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.