Yup, no sense in making excuses if you're not really trying. We can't even get them to sing their parts half the time in the OF. There is a thread where Fr. Vogel coins and defines the term "Legalistic Liturgical Minimalism:"

1. Legalistic Liturgical Minimalism (This is my own term, as far as I know.) This underlying and perhaps unconscious philosophy of “legalistic liturgical minimalism” is the idea that one needs to do only what are the minimal requirements by law. This is a philosophy, upheld nowhere in Church writings on the liturgy, that has unfortunately held strong influence over the way we celebrate the liturgy. For example, certainly a Sunday Mass that is not a Sung Mass is still valid and allowed by church law, but it really is an impoverishment of what the Church desires our experience of the Sunday liturgy to be.

I think this is another source of difficulty in getting what my Pastor termed "high liturgy" returned to the Church. Why do you think option 4 of the GIRM is chosen so much in the OF? It's because it's the easiest one to do. This is also the reason that many priests choose to speak their parts instead of sing them: it's easier to do and it is completely permitted by law.

"Legalistic Liturgical Minimalism" is the perfect way to describe many average parish liturgies in this diocese - "short forms" of Scripture readings where possible, Eucharistic Prayer II almost always used, whatever can be condensed/combined is (whether licitly or not), rare use of incense (many places still utilize the Sanctus bells at least at the consecration, though...whodathunkit?). It doesn't help that Masses are scheduled on Sunday mornings so that, if your average Sunday Mass is about one hour, there's only 30 minutes between the end of one Mass and the beginning of the next (and the chaos that creates then on, say, Easter Sunday).

I think we should expect more of this kind of thing...many are those who use Pope Francis for some kind of excuse to beat up on traditionally - minded folks.

And yet, our Holy Father sometimes uses traditional expressions and exhibits traditional devotion To his credit, he apparently paved the way for the FSSPX to be granted canonical status in Argentina which is an astonishing development.

I sometimes wonder if Pope Francis perceives his mission as extending the boundaries of "Church" so that, conceivably, everyone from Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Kasper can be considered "Roman Catholics" in good standing---the One Big Happy Family/Big Tent approach (with lots of messiness and throwing of dishes and arguing along the way).

P.S. I should add, if the Pope is magnanimous enough to drape the Catholic tent over the SSPX in Argentina, I'm all for it. Let's even up the opposing sides. Grant the SSPX full canonical status and privileges in the universal Church, and let battle commence!

let battle commence!

Ooh-Rah, say I.

In some cases opposition to the TLM comes from the notion that it's contrary to Vatican II. The Council mandated a revision of the liturgy and so we are going against the wishes of the Church if we cling to the "unreformed" liturgy. Related to this is the argument that we are depriving people of their right to active participation with the TLM, since only the Novus Ordo embodies the principles of the Council on this score. (You see this all the time at the Pray Tell blog). How this squares with what Pope Benedict and other have said (and mandated for the Church!) is anyone's guess.

But most people don't think this far along. There is a vague sense that it's "against Vatican II," probably stemming from the relentless propaganda against the old rites in the years immediately following the Council. What I see is that it really bothers people that there are other people for whom (supposedly) the new mass isn't "good enough": they think they're better than other people since they claim their mass is superior or more "traditional", and this goes against the unity we should all foster in the Church. (You can see this is a garbled mishmash of misrepresentation, false dichotomies and confusing unity with uniformity, something explicitly rejected by Vatican II itself.) I suppose this comes from an overwhelming pressure to just be "normal" and for everyone to conform.

Then there's the old saw about how grumpy traditionalists are, as if it follows from this that the old rites can be scorned or that those who want them can be deprived of what John Paul II called their "rightful aspirations."

In the final analysis I agree with you - there really is little rational basis for depriving people of the TLM. In fact, in a moment of candor, one of the leading liturgists of the Vatican II reforms wrote of his exasperation with those who are attached to the old rites. For him, the backwardness of the old rites is self-evident and those who are attached to the them are mentally unbalanced. The condescension is truly breathtaking:

"It is truly hard to understand this nostalgia [for the old mass]: Might it be a form of snobbishness, or simple ignorance, or blind conservatism, or denial of the very nature of the liturgy? Whatever may be the case, this incomprehensible mentality must be awarded the same patient respect as any other psychological state. But this does not mean that some persons, even among recognized authorities [this was written before Benedict became pope], should be allowed to continue causing dissension among the people of God out of a groundless nostalgia, on the pretext that they find the "new liturgy" disconcerting" (Adrian Nocent, OSB, professor emeritus at the Pontifical Institute of Liturgy in Rome, A Re-Reading of the Renewed Liturgy, Liturgical Press, 1994).

He goes on:

There have been numerous attempts to restore the Mass of Pius V, out of the motives enumerated above. They continune to divide the Church, whose authority seems to be weak when it comes to these particular troublemakers, although it can at times be harsh when other issues are at stake.

This attitude may not be as prevalent as it was 20 years ago when this passage was published, but evidently it lives on in places like St. Petersburg. Fortunately the popes have not shared it. As you can see, there's little use arguing with such a stance. Better to go one's way cheerfully and let the beauty liturgy speak for itself. This is what attracts people.

Our dear friend, G (Scelata), poses some solid observations and questions about the efficacy of "mutual enrichment" as an ideal out of SP over at the Café.

Participatio actuosa in the sense in which it is used in De Musica Sacra as Msgr. Schuler explains here::

"The Mass of its nature requires that all those present participate in it, in the fashion proper to each.

This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).

b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .

It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation (participatio actuosa), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.

c) Perfect participatio actuosa of the faithful, finally, is obtained when there is added sacramental participation (by communion).

d) Deliberate participatio actuosa of the faithful is not possible without their adequate instruction."

At some Latin Mass celebrations the people are not encouraged in any way to sing or say the responses and in some places, the people are told that "no audible sounds" are to come from the pews during Mass, or that only the servers are to make the responses so, in that situation, the people are not allowed to participate in the full sense of the term participatio actuosa as it is defined in Church documents.

Good for you, and I'm in complete agreement. From the widespread common practice at Low Masses in the U.S., you'd think it was perfectly correct for the congregation to be completely silent, but, happily that is not the case, and that is not what the official documents governing the EF call for (cf. De Musica Sacra the four degrees or stages of participation at the Low Mass).

One look at the video on this French website, La Porte Latine, of la messe basse, or the Low Mass celebrated a la the French traditionalists, shows that silent congregations are not the norm at EF Low Masses in France.

This is a model demonstration of the "dialogue Mass" and you can see how the priest in the video follows the prescriptions in De Musica Sacra exactly, saying the prayers in a clear voice and an unhurried manner so the faithful can respond properly. The congregation recites all the prayers said by the servers, including the Confiteor.

One can only wonder what might have been if after 1958, the Church on a wide scale had celebrated the dialogue Mass as presented in this video and faithfully implemented the Instructions for "More Perfect Worship" in Chapter III of De Musica Sacra.

http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/videotheque/MesseBasseFlavigny100607/messebasse100607.php

Chris, what you said reminded me of this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger in Salt of the Earth:

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

6 Masses on Sunday is an insane amount to have at one church.

Really? That was the schedule at my home parish from 1956-1965 or so--and the same schedule prevailed at neighboring parishes to the north and south.

there is very little encouragement of participatio actuosa, and in some places it is actually forbidden.

Chez moi, people sing the Credo incipit along with the priest...which creeps me out. Feels like the OF thing of laity trying to be clergy.

Jeffrey, that is indeed creepy and not what Pope Pius XII envisioned at all, I'm sure.

Rich, the video above is of a Mass at the SSPX Seminary in Flavigny so the third or fourth degree of participation is a bit more understandable in that context. It would take most congregations a while to reach that level of facility.

It does demonstrate, however, that even the EF Low Mass potentially has just as much if not more opportunities for participation as the OF. So, if lack of participation was the raison d'etre for the Bugnini reforms, that was a pretty silly justification for all the grief and trouble which ensued.

P.S. Because good liturgical expression is so organically connected to seminary training, we see in this exemplary model of participation displayed by our SSPX friends in the video above of a Low Mass at their seminary in Flavigny precisely why their churches in France tend to be exemplary models of participation according to the mind of the Church.

Correspondingly, I think this should be a great incentive for seminary rectors to have frequent celebrations of the EF so their seminarians can learn what it means to participate fully in the EF according to the mind and heart of the Church. Such future priests thus organically formed in the EF, according to the will of the Church and the early Liturgical Movement (they are the same spirit) will then at long last be ready to go into their parishes and help effect that "liturgical reconciliation" between the two forms of the Roman rite so often expressed by Pope Benedict XVI.

Let's remember that the essence of that liturgical reconciliation between the EF and the OF consists in observing the "essential criteria" of Sacrosanctum Concilium in celebrations of both forms of the Roman rite as was stated by then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger on the 10th anniversary of Ecclesia Dei.

What are those "essential criteria"? (cf. Cardinal Ratzinger in the speeh above):

"As regards the participation of the laity, the Council first of all insists on a general point, that the liturgy is essentially the concern of the whole Body of Christ, Head and members, and for this reason it pertains to the whole Body of the Church "and that consequently it [the liturgy] is destined to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful". And the text specifies 'In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or lay faithful, when fulfilling his role, should carry out only and wholly that which pertains to him by virtue of the nature of the rite and the liturgical norms' (SL 28). 'To promote active participation, acclamations by the people are favoured, responses, the chanting of the psalms, antiphons, canticles, also actions or gestures and bodily postures. One should also observe a period of sacred silence at an appropriate time' (SL 30)."

Related to this is the argument that we are depriving people of their right to active participation with the TLM, since only the Novus Ordo embodies the principles of the Council on this score.

Except that it doesn't, at least not the way it is celebrated in most US parishes. I think that the NO more closely embodies the principles of The Consilium group, and not the Council.

Except that it doesn't, at least not the way it is celebrated in most US parishes.

In my limited experience visiting various parishes (mostly around the US, sometimes in Canada and Europe), the worst moments are, alas, the musical ones. In general, I observe that congregations speak their parts dutifully. (I leave it to others to say whether doing so constitutes actuosa participatio.) Often half or more drop out when the singing begins. Given what they are often asked to sing, it is difficult to find fault with their choice not to sing.