MOST PERFECT FORM OF PARTICIPATION

By the middle of the twentieth century the entire ethos of the Catholic liturgy was changing due principally to the new enthusiasm -in sharp contrast to the past -  for “active participation” This was exemplified in the 1958 Instruction “On Sacred Music And Liturgy” with its unambiguous assertion that “A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus affording a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.” 

It must be noted, however, that this “most perfect” form of participation is at odds with the Church’s traditional practice.  The contemporary ideal of placing the Roman missal in the hands of the faithful in such a way that united, to the priest, they may pray with the same words and sentiment of the Church – whether the Mass be silent or dialogue – was impossible of achievement for the far greater part of the Church’s history as the vast majority of any congregation would have been unable to read, the printing press not yet invented, or books too expensive.  It is really only towards the end of the nineteenth century that cheap books became available to the average person so it is perfectly clear that the liturgy was never designed with this type of participation in mind

It has been claimed that after the Reformation, an individualist Protestant spirit began to gradually seep in amongst the Catholic clergy and laity alike.  It contributed to Catholics following private devotions during their attendance at Mass, rather than communally uniting themselves to the liturgical actions.  Meanwhile, the age of the printing press was on hand to deliver a prolific number of Mass prayer books  whose contents were usually devotions far removed from the sacrificial action taking place at the altar. Of course, the true reason for this state of affairs has nothing whatsoever to do with Protestantism but the simple fact that it was FORBIDDEN by the Church authorities to translate the Missal e.g. 1661 Pope Alexander VII condemned a Missal translated into French and forbade any further translations under pain of excommunication. This prohibition was renewed by Pius IX as late as 1857 and only in 1897 was it no longer enforced. 

It is surely highly significant that by 1958 Annibale Bugnini , (who’s name is synonymous with the New Mass) and the key figure  in the pre- and post- Conciliar changes had been secretary of the Commission For Liturgical Reform for already 10 years and much progress had already been achieved, including limited use of the vernacular in certain rites.  Pius XII died only a few weeks later and things were set in motion for the Council.  As the Dialogue Mass was the spearhead of the Liturgical Movement's desire for active lay participation it is not surprising that it should be praised as the “most perfect form”  of assistance in this document. 

If the faithful were “mute spectators” before the 20^th century it was the result of deliberate policy by the Popes and the highest authorities of the Church for 1000 years and not the result of any ill-will or preference of their own.   This is surely why it is not possible to find Pontifical documents in praise of the “silent” Mass for it was simply a fact of life in the Church and required no praise or justification, unlike the new form of participation which required to be promoted.

