Salieri, I love your bolded title! The toddler problem has increased recently in my parish. I am happy we have young families and I do recall the struggle to keep my sons quiet during Mass. Therefore I try to have patience; however, my husband and I did remove our children from the church if they became a noisy distraction. I have been tempted to offer an article for the parish bulletin on tips for parents about how to train their children to behave during Mass.

Not sure I would characterize your question in terms of Mary or Martha, but I get your question. Ideally, all that occurs during a celebration of the Eucharist should be active- actively praying, actively meditating, actively singing, actively listening. Being physically present but not spiritually there is not that useful to the person in the pew. Sometimes you start out as the bump on the log and then, thanks be to God, you are transformed into being actively at the Sacrifice.

Thank you for asking this question!

And let's not consider the Martha and Mary of Luke 10 without considering the Martha and Mary of John 11, where it is Martha who engages in a double profession of faith in Jesus unlike any other disciple before the Resurrection (not just the more obvious verse 27, but in a different way, verses 21-22 - the word νῦν translated into English as "even now" contains an immensity). The Martha of John 11 takes no prisoners, as it were, basically her confession comprises a version of "You are God - so do now what you came to us to do", going even farther than Jacob wrestling with the angel in Genesis 32 or the BVM at Cana in John 2. (I love the cut of this Martha's jib. Her faith and hope are...fierce.)

It is interesting that some of the viewpoints (not necessarily this thread, but from others related to "congregational participation") take on the prejudice expressed by Martha when she complained to Jesus about Mary's lack of participation... sometimes it is quite overt; other times it may be inadvertent. For some on this forum it seems that lack of outward participation indicates lack of inward commitment on the part of the person in question. Certainly true that for some people, a lack of participation may very likely be a result of distraction... but that really isn't the question when we compare Mary and Martha.

For this reason, I find it disconcerting when individuals speak dogmatically about behaviors. Dogma IS absolute, but human behavior and the way in which we respond to the grace of God is not. Just as different music has different characteristics - some is more intellectual, some is more emotional and there is place for both in the Liturgy - so too might we consider standards of participation vs. contemplation.

I've always wondered whether part of the issue is buried in the mores of our times... things aren't "real" unless one is actively engaged. We can no longer go to the museum and study the art - we have to take video and engage in selfies. Not so that we can review the art later, but so that we can post on social media and prove that we "lived" the art.

We can no longer attend Mass in silence and contemplate the Mystery; we must "experience" the Mass, we must "live" it by taking an active role. Not only that, we apparently must confront others who aren't "active", as if it lessens the Liturgy in some way.

But at the end of the day, Liturgy is God-centric, in and of itself, completely independent of participation or not on the part of those present. The degree to which we participate or contemplate is person-centric. Not everyone is the same, not everyone would respond emotionally and intellectually to the act of worship in precisely the same way.

Caleferink mentioned above that some / many / hopefully all of us in music are there to facilitate prayer of others. I've always felt that the reason Augustine spoke about "he who sings, prays twice" was because of the act of charity in setting aside one's method of prayer - perhaps one's PREFERRED method of prayer - in order to facilitate the contemplation of others.

In the words of Christ: "Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her."

With that by way of backdrop:

Should the Catholic Liturgy (Mass/Divine Liturgy & Office), in its authentic tradition, East & West, be more Mary or Martha?

I would posit that the Liturgy should be the Liturgy, and that there is room for both Martha and Mary in our practice therein.

... does [active participation of the people] push for one over the other?

I believe there are those who try to enforce "active participation" rather like those that hang out in the fast lane doing 55. I think what started as an encouragement - "we encourage people to take a more active role in the Liturgy" somehow was twisted into a mandate, and some take no prisoners in trying to adhere to that "mandate".

... has this in fact had detrimental effects on Catholic liturgical praxis and Catholic identity?

Personally, mixed response. I think "yes" to the extent that for some people "participation" becomes the end in and of itself, or when it becomes the means by which to judge our fellow Catholics. In a fair number of cases, my own observation is that it tends to diminish the august nature of the Sacrifice, that many treat the Mass casually and that the "participation" is simply rote. I think "no" to the extent that for some, participation has been a path to meaningful and genuine interaction with the Mass.

Good questions!

But the Mass is the PUBLIC prayer of the Church. One can pray and meditate all they want privately. I think that people are crying out here for time to have private meditation. And in our world of wage slaves, no one has time for anything; therefore, they try to make time during the Mass. Somehow, people must be given more leisure time. Time for personal prayer.

'Active participation' is a rather odd phrase -- what would 'passive participation' be? Participation is already an *activity* (in the sense of 'something one does" rather than "something one suffers" (in the archaic sense of 'to suffer').

