I saw the headline to an article in the St. Louis Review earlier this week on the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, with this title:
My first reaction was to think, "Well, it sure did a bang-up job of it." But I initially let it go.
Today, however, I read the article more closely and was struck by one quote which really gets to me, as it is the kind of mantra that is repeated as fact without any empirical evidence. It is just assumed as a "duh" point-- namely, that the vernacular language of the new Mass made it easy for ordinary Catholics to understand and led to greater participation in the Mass.
Here is the relevant paragraph:
Sister Catherine Vincie, RSHM, of Aquinas Institute gave a detailed
report on the work of the council document. She noted that the landslide
vote in favor of the document was a surprise to many. The liturgical
movement had its roots in the late 19th century, she said, benefiting
from the discovery of liturgical tests of the early centuries and the
role played by monasteries. It led to the active participation of the
faithful and greater understanding of the rites, Sister Catherine said.
Now, the first thing with which I would quibble is Sr. Catherine's linkage of the Conciliar document on the Mass with the Liturgical Movement of the Nineteenth Century. Probably the most well-known figure in the Liturgical Movement was Dom Prosper Gueranger, author of The Liturgical Year. Yes, the Liturgical Movement sought to increase the "comprehension" and "participation" of the laity at Mass. But merely using these terms does not mean that the movers in the Liturgical Movement would have agreed with the Mass that arose by committee after the Council was long finished. I can't see Dom Gueranger beaming down from Heaven over the promulgation of the New Mass as the capstone of all his efforts.
Moreover, the conciliar document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, did not call for many of the novelties that appeared in the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969.
Yet all of this is always assumed. Just assumed. So, of course the Mass in English will cause English speakers to understand "what's going on" and thus will cause them to better "participate" in it. And yet, it really hasn't. Has it?
So, though I try not to comment on articles online, in the end I couldn't resist. It's probably a mistake, and maybe the Review won't even run it. But here it is:
_______________
thetimman wrote:
"It led to the active participation of the faithful and greater understanding of the rites, Sister Catherine said."
Sure it did--a bang-up job! And yet I don't know if the cataclysmic
drop in the number of Catholics who regularly attend Mass since 1969
really bears that theory out, though.
Along those lines, one reason often given for translating the
liturgical texts into the vernacular was ostensibly to ensure that the
faithful understood what was going on during the Mass. I wonder then
why so many priests spend so much time during Mass ad-libbing a tutorial
course on why such-and-such action of the Mass is taking place at
such-and-such a time, and giving mini-homilies throughout the liturgy.
DIdn't the vernacular solve the comprehension problem?
Or is it that the transcendence and mystery of the ancient Mass were
removed with no increase-- or perhaps a decrease-- of comprehension?
A mixed legacy, at least.
________________
I sometimes like to ask my Ordinary Form-attending friends and family who harp on the increased "active participation" at Mass this question:
"At what moment of Mass are you most intensely, actively participating?"
In my experience, the answer comes back 98% of the time as, "During the consecration/Eucharistic prayer."
To which I respond, "And what are you saying-- vocally, audibly-- at that moment?"
"Nothing."
In other words, we don't need necessarily to hear ourselves speak to have a profound participation in the Sacred Liturgy.
About 2% of the time, the person responds with, "At Communion." And, though in the new Mass the Communicant says, "Amen," to the words, "The Body of Christ," essentially this is not a conversational moment either.
So, I say, don't just assume that the changes to the Mass led to greater participation. After all, it is easier to participate more fully in the Mass if one actually attends Mass. So, if the changes in the Mass led to a steep decline in regular attendance, tell me again how the new Mass led to greater participation?