I agree completely.
We’re to actively participate in the Mass, not just be silent observers,as we were before Vatican II.
Which we can do in silence as well. Physical movement does not matter. It is the heart that does.
Some participate better with actually speaking.
Others can participate better in silence and contemplative prayer.
The OF and the EF are both the Mass and give the exact same graces. But, in a sense, we also get from it what we put in.
Seriously thinking of convincing my church choir to sing the Miserere now…but I’m the only soprano who can hit that note LOL.
How is reccieving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ ‘observing’?
Reception of Holy Communion is the only part of the Mass ?
I would say most certainly the climax and epogee of the Most Holy Sacrifice, yes.
It is the height of the Mass, but not the only part of it.
Vatican II called for the faithful to have a more active participation in the Liturgy.
This was because before Vatican II, the majority of Catholics were silent observers.
Some prayed the Rosary, so they were disengaged to what was taking place in the Mass.
Others most likely daydreamed.
There was a valid reason why Vatican II was called for by Pope John XXIII
Sad that this myth continues. We knew when to stand, when to sit and when to kneel. Why did we have missals? Just to stare at it? This is nonsense. The Latin Mass had Latin and we replied in Latin, and we had the English on the same page. And we sang. I was there.
And many still do. When we began having Mass in the vernacular, one Catholic friend said to me, “I can daydream as well in English as in Latin.”
Something else that I noticed at OF Masses.
Even at several parishes around here, the majority in the pews don’t bow when they’re supposed to. And most don’t strike their breast when they’re supposed to.
I know priests see this. Why they never mention it during the homily is beyond me.
Another thing that is a concern is how people will receive communion, step away from the priest, and then bow toward the empty Tabernacle.
“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the Altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the Altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.”
Pope Saint Pius X
All this talk of the OF having more active participation than the EF is nonsense.
People also like to criticize what they don’t understand.
“When people prayed the rosary during Mass before Vatican II …”
People love to say little old ladies prayed the rosary because they didn’t understand the Mass because it was in Latin.
In the old prayer books, there is a form of praying the Rosary called the Eucharistic Rosary. It was recommended as an excellent way to assist Mass. And Cardinal Spellman had no problem with it.
We followed the crowd mostly when it came to standing, kneeling and sitting.
Few used missals and a few used missalettes.
I was there in that time frame, were you ?
Ask yourself if the Holy Spirit inspired Pope John XXII to call for Vatican II ?
If so, the argument’s against it are moot.
You mean some do.
Most people are saying the responses and singing the hymns
Nothing compared to the TLM before Vatican II.
Before Vatican II, we lived in a black and white culture. People accepted what the Church and government told them without question and the leaders of both institutions, got away with the most heinous crimes.
I still live in a black and white culture. We were more trusting but did not accept everything we were told by the government, but the Church? Yes.
I have a copy of the Catholic Digest from October 1958 in front of me. On the back cover is a full page ad for the St. Joseph Daily Missal. “His Holiness Pope Pius XII Tells You Why A Daily Missal Is So Important: ‘So that the faithful, united with the Priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.’”
“Every Latin phrase is put in clear American English, every movement of the Priest is described for your understanding.”
Now Jim, that is a false dichotomy you’re presenting there. One actively participates in Mass whether in the EF OR the OF, and as someone of your age and erudition you know that quite well. Why Pope Francis himself quite recently called for more silence in Mass. Surely Pope Francis would not be trying to ‘take away’ active participation and turn us into mere ‘silent observers’. . .
It does seem to me that the problem is not in the Rites (especially when they are done properly as the rubrics and the Vatican 2 documents call for in the one, and in the way that has been ‘vetted’ by a Saint (John Paul 2) and by our Pope Emeritus as well, and which Pope Francis himself has not seen fit to change in any way, in the other.
The problem is in those who have attempted to put their own interpretation or ‘spin’ onto said rites and to hold the vast majority of the US Catholic faithful hostage for decades and keep them from experiencing, in many cases for decades, the true OF or EF that the Church has given us, but some of its members keep trying to hide away, or to substitute their own for. . .
Then why is it, Jim oh Jim, that the vast majority of the ‘sweeping crimes’ of members of the Church have been dated to those halcyon times of the 60s and beyond? In a non-black-and-white culture that ‘opened up’, why was it THAT time where everything was 'covered up?"
Are you sure they’re not bowing to the altar instead?
I’m guessing there is some truth in both of what you’re saying. But I’m a bit scared to get in the middle, I’ll just keep flying along. Don’t mind me.
Reject Vatican II? No.
Reject the supposed ‘Spirit of Vatican II’? Yes.
The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ would seem to be a movement not based on what is actually written in the 16 documents produced at Vatican II, but on a modernist interpretation which sees the documents of Vatican II as a starting point for a movement of ‘reform’ where things not in the documents (or even things that contradict what is in the documents) are justified as being of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’. Vatican II seems to be used to justify all sorts of things that are not in the documents of Vatican II