Thoughts For the Reform of the Reform (I)
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    In an essay at Rorate, John R.T. Lamont argues that in the EF Mass, the congregation's opportunities for 'actuosa participatio' are much greater than those in the OF. (See: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-traditional-latin-mass-and-active.html#more)

    It is a straightforward comparison. In the EF, the congregation could sing all the Ordinary parts and responses. In the OF, while the same parts are available to be sung, the number of ritually-allowed variations (and idiosyncrasies) tend to diminish participation.

    ...The first use of the phrase 'active participation' as a desideratum for lay involvement in the liturgy was in the Italian version of St. Pius X's motu proprio Tra le Sollicitudini in 1903; it did not appear in the official Latin text.

    The first occurrence of the idea in a magisterial document seems to be in Pius XI's Apostolic Constitution Divini Cultus (1928), where he stated that “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it.” This understanding of active participation was spelled out under Pius XII...

    ...The magisterial teaching on the importance of the active participation of the laity can be seen from these statements to be part of a larger project; that of making High Mass or at least a sung mass, rather than Low Mass, the norm for Sunday worship in Catholic parishes. This goal is itself implied by the teaching on the necessity of the use of Gregorian chant in mass as the norm, which itself requires a sung mass of some kind. It meant a radical departure from the common practice of the laity attending a Low Mass on Sunday and saying the rosary or other devotions during the mass....


    The bolded portion echoes Fr. Robert Skeris' oft-repeated saying that 'the sung Mass IS THE NORM.' Thus, the CMAA's short take: "Sing the Mass, do not sing AT the Mass."

    ...we need to distinguish between the participation of the laity in the liturgy as a relative notion – the proportion of the activity in the mass undertaken by the laity as opposed to the clergy in the liturgy – and participation as an absolute notion; the amount of activity undertaken by the laity in the liturgy in absolute terms. Participation here is not understood as including all spiritual activity undertaken by the laity in connection with the liturgy, but in the obvious sense of externally observable activity by the laity that forms part of the liturgical celebration; baldly, what is written in the liturgical books and done by the laity. When this distinction is made, it can be seen that the traditional mass permits much more participation by the laity in absolute terms. The content of the lay participation that can be undertaken by the whole congregation is what is found in the Kyriale Romanum. Learning to sing this content properly and singing it regularly every Sunday is a much more rich, complex, and difficult task than anything available to the laity in the Novus Ordo....


    Certainly more rich, complex, and difficult than singing "Let There Be Peace on Earth," or "Gather Us In."

    Next, he follows Benedict XVI's line of thought on "committee-written/ad-hoc" ritual.

    ...Those societies which have acknowledged the true God or believed in false gods have been convinced that worship is among the most serious and important activities of individuals, families and communities, because it is decisive for the fates of the worshippers in this world and the next. They have accordingly devoted an important part of their energies to worship. They have developed styles of architecture, and constructed elaborate buildings in these styles – Greek architecture is one style among many that was developed primarily for the construction of temples. They have developed music; both polyphony and musical notation were developed by the Catholic Church for religious purposes. They have developed and used elaborate and rich garments for the main functionaries in religious worship, and – most significantly for our purposes – they have devised complex and precise rituals that follow pre-established rules. The fundamental idea behind all this effort is that an activity of supreme importance has to have great thought, care and resources devoted to it, resulting in a complex and elaborate structure that uses all the highest resources available to a human culture. This result is found in the most disparate societies – ancient Egypt, China, India, the Aztecs, Babylon, the kingdom of Judah in the Old Testament, the Christian Church – despite the vast differences between the entities they worshipped, simply because they share this basic idea about the supreme importance of worship. A special priestly class has been necessary in all these societies for the single reason that the complexity of worship makes its direction a full-time job, which only those with long specialised training are capable of undertaking. The development of special liturgical languages is a natural result of this process. The ritual of worship has a sacred character, which means that it is preserved in its original linguistic form when the spoken language changes. Again this development of a liturgical language – Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Geez, Sanskrit, Pali – is common to the most disparate forms of religious belief....


    So there is literally a combination of efforts at play; not only the complexity and elaboration, but also in the effort required to understand the ritual and its language. Some argue that asking for such effort is impossible. That line of thinking is parallel to the line of 'thinking' which says that 'the kids will do it anyway, may as well give them the Pill.' (The converse is also from parent/child discourse, along the lines of 'you expect too much of me.' Yah, really? Compared to what? The sacrifice on Calvary?)

    (Part II follows)


  • Dad,

    John R.T. Lamont argues that in the EF Mass, the congregation's opportunities for 'actuosa participatio' are much greater than those in the EF.


    I think you typed something you didn't intend

    To the substance of your observation, though, I think that the evidence of naturally available participation is much more evident in the EF than in the OF, because a commentator is called for in the latter, and stage managing of a kind which would never have been tolerated in the EF.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    a commentator is called for in the latter


    It is? Allowed, maybe, but certainly not "called for." I can probably comment on one hand (maybe even one finger) the OF Masses I've been to with a commentator. Have I misunderstood something?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    IIRC, early on (late '60's) commentation-by-laity-person was quite common. Changed now to 'wildly gesticulating song-warbler(s).'
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Pre-reform I only ever experienced congregational vocal participation at our school masses, when we did sing the Ordinary and responses. Since the reform all the EF masses I have attended have been preceded by a direction (or request) that the congregation DO NOT say or sing anything. True that is limited experience, and only in London, but it is that experience which has driven me to prefer either the OF in Latin or what is now available at 5:30 on Sundays at Westminster Cathedral, when the congregation at least get to chant the Ordinary.
    Similarly, I have never experienced a commentator since the reform phase when which parts of the Mass were in English changed seemingly every couple of months.
    And I have not seen wild gesticulation for at least 30 years. But when the cantor sings alternatim with the congregation, I do expect a signal, just as I would when in a choir. Indeed when I am confronted by the expectaion of singing alternatim without a clear direction I feel I am being treated discourteously.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Yes, St. Pius X called for participation, and others have called for the laity to sing the parts belonging to them. However, they didn't do it. In fact, they didn't do anything except show up and were often encouraged to do nothing more. Perhaps the "participation" thing wouldn't have been so run into the ground if there had been less clericalization and more actual participation. Who knows - and no one does - the reforms might not have been as drastic if it hadn't become necessary to blast priests and laity out of the stupor they were in.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Since the reform all the EF masses I have attended have been preceded by a direction (or request) that the congregation DO NOT say or sing anything. True that is limited experience, and only in London,


    Really which Masses / Locations? Over the last 30 years of attending the E.F. in London I can only recall one priest that objected to the dialogue Low Mass so much that he would stop and correct the individual, But never at a Missa Cantata. Perhaps the odd Polyphonic Mass would have had a request, as it is a problem if after the priest intones to Gloria (or similar), the congregation continue, for a few seconds before the choir starts the polyphonic setting.
  • Interesting. The only regular Sunday Sung Mass in London is at St. Bede’s, Clapham Park and when I was there the Ordinary was robustly sung and the Gloria and Credo were alternatim.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    @MatthewRoth
    St. Bede's is where I sing... Do come and say hallo next time you are in town.

    Regular Sunday Sung Masses in London will have to include a few more places,
    St Mary Magdalen, Wandsworth (Sung Mass most Sundays)
    Chislehurst has sung Latin twice a month, sometimes more.
    Forest Gate, Sung evening Mass
    Willesden also has a Mass that may be sung.

    Full list here,
    http://www.lms.org.uk/find-a-mass/mass-listings
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • I really loved it. I visited for Dominica in albis, and people there are friendly!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw