Mrs. Flubberback, Mr. Cummerbund, and Little Suzy Snodnose

My priest friend and I were continuing the conversation that we have been having for some time now and he posed the following:

The biggest complaint that modern liturgists lodge against the pre-Vatican II Mass is that the congregation was not in "full, conscious, active participation." This usually means that they came in late, left early, didn't understand Latin, sat in their pews like bumps on a log and did private devotions, such as the Rosary to occupy their time. Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on.  

After Vatican II with the emphasis on a narrow interpretation of what "full, conscious, active participation" meant, and the priest now facing the congregation which made it possible for him to see what was happening out there in front of him, the priest and deacons now acting as policemen would chastise the congregation if they weren't in lockstep with a narrow, sterile view of full conscious, active participation. And on top of that the priest introduced his own peculiarities into the liturgy, such as asking everyone to hold hands at the Lord's Prayer, turn and greet everyone at the beginning of Mass and the like.

Now, since I am more of a traditional minded priest, even when celebrating the OF Mass facing the Congregation, I do get disturbed by what I see happening in the congregation if I find it distracting or not in lockstep with what the books tell the people to do. I use to go ballistic when I saw people holding hands at the Lord's prayer, or the charismatics holding hands high at the singing of hymns or at the Gloria and Sanctus or the congregation motioning back to me when I extended my arms to greet them and they did the same when responding, "and also with you." 

[...]

 So should priests give a flip over what the congregation is or isn't doing, such as standing at the Eucharistic Prayer when everyone else is kneeling, or kneeling when the reading are read when everyone else is sitting, or raising their hands in ectasy like charismatics are prone to do which is clearly not prescribed by "read the black and do the red."

 

To me (being a trained liturgist), this is a very interesting post.  It really speaks to a couple of big misconceptions and I think shows the inaccuracy of the liberal mindset (read: I am not calling Father a liberal, but rather commenting on the point he is making).

It is said of the TLM, "This usually means that they came in late, left early, didn't understand Latin, sat in their pews like bumps on a log and did private devotions, such as the Rosary to occupy their time. Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on."

It is observed of the Novus Ordo, "Now, since I am more of a traditional minded priest, even when celebrating the OF Mass facing the Congregation, I do get disturbed by what I see happening in the congregation if I find it distracting or not in lockstep with what the books tell the people to do."

To me (after a cursory reading), this shows that things really haven't changed with the "aggiornamento."  To me, this shows that the liberal liturgist has failed in his re-imagined view of "full, conscious, and active participation."  The traditional liturgist holds the obverse view.  The authentic understanding of "full, conscious, and active participation" doesn't mean active participation, but rather it means actual participation.  Participatio actuosa, not participatio activa.

Father echoes what the traditional liturgist knows and promotes (read: what I have been advocating since day 1), "Their body postures were not always uniform, some sat while others knelt and so on."

My response to that statement is quite simply, "So what?"  Is it a sin to sit during the consecration (or in some places kneel)?  No.  There is usually a valid reason why, in the TLM someone is not kneeling, but that is of little consequence AND if it is a "willy nilly" reason, the faithful will usually take care of the faithful, in short, they will offer the fraternal correction (not so much in the Novus Ordo, though...curious).

What this comes down to is simple.  The traditional understanding of worship is a very personal one.  How one worships is never more important than WHY one worships.  So, if Mrs. Flubberback is in the back row praying her rosary and Mr. Cummerbund is halfway up the epistle side meditating on the stations, and little if Suzy Snodnose is following along in her hand missal intently, who is participating more?  The liberal would say that none of them, but the traditional liturgist would say that all of them are, because they are all uniting their minds, hearts and souls to the salvific action on the altar in an unbloody way to the life of Christ.  And isn't that what worship is?  To unite one's soul, mind and heart to God?

So, Mrs. Flubberback doesn't stand, but sits...why?  Did she just have a knee replaced?  Is she lazy?  Does she have back problems?  Who cares.  So, Mr. Cummerbund kneels through the whole Mass, is he pietistic?  Is he repenting for something?  Does he like to kneel?  Who cares?  Is little Suzy kneeling, and sitting, and standing?  Maybe, but that is because she's following along with her missal, but...who cares?

What the faithful should care about isn't what those persons are doing, but rather that they, themselves are uniting their whole mind, soul, and heart to God.

If the liturgist is more interested in making the faithful into little ersatz-clerics, through hand positions and uniform actions 100%, then the liturgist has missed the point of worship.  The faithful don't respond and "act" because everyone else is doing it, but because it is an ejaculation of love for God, the Father.  To do it for any other reason is quite simply, participatio activa.

The answer is simple, Father.  Turn around, celebrate Mass ad orientem and don't worry about things that you cannot control.  You can't control Mrs. Flubberback, Mr. Cummerbund or little Suzy Snodnose, but you can control the "black and the red."  Your role is clear.  You are the mediator between the worship and God, the Father.  You are Christ at Calvary, in an unbloody way.  Your action (not acting, please note the very important difference) is precise and it is calculated.  The red is there for a reason, it isn't a suggestion, it isn't a guide, it is a rule (or law).  The black is there for a reason, it isn't a suggestion, it isn't a guide, it is a rule (or law).  I can guarantee you 100% (with the exception of perhaps your childhood bully) that no one is making faces toward your back and I can certainly guarantee that nobody is going to stab you in the back (unless you have a liberal liturgist).

