, the following Gregorian melodies, because of their simplicity, should be learned by the faithful throughout the world: the Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei of Mass XVI from the Roman Gradual; the Gloria in excelsis Deo, and Ite, missa est-Deo gratias of Mass XV; and either Credo I or Credo III. In this way it will be possible to achieve that most highly desirable goal of having the Christian faithful throughout the world manifest their common faith by active participation in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and by common and joyful song (Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 16).

    c) Thirdly, if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant, they can sing the parts of the Proper of the Mass. This form of participation should be carried out particularly in religious congregations and seminaries.


    Julie was wondering if this text could contain rubrics that lay people priests would have a duty to follow, under pain of mortal sin.

    Now, in addition to the general considerations which other readers have raised, I'd like to look at the particular text Julie mentions to see what's there.

    A careful reading of the above material will recognize that this passage does not command lay people to do anything, and it is not even very strong in what it directs to the clergy. It is instructional and hortatory.

    The tone is clearer when one reads the Latin text. The English version above says "must", but the Latin doesn't use that strong a term: the verb form indicates that "care is to be taken" (curandum est) or something "is to be striven for" (adnitendum). These expressions do not imply that thunderbolts are following on the tails of this memo.

    One might not know that from the English text. Due to the imperfections of a translation, a scrupulous person could be misled into worrying about non-existent duties for himself, or even worry about other people not fulfilling their non-existent duties. Heaven knows, the traditional movement already has the reputation for being full of noodges; let's steer clear of that.

    So what have we learned? Do not trust the translations. Do not mistake exhortations for commands, In particular, do not mistake exhortations directed at priests for commands to lay people.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the enlightening remarks, Chonak. I'd just like to point out two things:

    1) I assumed it was a commonly accepted fact that preconciliar moral theologians taught that the rubrics bound a priest under pain of sin. I've heard this from priests I know; it is on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales' website, and Fr. Z has mentioned it so that is why I included it in my original question, which was, by the way, a question and not an assertion. I also do not know for certain that this is still the case with the preconciliar rubrics, i.e., the Extraordinary Form, though I assume it is so since this discipline has never been specifically abrogated.

    Most importantly, I want to emphasize that I have never said anywhere in this thread or anywhere on this forum that the norm in question was directed at lay people. Just to be absolutely clear: I have never claimed nor have I ever publicly (or privately) wondered if lay people are obliged under pain of sin to make the responses at Mass.

    2) Re: my use of the English translation of De Musica Sacra. I would have been happy to use the Latin, but I thought it would be easier for people to understand if I used an approved English translation. I wasn't aware that there is an issue with preconciliar translations of Church documents.

    The heading "More Perfect Worship" was used in the text on the Adoremus website. I see it is not in my DSP edition of the papal documents on the liturgy. However, the title was lifted from the document itself for editorial reasons, I suppose, as is seen in these phrases from the text:

    Of this more perfect participation there are four degrees:

    The third and most perfect manner of participation is had when the faithful give the liturgical responses to the celebrant,

    The participation of those present is more complete if this interior attention is joined to an exterior participation manifested by external acts.

    Although I'm aware my interest in this issue may be perceived as noodgely, or irritating, annoying, exasperating, infuriating or tiresome, my only point in raising this question is to see if anyone agrees that Norm 272 in the rubrics of the 1962 Missale Romanum imposes an obligation of some degree of gravity, or perhaps it's better to say, a moral imperative of some kind, upon priests and pastors who celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal to instruct the faithful in their care to learn "to sing or say in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them".
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Thanks for raising such an interesting topic
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    It's disturbing to find English texts with official approval -- even devotional prayers or liturgical prayers in old missals -- exaggerated by translations that make them more severe than the original Latin.

    An example is in the beloved "Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart". An English version widely used says, "Be thou King of those whom heresy holds in error...", but the Latin does not mention heresy. It refers mildly to "those deceived by erroneous opinions".

    I remember that Michael Davies once stumbled on this sort of trap. An argument of his relied on an overly severe English translation of some prayers in a hand-missal, so his opinion really didn't have the Church support he thought it had. Eventually, an article in the Latin Liturgy Association newsletter caught the mistake.

    Thank you, Julie, for pointing out that your concern was with rubrics for priests and not lay people. I mistook your question above in that regard, which is silly when I'm urging people to be careful about reading the Latin. Mea culpa! I shall revise above.

    Even looking at the document from an old-style point of view, the directives to priests about teaching people to sing their parts are not rubrics; that is, they are not ritual instructions. They are instructions on liturgical formation, and that is, I presume, done outside the liturgy.


    Thanked by 2CHGiffen JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Thanks for the sage advice on translations, Chonak. It's also helpful to know there is a difference between a directive and rubrics. The article in question was under the section "General Norms."

    A norm is, according to Merriam Webster: standard expected behavior, an authoritative standard, or a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior.

    So I think it's safe to assume that Norm 272 means it's expected that priests will provide adequate instruction to the faithful about their proper role at the EF Mass.

    Case closed as far as my question goes then. Thanks to all for their contributions.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    On the subject of violating the rubrics in the Ordo of Pope Paul VI, how is it actually possible to violate rubrics with so many options?


    It takes lots of hard work and creativity. And yet, so many priests and musicians appear up to the task.
    Thanked by 3Gavin hilluminar JL
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Can anyone mention any churches where the faithful sing the plainchant Mass ordinary (in Latin) routinely? There are a few, but I can't think of any to name.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Plainchant ordinary in Latin is sung (very well!) by the people at the 8.15 mass at Walsingham. I am working behind the scenes to have them sing Canon Winfred Douglas' English adaptation of the Gregorian ordinaries. Not because I don't like Latin (I love it!), but because I don't like bi-lingual masses and because using Canon Douglas' versions would be more faithful to our Anglican Use. (Conversely, if they are loathe to surrender their Latin ordinary, I would be pleased if they did the entire mass in Latin, including the readings and the homily. [I can be as happy with one language as another, but, please, pick one].)
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • BrophyBoy
    Posts: 46
    @chonak: The Gregorian Masses are regularly sung by the Choir and People, together, at both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Celebrations of the Roman Rite at Saint Patrick's Church in New Orleans.

    http://www.oldstpatricks.org/bulletins/2015/music2015Eastertide.pdf
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    Richard, a few days late here and not an EF Mass, but folks sing Masses VIII, XI, XVII, XVIII well here. I'm trying to add about one a year (they had VIII and XVIII prior to my coming here as well as the Kyrie from a number of other Masses). There's a good singing culture, great room, good organ.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • Chrism
    Posts: 868
    I hate to resurrect this thread, but regarding the gravity of offending against rubrics, etc., prior to the Council, I found this extract in Fr. Hayburn's Digest of Regulations and Rubrics of Catholic Church Music (1961, McLaughlin & Reilly), which was published with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur:

    "As to the matter there can be no doubt; for, whatever pertains to Divine Worship has always been considered grave matter, and the solemn will and intention of the Superior is made clear from the tenor of the laws." (P. Florentius Romita, Jus Musicae Liturgicae, Edizione Liturgiche, Rome, 1947).


    Which is all to say, whatever the will of the Superior is today regarding liturgy should be considered grave matter, and regarding the will of the Superior today, I don't think that Pope Benedict or Pope Francis have deviated one iota from that intention expressed most eloquently by St. John Paul on the occasion of the 1988 ordinations:

    respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962


    Respect for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition is therefore the will of the Superior. So, when one group is attached to Silent Low Mass, and another to the Dialogue Mass, and another to Sung High Mass...if one group disrespects the other, they are sinning mortally. That's how I read it.

    (Bolding the point of my comment, so that some folks don't get too held up by the strict and old-timey sounding language of the first part. Pencils down, people. Breathe.)
  • Ben Dunlap
    Posts: 48
    I think a more thorough exegesis of "whatever pertains to Divine worship has always been considered grave matter" would be helpful here. This can't be understood in an absolute sense, because it's easy to find examples to the contrary -- for example this one from a 1934 manual (Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology), which was recently quoted on Fr. Hunwicke's blog:

    To substitute for the Mass prescribed in the Calendar another Mass at choice would normally be a venial sin, but if great scandal arose or there was contempt or serious negligence, the sin would be a grave one.
    Thanked by 1Chrism
Add a Comment