What would more active participation in the EF be like?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    Fortescue, Ceremonies ... , p30
    It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing.
    OTOH he has roles for ten or a dozen at Solemn Mass, and 20 for Pontifical Mass at the Throne.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,350
    Prof. Thomas Day writes about the influence of the Irish (and Irish-American) tradition of Low Mass in his Why Catholics Can't Sing.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,912
    Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday


    Perhaps you weren't paying attention. This was on Pentecost.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 682
    The reference to Terry's description of the practice at Westminster was for Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday. Perhaps you didn't bother to look it up.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    In case you want to see multitudes of altar boys, yards of lace and baroque organ, this epic video has it all:

    https://youtu.be/xJlF2bfcu8E?t=2m5s

    With apologies to the Rev. Fortescue, I tend to think one can't have too many altar boys when they're as cute as these little French fellows.
  • Dad,

    In my parish, it was definitely Maundy Thursday and the Easter Vigil. We had a polyphonic Mass, and my canon didn't make a point of asking, so I didn't play between the intonation and the chant. Maundy Thursday was (effectively) the maiden voyage for my newly refurbished 112 year old Kimball. Nobody had heard it a nearly full organ until then. I'm grateful beyond words for the pastor's commitment to the work.

    I can completely believe that in another parish the practice was practiced on Pentecost. It might be more than once per year, even.


    I didn't see your commentary about Pentecost until after I had made my answering post.

    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,597
    Maundy Thursday was (effectively) the maiden voyage for my newly refurbished 112 year old Kimball. Nobody had heard it a nearly full organ until then. I'm grateful beyond words for the pastor's commitment to the work.


    I'm consumed with envy. Kimballs were fine instruments.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,933
    Kimballs were fine instruments.

    NOT THEIR PIANOS!

    piece-o-junk
    Thanked by 1MarkS
  • .
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,597
    Their pipe instruments were equal to the Skinners and Austins and their materials and quality of construction were top notch. I saw one with pipes made from such high-quality metal they didn't even require racks for support. They sound good, too.

    Can't say anything about their pianos since I am not sure I have ever played one.
  • ...didn't even require...
    This is a confusing statement, Charles.
    High quality pipe metal usually means a high tin content, which means that the pipes haven't the structural integrity of more greatly alloyed metal, and is thus susceptible to bending or collapse in hot weather, and thus needs racks for support.
    Can you clarify?
    The percentage of tin relative to alloy (usually lead or zinc), is, for the best pipes, at least 75%.
    A 'rule of thumb' is that the darker the pipes the higher the percentage of alloy to tin.
    The greater the percentage of tin, the better the pipes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,597
    Don't know their content, but if they can stand self-supported for 75+ years, they are built well.

    There is a well-known brand of recent neo-Baroque organ in town and the unenclosed pipes are visibly bending and crooked.
  • Charles,

    It's not a big instrument (11 ranks in all) but I'm very grateful that the pastor decided to put the time, money and probably grief from people who thought it was an unworthy project. It's actual maiden voyage was on the 1st Sunday of Lent, before a radio-broadcast vernacular Mass. Since the parish is Portuguese, I made a point of playing one Portuguese composer's work, among the other stuff.

    You often tell us that you don't need the money from your church job. At the risk of offending protocol all over the place, I'll ask: if you're interested in contributing to the organ-upkeep fund, PM me.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,655
    I haven't been ANYWHERE in the U.S. where active participation of the faithful in the EF liturgy is anything approaching what is typical in most of Europe, where vernacular hymns and often the Ordinary of the Mass are sung with enthusiasm.


    The FSSP parish where I attended was very close. A choir singing lustily on the Ordinary and the hymns - every verse, too. It helped that the then-pastor was a former opera singer (whose name I'm sure everyone on this forum knows) who consistently emphasized the importance of music. But this all went away. The circumstances which led to this are too heart-breaking to tell. (Long story short - one change of personnel can make all the difference.)

    Prof. Thomas Day writes about the influence of the Irish (and Irish-American) tradition of Low Mass in his Why Catholics Can't Sing.


    uuuuuuuuugh

    Aunt Kate from "The Dead" called. She wants her female choristers back.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,885
    "What would more active participation in the EF be like?"

    Just travel around you will see varying degrees of participation, someplaces you will see a greater level of active interior participation, in other places say France you will see greater levels of active exterior participation. In England you will generally see a mixture during the same Mass. In Germany and Switzerland you will see active participation as in the O.F. they all sing the vernacular hymns with gusto but as for the Ordinary of the Mass not so much.

    I do not understand why this 'active' participation is so important, we have had so many good and bad ideas coming from the Vatican, and so many have been ignored, why is this one so much more important?

    If this 'active' participation must always involve 'everybody' singing all the Ordinary, can this not lead to singing of limited selection from the Kyriale and where does it leave polyphonic settings?

    As was pointed out above the Church needs Marthas as well as Marys, and most importantly we should not use Church legislation to bash one while encouraging the other.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,655
    BOTH interior and exterior actual participation would be nice. Perhaps our problem is looking at the two as mutually exclusive. (I'll be the first to admit I've fallen into this false dichotomy of thought before.)
  • In neither the EF or the OF Mass are individual members of the congregation required by the Church to sing (or say) anything. Furthermore, the spiritual well-being of souls doesn't depend on their singing. Any serious discussion of the Church's instructions on active participation needs to take account of this. Congregational singing may be some sort of "ideal", but it is qualified.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,597
    You often tell us that you don't need the money from your church job. At the risk of offending protocol all over the place, I'll ask: if you're interested in contributing to the organ-upkeep fund, PM me.


    I am blessed that I don't need the money, but I have an organ upkeep fund of my own here. It, music scholarships at a local college, and a charitable group of ladies who do some great work with the poor tend to absorb any excess that I have. Then there are such things as choir anthems that I have bought for years.

    However, congratulations on your instrument. It should give you many more years of service. I intend to keep "my" 65-year-old Schantz going as long as I am around.

    Feel free to pm your address to me. Sometimes I have a couple hundred extra I could put on something.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Guilty, too. Mea culpa. Circumstances drove me to take up the crusade of "active" participation at the EF. Extremes breed extremes. My discovery that the official policy of the EF in my diocese was that "no audible sound is to emanate from the pews during Mass" was a galvanizing moment.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,655
    The TLMs around here seem to be following the maxim from Psalms: "Be still - and know that, unless you're an altar server, your human utterance totally invalidates the priest's Mass."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,597
    The TLMs around here seem to be following the maxim from Psalms: "Be still - and know that, unless you're an altar server, your human utterance totally invalidates the priest's Mass."


    I have suspected for some time that many of the TLMers are actually dead but too contrary to give anyone the satisfaction of knowing it.
  • Stimson,

    Just to be clear, it's not the TLM which is creating this response. Speaking as one who is completely alive (in a natural sense) I find loud responses unwelcome -- but not quiet prayer, even the prayers of the Mass -- at a Low Mass. As to the High Mass which (may) suffer the same circumstances to exist, I have the sense that the silence is not uniform, for it may betoken several things at the same time.

    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Pardon the digression, Chris, but...

    Although I currently reside in California, I don't think like a person who fits in here.


    Who fits in California? Well, there is William Mahrt... and Jeffrey's Morse and Ostrowski, MaryAnn Carr Wilson, Kathy Pluth, Rudy DeVos, Royce Nickel, Greg Plese, Chris Allen, Dale Fleck, John Romeri, Paul Ford, and hosts of other folk making great strides not connected with LAREC.
  • LAREC?

    Lutheran/Anglican/Roman & Evangelical Catholic Commission?
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,643
    The Liturgical Movement's insistence on congregational singing was a kind of "unfunded mandate"; the church wasn't about to be in a position to teach congregations enough music to sing anything worth singing. (Most parishes can barely be bothered to teach doctrine anymore.) And the Missal of Paul VI was an unfunded mandate for Sung Mass; combining the two mandates was a disaster. (Low Mass culture persists at my NO geographical parish, where the Gloria is recited and folks are out in 40 minutes)

    My PiPs sing hymns, the more common chant ordinaries and Credo 3 tolerably well (we also do 1 and 4).More distressingly, they insist of singing "Credo in unum Deum" along with the priest, in spite of admonishment to the contrary. (The priests don't hear this; they're focused on what they're doing.) Sure, I wish they'd sing more. I wish more of them would sing in Schola. But I'm not in the business of telling people how to participate. And dealing with FCAP in the EF strikes me as opening a large can of worms.
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 860
    The High Mass I attended on Trinity Sunday had active participation like this
    * lots of people, including extra chairs in the narthex
    * ordinary sung alternately with the choir
    * responses sung by many (priest almost too quiet to hear)
    * standing, sitting, and kneeling more or less in concert
    * decorative partecipatio attiva by numerous small children in pews, under pews, in aisles, in arms
    * attentive silence during the consecration
    * near universal reception of Holy Communion

    Some of the experiences above of traditional(ist) liturgy are quite unrecognizable to me.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    LAREC = Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 682
    Just travel around you will see varying degrees of participation, someplaces you will see a greater level of active interior participation
    How does one see interior participation, active or inactive? From the choir loft, I mainly see people flipping pages in their missals.
  • >> How does one see interior participation, active or inactive? From the choir loft, I mainly see people flipping pages in their missals.

    at an EF Mass,
    from the choir loft, for 'active participation' you'd see people flipping pages in their hymnals as well as missals. :-)
    Thanked by 1Andrew Malton
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 876
    ... personal missals, at that. Not the missals that stay in the pews.

    EF folks usually like to make sure that they have all of the day's info in their hands, as well as their prayers for before/after Communion, and for after Mass. =)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    You need a hand missal for full participation in the EF because some of the variable prayers are inaudible. And then you might not be fluent in Latin.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • madorganist
    Posts: 682
    If they're not intended to be heard by the people, why would reading them be necessary for full participation? I daresay many would benefit more from praying the Rosary than reading the missal, especially at Low Mass.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    I think that elements of this discussion illustrate very well the raison d'etre for the original Liturgical Movement.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    I would hope it would include tambourines.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Some thoughts from The Spirit of the Liturgy by Fr. Romano Guardini (1930):

    "The primary and exclusive aim of the liturgy is not the expression of the individual's reverence and worship for God. It is not even concerned with the awakening, formation, and sanctification of the individual soul as such."

    "The liturgical entity consists of the united body of the faithful as such--the Church--a body which infinitely outnumbers the mere congregation."

    "The liturgy is the Church's public and lawful act of worship, and it is performed and conducted by the officials whom the Church herself has designated for the post---her priests."

    "In the liturgy God is to be honored by the body of the faithful, and the latter is in its turn to derive sanctification from this act of worship."
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    Aquinas thinks some at least are to be heard and understood by the people.
    Certain parts are said publicly: namely, those which pertain both to the priest and to the people, as they are common prayers. However, certain things pertain to the priest alone, to wit, the things which pertain to the proper office of the priest, namely, “that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins,” as is said in Heb 5:1 (as the offertory and consecration). And therefore concerning these things which are to be said, they are said by the priest secretly. Aquinas, Summa (IIIa q. 83 a. 4 ad 6)
    And, to quote a couple more bits from this summary. The readings completed "The people having thus been prepared and instructed", we move to the offertory, starting with "the praise of the people in the chanting of the offertory"
    I don't have time to track down his answer on the incomprehensibilty of the Latin. He says, as I recall, it is sufficient for their salvation that they know that God is being praised, but thinks it would be better if they understood the words.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 860
    Against St Thomas, the rubrics of the modern rite assert confidently: By its very nature, the Eucharistic Prayer requires that only the Priest say it, in virtue of his Ordination. (GIRM #147) and also Among those things assigned to the Priest, the prime place is occupied by the Eucharistic Prayer, which is the high point of the whole celebration... Hence [it is] rightly called the “presidential prayer" (GIRM #30) and lastly The nature of the “presidential” parts requires that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen to them attentively. (GIRM #32).

    The nature of the presidential prayers... so either Aquinas and the traditional silence is wrong and contra natura, or... or... the Eucharistic Prayer of the new rite has a different nature... or... or... the rubric is just plain wrong.

    Just sayin'. Enjoy.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • Incardination
    Posts: 833
    .
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    "The nature of the presidential prayers... so either Aquinas and the traditional silence is wrong and contra natura, or... or... the Eucharistic Prayer of the new rite has a different nature... or... or... the rubric is just plain wrong."