To answer your last paragraph...NO.  Priests should not give a flip as to what the congregation is doing.

Understanding Our Role in Assisting at Holy Mass

As I continue with my conversations with others regarding the theology behind the liturgical action, I was privy to this and I added my own response.

Father said,

 However, Vatican II sensibilities in terms of the unity of the priest and the congregation are to be applied to it and actual participation as understood in the Ordinary Form, meaning the congregation takes it's parts which would have been normally associated with the altar servers and/or choir.

Another person in the conversation said,

Really, Father, if you are to be the Church's clairvoyant liturgist, you move on and get past your progressive Novus Ordo seminary indoctrination, and quit trying incessantly to micromanage the way the people participate in the liturgy. It's their own business, not yours (however hard this is for an ingrained clericalist to accept).

To which I repsonded,

This is an important concept which cannot be overlooked.  The priest has a role to fulfill in the celebration of Holy Mass. The faithful have a role to fulfill in the celebration of Holy Mass.  They are joined insofar as they are both present, but they are separate in action.

The priest acts in a certain way with his ministers as he offers the sacrifice on behalf of the faithful and the faithful act in a certain way while assisting/hearing Holy Mass.  Those actions are mutually exclusive.

There is a theological reason for a communion rail as well as a practical one.  Just as there was a curtain and doorways into the Holy of Holies, the Communion rail and it's doors are a separation of action.  The priest offers and his ministers support the Holy Mass, through their outward (and inward, hence the conjoining of the sanctuary and the nave) action.  The faithful worship and adore the fruit of that action.

The role of the faithful is not to be burdened with the activa, but rather to embrace the actuosa, internally and personally and allow the activa to flow naturally.  That is why the priest has his ministers.  Their burden is the activa, but then again, they should be trained to handle that burden, spiritually, so as to properly meld the activa and actuosa.  To be a minister at the altar is a charism, not a right.

This is yet another issue with the faulty liturgical theology which emerged after the Council.  Prior to this, it was understood, innately.

Should Father Be "Concerned?"

Recently, I was speaking with one of my priest friends and he posited the following in the course of our conversation:

Of course, I can't see what is happening in the congregation and so don't become preoccupied by how well or how poorly the congregation is actually participating... I become like a teacher in the classroom evaluating what the congregation is doing and experience rises in my blood pressure when I see children or adults getting up during Mass to go to the bathroom or outside or whatever, even during the words of consecration...

I know that this will raise the ire of some, but I was refreshed to hear this from him.  His role at Mass is NOT first to be a teacher.  His role first is to be a celebrant.  He is offering the Holy Sacrifice and what the faithful do outside the rail shouldn't really impact what he is doing inside the rail.

I know, I know, this is a very "old" way of looking at the Mass, but it is nevertheless true.  There are (and always have been) two distinct actions taking place at Mass.  First, the priest (with his ministers) is offering the Holy Sacrifice.  Second, the faithful are worshipping and adoring God the Father as this action is taking place.  It is the obligation of the faithful to assist (participatio actuosa) at that Mass, but not to participatio activa.  And it is the blurring of that which has caused no end of trouble in the aftermath of Vatican Council II, liturgically.

As the conversation went on, he asked,

Should the priest be a detective or policeman concerning how well or poorly the congregation is "actually" participating?

My answer is no.  It isn't his concern.  It is his concern to celebrate the Mass validly, licitly and with all reverence, honor and glory due it, EVERY SINGLE TIME.  If there is a ruckus or if there is a disruption during the Mass with regard to the faithful, it falls on the ushers to do their job.  If the same happens in the sanctuary, it falls on the MC to do his job.

It is Father's job to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice.

Proper Adoration and Proper Worship

It was recently said by an acquaintance,

I have watched our school children stand to receive Holy Communion at our school Masses and this year, I have watched them kneel to receive. There is a big difference and what is being conveyed to these children when they kneel is that something out of the ordinary is happening when they receive our Lord in Holy Communion and that they should fall to their knees in adoration! Isn't this what Pope Benedict is saying by insisting that people kneel when he distributes Holy Communion?

My response to that is;

It is what the Holy Father is saying, but isn't it sad that it has come to this?  Isn't it sad that proper adoration is out of the ordinary?

When we talk about the crisis of faith, it all comes down to that.  It all comes down to the fact that we have lost the ability to properly adore and worship God the Father, through the Son, from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.  When we catechize,  THAT is the crux of the new evangelization.  THAT is the key to bringing Catholicism back.

When we ask ourselves about the Mass, when we ask ourselves about Vatican Council II, we must ask does the reformed Mass convey proper adoration and proper worship based upon 2000 years of the Church?  Does Vatican Council II convey proper theological, philosophical, and Catholic thought based upon 2000 years of the Church?

We can argue about the form of the Mass and we will, we can argue about the Council and we will, we can argue about theology, philosophy and Catholic identity, and we will.  What it all comes down to though is proper worship and adoration.  If we understand those two things above all others then we understand the Church, not the Church since 1965, but the Church since her inception.