Miral (m.smeenk@sportservice-ede.nl) wrote:

in a recent article, Pius XI contrasts [in Divini Cultus, 1928] being detached and silent not with loudness or some other externally quantifiable sign, but with being filled with the liturgy's splendor. The opposite of liturgical inactivity is not, as some might expect, the external activity of voice or movement, but the internal wonder born of experiencing beauty; and if the externals are to be encouraged, it is for the sake of vivifying the internal. The point he is making is this. That participatio actuosa isn't just being active and making the action your prayer. The point is that FIRST, one has to stop, consider his prayer, actually pray, then make the responses. For even if one makes the actions his prayers, it isn't enough, becuase the internal aspect of the prayer being offered isn't happening. To use the new-ish concept, one cannot worship properly at Mass, unless his soul is engaged with his action. And the soul has to engage FIRST.Foley goes on to say, Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei (1947) articulates a similar understanding. Pius XII commends active and individual participation through which the members of the Mystical Body . . . become daily more like to their divine Head. He too warns the faithful not to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with earnestness and concentration. Note again the emphasis on mental presence. [...]Pius XII's encyclical is the first to give us the full Latin term for active participation: actuosa participatio. Again, note the wording: When translating the Italian partecipazione attiva into Latin, the normative language of the universal Church, the pope could have chosen activa as the adjective but he did not. He speaks instead of actuosa participatio, which is better translated into English as actual participation (and here I must express my profound gratitude to Dr. Daniel Van Slyke for this insight). Again, even as this idea of particpatio actuosa is being developed, it is clear that there is a distinction between mere activity and true worship. As Foley points out, Pope Pius XII could have used activa, but he did not. He used actuosa, for in Latin, there are more precise words than in English. The term actuosa means something more internal.My final point, Foley expounds, Vatican II wanted to see the congregation involved in the responses and singing (see no. 30), but it did so for the sake of this internal, actual participation, not as an end unto itself. Vatican II did not abolish papal teachings on actual participation; it presupposed them. It presupposed them. This then begs the question, why was it so muddied? The answer seems easy enough, but in reality, it isn't. The answer is that the CONTROLLING bodies within the various bishop's councils were in lock-step. It is they who are to blame. Yes, the bishops are culpable, because in the end, they knew better and I daresay most know better today, but the idea of creating a new vision for the liturgical action trumped everything and in haste, the Spirit of Vatican II flew out the windows when they let the fresh air in. We must work to get our pastors to buy into the proper attitudes AND FOLLOW THROUGH!!!! We MUST become the leaders that take over. We have to understand that worshipping is the role of the faithful in the pew. Serving is reserved to those at the altar and the priest is the mediator of our worhsip. This is the paradigm and this is where we have to lead our pastors. They cannot make changes until they understand AND embrace this.