Often, the phrase begins to take on serious meaning in the course of decrying some real or alleged deficiency in the condition of the people. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, for example, one finds mention of or allusion to the people's lack of understanding of the liturgy, failure to be enriched by the liturgy, failure to build or maintain a true Christian community, and so on.

The phrase thus takes on more positive meaning when it takes the form of recommendations about specific forms of participation that are supposed to remedy these real or alleged problems. In Sacrosanctum Concilium, for example, one finds a preference for the "communal" over "individual and quasi-private" celebration of rituals, when it is possible "according to their specific nature". More specifically, it encourages participation by means of "acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes." And so on. You all know the text.

These recommendations are quite general, and allow for quite some range of practices.

What I see amongst some 'liturgists' and in practice in many churches is that these very general ideas about how to address the mentioned real or alleged deficiencies in the condition of the people often take on increasingly specific forms. The resulting practices have sometimes become, to my mind, increasingly suspect as a general solution to the problems that are supposedly being addressed, looking increasingly like the manifestation of various questionable political (in the broad sense), artistic, or intellectual agendas, and the unnecessary and unhelpful imposition of those agendas on the people.

My impression could be wrong, and I won't stand by it, but I do stand by the general point that there is little to be gained by insisting, as some do, that specific forms of participation are 'the correct' way to participate in mass. This practice of presenting specific forms of participation -- forms that might indeed be helpful to some people or to address some problems -- as universal mandates seems especially prevalent and problematic when it concerns social and bodily aspects of participation. (Perhaps that prevalence is simply a function of the fact that the mind police just aren't, in general, very good at controlling individuals' minds.)

For example, I'm not comfortable sharing my private 'intentions' during the prayers of the faithful (that's why they are private), nor holding hands during the Pater Noster. How does creating a general expectation of these forms of 'participation' help me? They are mercifully not present in my present parish, I hasten to add, which is one of the reasons that I have chosen be a member there.

That's a legalistic frame. Another frame is eschatological. The Mass is also a foretaste of the Wedding Banquet of The Lamb. If we are blessed at the end of our life to be welcomed that banquet, would our question be "what does my participation have to do with this?"

It's not an either/or.

Contemplatives sing - it's part of what grounds, reinforces and raises/lifts contemplation. The Scriptures and tradition are replete with that sensibility. Are the angels in their song of praise not in contemplation?

This is not a badger into singing. But the "why should I?" approach has a much stronger whiff of minimalism than of longing for contemplation. (I can understand why particular pieces of music may indeed obstruct contemplation, but a more across the board attitude is harder to square.)

PS: I don't pretend to know/predict what I would be/do in Heaven if I were blessed to be welcomed there. I would hope the habits of my life would incline me to be . . . open. From there, I trust God's prompting over any expectation on my part (expectation being more a mortal thing than hope: expectation is premeditated resentment, which is not of God).

Liam, it seems you misread my words. I did not say, "what does my participation have to do with this?". The question was, "should I choose not to sing at Mass, how does that influence whether or not the Mass is the public prayer of the Church?"

Nor was it a question of being physically present but mentally disassociated from the Mass... "minimalism" as you phrased it. If one unites oneself to the Mass in quiet prayer, does this diminish either the value of the Sacrifice OR the value of one's prayer?

I think not.

And yet, Jackson, this is precisely the crux of the issue. "Participation" isn't a cookie-cutter, one size fits all kind of thing. It is something that is personal. I shouldn't be paying attention to whether or not Joe is following the prayers of the missal and Sue is singing for the hymn (unless Joe or Sue are my children). You clearly feel "compelled" to sing. I do not. And the fact that I do not does not - in any way - lessen the public nature of the Sacrifice, nor does it influence how you choose to "participate" four pews over.

We are NOT "charged" to participate. We are "encouraged" to do so. There is a vast difference between the two.

I can't withhold recess if they don't comply.

But you could program Wagner. (Purple).

I don't think there is any question that the Church asks us to participate with both body and soul. My (serious) question is this: When a specific parish (whose celebration you happen to be attending for whatever reason) adopts a specific form of participation that you (speaking to everybody here, not specifically CharlesW) find to be unhelpful or distracting for yourself, do you do it anyway: never, sometimes, always? Why or why not?

(I'm not talking about actions that are specified in some official manner by the Church, Conference of Bishops, what have you.)

Well for those who would like to look it up in one click, at least according to one standard source, here is what actuosus means (there are always alternatives and longer stories to tell about meaning, of course):

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=actuosus&la=la#lexicon

(then click the link to "Lewis and Short"). As suggested, it does not mean the same as 'activus', though the words are closely related:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=activa&la=la#lexicon

Of course, the words 'active' and 'activity', as well as 'activus' and 'actuosus', themselves carry many meanings, both quotidian and technical. Sorting it all out requires more than a dictionary look-up, which is just the start. Here is an article that might be interesting, with some links to others in the comments:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/09/participatio-actuosa-in-current.html