Mer om aktiv deltakelse og prestens stemme i TLM

I find this discussion fascinating, because it seems to me that this is more in the line of what Vatican II was aiming for, and what I think the Holy Father, in his efforts, particularly the motu proprio, was trying to encourage—some positive reform of the ancient liturgy that is not destructive, or to be feared, and also, to have the ancient liturgy exert a gravitational effect on the form of the Mass that emerged after Vatican II.

There was a process of liturgical evaluation and even change leading up to the Council, and the events following the Council were so dramatic, that many recoiled from any change whatsoever. Pope Benedict is looking ahead, and aiming, I believe, to resume a more normal course, which will revive the question of whether there is any call for revision in the ancient form of the Mass.

This discussion seems to me to be a fruitful, if relatively modest, example of such positive change.
Comment by Fr Martin Fox

—– 2 ——

What I find is that many people, after years with the OF, are used to singing and responding and they no longer see complete silence from the congregation as the liturgical ideal, nor are they happy that even the audible parts are mumbled inaudibly. I am not talking about dissenting Catholics, but staunch and orthodox people. They love the EF, but they want to hear the priest at the parts when this is appropriate and they would like to respond once they are comfortable with the Latin.

This question about the audibility of the Mass goes to the heart of whether and when the OF and the EF will mutually enrich each other. This question confronts each person to ask whether they are liturgically “amberized” (I know that is not a word, but fossilized sounds negative) or “unamberized.”

I remember another poster elsewhere speaking of his parish being liturgically catechized, even before the Council, to involve the people actively with music and responses. He said if the faithful everywhere were living the liturgical life his parish was living at that time, there would have been no need for the OF. I would say that even now, if the EF is allowed to incorporate those positive elements of OF participation without changing the rite itself, many more devout Catholics will flock to it.

On the other hand, if people think singing and responses are a “Novus Ordo contamination” into Tridentine purity, the EF will remain the preferred Mass of a very, very small minority—not because the EF is not sublime and beautiful, but because for too many it will be unintelligible and inaccessible.
Comment by Fr. Angel

—– 3 ——

I have no problem with the congregation making the responses that properly belong to the people: those that are sung at High Mass. These include the Ordinary and the short responses. The old rubrics, including the Dominican Rite, instructed the priest at Low Mass to say these “voce clara et intelligibili,” that is loud enough to be heard by the people and understood by them.

I do have a problem with having the congregation join in the ministerial responses: the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Orate fratres, etc. These are properly in origin ministerial prayers, not congregational. And practice reflects that. At High Mass they are covered by music. At low Mass, the rubrics said they were to be recited “voce mediocri,” that is only loud enough to be heard by those near the altar. They are prayers that belong a distinct group within the Body of Christ, those who minister at the altar.

One of the regrettable effects of the usual form of Dialogue Mass was to confuse two different liturgical roles: that of the ministers at the altar and that of the congregation. The result was to increase the verbal patter at Mass with sorry results in the Novus Ordo. Combine this with hymn singing at the Offertory and Communion (and before and after Mass) as many parishes did already in the 1950s, and you have the “Four Hymn Sandwich Mass” so regularly condemned on these blogs.

When I have celebrated public Low Mass I have never found any one who could not understand that the ministerial responses and the congregational ones belong to different participants. Likewise, that the prayers said “secreto” belong to the priest alone. Whether a certain pope encouraged making the ministerial responses into congregational ones does not mean that we need to turn this option into a rule. Indeed, it does not exclude never doing it at all. It was an option, and I am not convinced that it was a good one.
Comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.

—– 4 ——

I find this discussion a fascinating and important one; though the subject sometimes generates more heat than light. I bring two anecdotal pieces of information: First, various forms of the “dialog Mass” existed long before the 1920s. The Daughters of the Heart of Jesus, a cloistered contemplative congregation with a deeply liturgical spirituality, began answering the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar along with the servers in 1873 in Antwerp. This was the wish of their foundress, Blessed Marie of Jesus Deluil-Martiny (+1884). The practice continued at all of their monasteries – with episcopal approval – in France, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, and italy right up to Vatican II.

Second, when I received my personal indult from Cardinal Mayer of Ecclesia Dei in 1989, he encouraged me to make all the parts of the Mass audible, including the Canon, while preserving the “three voices.” He said that in this way the faithful would be more easily attracted to the “old Mass” and would learn the significance of the three volumes. Although he did not mention the use of a microphone, this did seem to be the simplest way to carry out his counsels.
Comment by Father John Horgan

——— others ————

(One can) have full and active particpation while remaining silent. But, the dialogue Mass can help some people to participate more fully. That is just to say, it can be helpful to some. Silence is good as well. …

How much influence did Eastern Liturgical practice have on what the Council Fathers desired? As I understand it, vocal participation by the laity is very important in Eastern Liturgies. The West does not necessarily have to mirror the East, but perhaps we should learn from them, as they have ancienct and venerable experience in these matters. …

I personally did not find the Low Mass the best starting point. I did not have options. Is the Dialogue Mass a good start point or a High Mass? Or Missa Cantata? I agree the silence of the the Low Mass may be optimal but perhaps a goal for those of us just starting to take it all on. I think people who prefer to start with other forms of Mass besides the Low are not in fact against it. …

how do we balance the needs of the faithful who would benefit from the dialog Mass against those who would find it distracting (and would therefore be harmed by it)? …..