    No, that would require a much more exclusively prescriptive reading of the passage of Aquinas than is warranted here, which would also need to be harmonized with the contrary practice of other ancient churches that Aquinas was not critiquing.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    Was it Waugh? or Chesterton? converted, to no small extent by the sight of a priest doing Low Mass in a straightforward workmanlike manner. But that is not a view I share.
    Did St Thomas comment on 1 Peter 2 (priestly people)? The bishops at Vatican II made much of this idea.
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 860
    On the contrary, Aquinas isn't prescribing at all, not narrowing things. He is only asserting (see larger context) that some prayers are said silently because they pertain to the priest. No refuting of other practice of any other church.

    The modern Roman rubric, though, flatly says the priest must speak out loud, it's demanded by the nature of the prayer. The modern rubric is the restrictive one, and if it's right to be restrictive, then the practice Aquinas describes is wrongly permitted.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,093
    There are still in the OF prayers said quietly by the priest, for his own sins.
    However this thread is about participation in the EF, on which St Thomas seems to have views which do not match Tridentine rubrics.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,102
    If Aquinas isn't being prescriptive, he's being descriptive, and that does not mean he's contradicted by subsequent changes to the Missal.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,633
    As a musician, and (sadly) infrequent attendee of the E.F., I have to say that the most beautiful thing I've ever heard is the silent Canon.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • stulte
    Posts: 262
    The comment which inspired this thread was "trolltastic".
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,912
    @Chris G-Z.....

    And I didn't notice the "Holy Thurs/Holy Sat" component of that quote until waaayyyy later.

    That said, I have yet to see some substantiation of the thesis that Parisian praxis is more better than that of Dublin, Cologne, Brasilia, or Kansas City.

    If ICK can declare that it "has a charism" to add whatever fits the fancy of the priest that day (albeit, licit, I acknowledge), then perhaps I can declare that "I have a charism" to critique same, eh? After all, we both have exactly the same supporting letter from the Pope, right?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,438
    Far be it from me to pass qualitative judgments on the liturgical praxis in different locales, but then-Cardinal Ratzinger does speak in his 1998 address of using a "yardstick" to evaluate liturgical celebrations.

    He says, "the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration."

    Further on he remarks, "Thus the Council ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it did not prohibit the former books. The criterion which the Council established is both much larger and more demanding; it invites us all to self-criticism!"

    Sounds like then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted liturgies to be evaluated and measured.

    Of course, he goes on in his speech to establish the essential criteria by which Catholic liturgy is to be judged, according to Sacrosanctum Concilium.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • If ICK can declare that it "has a charism" to add whatever fits the fancy of the priest that day...
    This is ridiculous. The Institute doesn't make any such claim.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,912
    It is part of the charism of the Institute not merely to offer dignified worship to God (and edifying instruction thereby to the faithful) but to offer majestically dignified worship -- and so the brass (or, in my apostolate, a newly refurbished 112 yr old Kimball organ) serves to honor God in an exuberant way. Many people in America (specifically, but not exclusively) don't seem to understand this.


    This from Chris G-Z earlier in this thread.

    You may say, Arthur, that the above is not equal to what I posted above, but I have had experience with ICK's priests, and--in fact--there is a certain 'we will do it OUR way', including moving feast-days around the calendar and other less significant tweaks--not to mention the insertion of that interlude I brought up earlier here.

    I'll re-state to include Chris' statement: the Institute claims that its charism entitles it to move feasts around and to insert music where the ICK or its local pastor deems appropriate.
  • Dad,

    You misunderstand (or misapply) what I wrote. I didn't make the claim that the Institute claims anything like that this:"its charism entitles it to move feasts around". The concept of celebrating an External Solemnity isn't an Institute-generated idea. It doesn't move the feast, only the festivities. This coming Sunday, for example, is the External Solemnity of Corpus Christi. Thursday of this week is the actual feast day, and the Mass celebrated that day will be that of Corpus Christi. Greater solemnity will accompany the procession, and --- at least in my parish -- we will have a Solemn High Mass.


    I'll see if I can get you the exact wording from the Institute's official stuff, so I can be more precise, more grounded, and less confusing.