LEADING TO THE VERNACULAR AND NOVUS ORDO

As far back as 1953 Joseph Jungmann was drawing attention to the “problem” of an exclusive Latin Liturgy “The monumental greatness of the Roman Mass lies in its antiquity which reaches back to the Church of the martyrs, and in its spread which, with its Latin language, spans so many nations. Nowhere else is it so plain that the Church is both apostolic and catholic. But this double advantage of the Roman Mass also involves weaknesses. The Latin tongue is nowadays become more and more unfamiliar even to cultured people. Will there ever be any relaxing in this matter in the setting of the Mass? ….. The Latin language is only one of the peculiarities of the Roman liturgy that, due to its venerable age, has to some extent become a problem. …. In the present shape of the Roman Mass, forms and practices have been retained which are no longer comprehensible to the ordinary onlooker.” There is in fact, a close connection between the introduction of dialogue into the Traditional Mass and the universal imposition of dialogue in the celebration of the New Mass which followed It. For further evidence one has only to peruse the fascinating book, Bringing the Mass to the People ,by Father Reinhold published just before the Council in 1960. This work not only clearly states that there WILL be a new Mass but even describes the form that it is likely to take as a result of the resolutions of the liturgical congresses at Maria Laach (1951) Sainte Odile (1952) and Lugano (1953). As a result of these meetings of liturgical experts the Holy See was convinced to promote various reforms of which the Dialogue Mass was an integral part. In fact it was never envisaged that there would be any provision for public “silent Masses” in the new reformed liturgy. Here follows a brief selection of surprisingly detailed proposals for the reform of the Mass which will easily be recognised by laymen (many of the other proposals concern the actions of the priest) which were proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1953 and adopted afterwards by the Council reforms: (a) Omission of the Judica me etc (b) The first part of the Mass should be called the Liturgy of the Word. It should be carried out in choro, not at the Altar. (c) A three or four year cycle of Lessons and Gospels for Sundays. (d) Bidding prayers should be reintroduced as the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word. (e) No Confiteor etc at Communion time. (f) No last Gospel. On the basis of these and other far more radical recommendations Father Reinhold puts together a sample Mass Rite which is strikingly similar to what was eventually enforced. He observes: “by noting the most advanced proposals for reform, I may well cause surprise in many readers. A tendency exists among priests and people alike to set great store on preserving the liturgy unchanged, simply for stability’s sake. But the drastic reforms which the Holy See has already made indicate plainly that there is a sense of urgency in high places. It would be a mistake for us not to recognise that more reforms in the liturgy are impending. And we should realise that this popular inclination to preserve the past unchanged has already had various unfortunate results. Some of the reforms which have been made recently seemed quite unexpected to many people; it became evident that an unprepared public may, in its temporary confusion, find it rather hard to collaborate enthusiastically with the intentions of the See of Peter. For the sake of the future, therefore, it would be better if Catholics generally were given the means to understand the direction of liturgical thought and thus were prepared for the changes which were to come ……. Because of the loyalty and discipline we owe to the Holy See, therefore, we need to become informed in this matter of impending changes; we must ourselves begin to realise the needs of our time which are to be met by these reforms. What the uninitiated reader may find startling at first in the proposals embodied in this book will not seem so surprising in the end; he will find that they all hang together. And he will realise that it is better to be astonished now by something which seems novel but which he will find to be well reasoned, than it would be to remain uninformed and so to allow the finished reform to shock him when it comes, which will be precisely when his full co-operation will be called for and needed”. (p 26, 31)

It is abundantly clear that the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century, although not against the Faith as such, were certainly tendentious and largely stemmed from a dissatisfaction with the development of the liturgy over the previous millennium which the reformers certainly considered as at least unfortunate, Hence the enthusiasm to “restore” so much that disappeared during that time: simple altars in the centre of the sanctuary without tabernacles, Bishops, or Eucharistic presidents chairs prominently placed in the position which had lately been occupied by the late-medieval style altar with tabernacle against the east wall. Offertory Processions, Communion under both kinds or in the hand. Concelebrations, rather than a multiplicity of Low Masses and - of course - active vocal participation accompanying them all and that in the vernacular. In short, (at least superficially), everything restored as it had been before the second millennium during which the liturgy became progressively “decadent”. The very title of Father Ellard’s important book The Mass of the Future says it all! This volume contains photographic illustrations of several of the above things actually taking place on an experimental basis with full ecclesiastical approval as shown on this page

The book was published in 1948; twenty -one years before the New Mass was introduced! This very book tells of Dialogue Mass in the vernacular as having already granted to Cardinal Bertram in Germany. Extensive parts of the Ritual were later allowed to be celebrated in the vernacular by the time Second Vatican Council began and permission had been granted to certain Religious orders to recite the Divine Office in the vernacular from 1953 onwards in order to encourage a more comprehending and active participation in the public prayer of the Church. Referring to the permission for use in the vernacular in the innovative renewal of Baptismal Promises at the Easter Vigil, Father Ellard in a book published eight years later The Mass in Transition ( no longer of the Future!) observes, “So , in this fashion, the use of the vernacular is quietly introduced into the beginning of this restoration and just as quietly enlarged – if with restrictions still - and allowed to spread.”(p28) GRANDFELLOW FEAST OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE