Vatican II has a part in the problem (of course not the sole attribute) by simply being ambiguous and vague. This was attested to by many authoritative testimony. These ambiguities are set up in a way that liberals can twist and distort them into their errors. What we need is a sweeping super-interpretation of the entire council. It's not the sole aid in the crisis of faith but it certainly helps (much like the Novus Ordo).

Matt,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the article and offering your thoughts and the link.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Matt, before you go expending a lot of energy typing, let me make your life easier by clarifying something:
I treat reverences and symbolisms differently. I wrote an awful lot in a short time (while rushed), and so I can imagine I may not have done so as clearly as I could have. Reverences are not symbolic, of course, but are true reverence of the Lord. If it helps, when I talk about making the Sign of the Cross at all sorts of things potentially making it seem profane, that's the sort of thing I mean about all of the many reverences in the TLM. When I talk about symbolism, I am talking purely about symbolism - not reverences.

Shane,
A quick response with more detail to follow.
1. I did not attribute the problematic reforms or even the OF to Vatican II, in fact I was very careful to make that distinction, so please reread my post.
2. You seem to suggest that references are merely symbolic...That seems very problematic to me in itself. The reverences are acts of worship to God principally.

Dan, I actually wrote a post that was very similar to that on my blog a while back expressing why I think that the Ordinary Form is in many ways superior (while recognizing that the Extraordinary Form also has some areas in which it is superior; I do not take the approach of saying that either is in every way better, for I personally do not believe that one can, without holding some bias, fail to find *any* superiorities in either one). I actually address the aspect of the Offertory in the opposite way your link does: I believe the EF offertory is IN SOME WAYS inferior to the OF offertory, and I explain why.
I could have done a better job writing this at the time, and at this point I would add to my argument about the Offertory the article linked by Inocecino, and the statement writtin by Fr. Vagaggini that the people of pre-Vatican II days generally did not understand that the Mass was the sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ, which he blames in part on the sorts of things I mention about the Offertory:
http://soladeicaritas.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-thou...
God bless

Here is a link to explain why the Traditional Latin Mass is extrinsically superior to the Novus Ordo Missae.
http://verbum1.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-tlm-is-ext...
I hope I have not committed the mortal, or venial sin of plagiarism by citing this.
I am sure that one of you will kindly oblige me, if so.
Or I can ask Father in the confessional on the morrow before the TLM.
God bless.

Matt, your post regarding Fr. Vagaggini and so forth I found most interesting and balanced. I have a few comments.
First regarding Fr. Vagaggini, do not hold any popularity of his amoungst questionable groups - in and of itself - against him. Remember that Mother Theresa was a darling of the mainstream media, and even Pope Benedict XVI achieved this in his visit to the US.
Regarding the prayers, he did not write them per se. Allow me to quote from http://rubricsandritual.blogspot.com/:
"Vagaggini eventually concluded that the venerable text should not be radically altered, but new alternatives should be provided. He consequently included two proposed versions- one with a variable preface, and one with a fixed preface giving the history of salvation. Interestingly, Dom Cipriano comes out strongly against proposals to use the anaphora of Hippolytus which was eventually adapted and adopted as Eucharistic Prayer II."
One of his proposals was eveidently the basis for Eucharistic Prayer III, although it was far... more something I would think you would approve of (although EP III is really rather good, IMHO). The blog I cited actually has his proposal posted in a June 23, 2008 post, if you would like to read it.
So far as the article goes, I have read it in the past and find it to be quite good. It is well researched and makes a strong case, in my opinion.
The thing that struck the biggest chord with me was your statement about Vatican II being known by its fruits. I personally have been of the opinion that this rather common argument is not only logically and spiritually flawed, but it is in fact completely backwards of what actually happened. I will make this as brief as possible:
Logical flaw: If we grant that Vatican II in some way led to the Church's problems in the past few decades, we cannot at the same time assert that prior to Vatican II, everything was ok, or in fact that Vatican II was the ultimate cause of the problems. If there were not already liberal and progressive bishops in the Church before the Council, then Vatican II would not have been written so as to afford liberal and progressive changes in the Church. If Vatican II was ok but rather the implementation was flawed, and if there were not already liberal and progressive priests in the Church before the Council, then there would ahve been no liberal and progressive priests to misuse, misinterpret, and misapply the Council. In short, if Vatican II caused any problems, then the Church was already headed for harm from those who brought about and contributed to Vatican II.
Spiritual flaw: This one is simple. We must trust in God. The Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church. The Holy Spirit in a special way guides and protects ecumenical councils. To believe all that is so often said of Vatican II requires believing that the Holy Spirit did not do this.
Finally, bringing these two points together, I put forth what I believe truly happened. I believe that the Church was already headed for trouble, for many reasons. One of these was obvious: in the 50 years between 1900 and 1950, the world changed more than it had in the 500 before that. This past 100 years the world has been moving and changing faster and faster. Drawing not only on the logical point above, but also on reading on the history of the Church in the 20th century and hearing accounts from clergy and laypeople who were around back then, I believe that the Church had many a dissident in its hierarchical and its lay ranks long before Vatican II. These persons, coupled with the dramatic cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s, spelled trouble for the Church. The Holy Spirit, in opposition to this, led the Church, through John XXIII, to Vatican II, and led the Council fathers. The Holy Spirit set things into motion which protected the Church. Things got bad in the decades following the Council, but it is my opinion that, had the Council not happened, things would have gotten far, far worse than they did. Some say that the Council was ok, the problem was the implementation, which is now beginning to be corrected. I disagree. I believe that the implementation was the best that Satan could do to hinder the positive effects of the Council and gain as much as he did out of the 60s and 70s. Now most agree that we are just now beginning to see the positive fruits of the Council properly implemented, and in one sense I agree: we are beginning to see the full positive fruits of the Council. Where I disagree is that I believe that many of the good fruits of the Council were in what didn't happen.
God bless!

Just a random thought inspired by aslo's post. If the desire is more "actual" participation as properly understood and not some attempt to horizontalize Christian worship, why is it that genuflections, and sign's of the cross have been suppressed or made optional? Why do we reduce the reverences that the people make actively?
I would disagree that this has been done, generally speaking. Most of the reverences that the congregation are responsible for remain, though as you have spoken of before, the current practice is not in line with what the Liturgical texts call for. In fact, many of these reverences are not only not practiced, but unknown - even by those who would be most expected to!
For example, just this evening I was browsing through a book on the history of the Mass which I found at work (in a parish rectory). It is not the best of such sorts of books, but it's certainly not the worst. Overall, what I read was at times a bit liberal leaning, but overal rather encouraging (e.g., the author laments the loss of Latin and chant that has taken place in the past decades). In any case, the person lists among the changes in the Pauline Missal that we no longer bow our heads at the name of Jesus. Not so! GIRM 275 reads, in part: "A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated." Even a person researching and writing a book on the Liturgy was under the impression that this particular reverence is not in place any longer, when in fact it is.
Matt, you mention that we no longer genuflect during the Credo. Consider again, GIRM 275:
"A bow of the body, that is to say a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers Munda cor meum (Almighty God, cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive); in the Creed at the words Et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . made man); in the Roman Canon at the words Supplices te rogamus (Almighty God, we pray that your angel). The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. In addition, the priest bows slightly as he speaks the words of the Lord at the consecration."
A profound bow is not a genuflection, but it is certainly a high reverence. In fact, one might even suggest that this augments the level of enhanced solemnity present on Christmas, when a genuflection is made at this time. In other words, it symbolizes in a better way the greater solemnity of Christmas by increasing the amount of reverence. I don't want to discuss that point; I am merely presenting it as the sort of thing one could put forth.
The point is that there are many physical reverences in the reformed Liturgy, and those of the pre-Pauline missal are not simply done away with.
Where there are far fewer reverences is in the actions of the clergy during the Pauline Liturgy. I can appreciate the suggestion that this is dissapointing, but I do wish to make a few points. First, this isn't really relevant, per se, to the discussion at hand, because the Council's call for participation involved the congregation, not the celebrating clergy. That is not to diminish the importance of the clergys' physical actions, signs, and reverences by any means. Rather, it is to say that the clergy obviously have the highest and most "active" or "actual" participation in the Liturgy - being the ones to celebrate it! - and Sacrosanctum Concilium's call was to enhance the participation of those who do not have a "default" participation - the congregation.
Secondly, I will just offer some thoughts - not firm assertions or opinions of mine by any means - regarding the removal of many of the clerical signs and reverences in the Ordinary form. Let us begin with something that is beyond debate: the pre-Vatican II Liturgy was overflowing with signs, symbolisms, genuflections, signs of the cross, and reverences of all sorts. Virtually every tiny little thing was done in some symbolic manner. It is reasonable to argue - whether or not the conclusion is correct, which is not my intention to oassert - that one can have too much of this. The Mass is not like, for example, a statue, which represents reality. Rather it is a profound reality - perhaps, apart from God Himself - the most significant and authentic reality that exists. At what point does covering over reality with symbolism detract from that reality itself? Again, I'm not saying that it necessarily ever does. I am saying that it is certainly not an reasonable question for someone to ask, nor do I believe it is an unreasonable assertion for someone to make.
Then there is the view that too much symbolism causes symbolism to lose its value. If everything represents something, then for something to represent something isn't really all that special. In other words, it almost becomes profane. For example, to Catholics, signing ourselves with the cross is a very meaningful and sacred thing, but what if a person were to begin to sign himself over everything, from saying a prayer to eating - normal sorts of things - to every minor little thing like brushing his teath and watching Wheel of Fortune and anything else one can imagine? I can speak to this, as I have at times been prone to this (no, I didnt sign myself when watching television, but I went a tad overboard). The sign does begin to lose its sacredness and its meaning when a person does that sort of thing. In the same way, can too many symbols detract from the meaning of symbolism? In a similar (but not entirely the same) way, consider reverences. As we all know, many priests prior to Vatican II rushed through the Mass, including the reverences... with so many genuflections, often the priests knees seemed to bounce on the ground like rubber, rather than resting in true adoration. Please do not misunderstand me as assigning this as the blame of the Missal itself. I am merely putting it forth as the sort of thing some may, again, in my opinion not without merit, bring up as evidence that the volume of these things may have detracted from their value.
Two final points of which I, while still not really putting these forth as my opinions, nevertheless do consider... closer to definitively having my support than what I have mentioned above. Superstition is one of the most dangerous things to Christians, and I think in particularly to the liturgy, because the liturgy, with its "ceremonious" style has inherent in it some of the same outward appearences as superstition; there are many particular actions which are to be done a particular way, actions involving physical things used in the worship of a non-physical God, etc. etc. On top of this, the liturgy is prayer - communication with God, petition, intercession, adoration. What is one of the biggest mistake Catholics make regarding prayer? It is treating prayer more as a magical forumla of some kind, or really in any way other than communication with a personal God. To get to the point, does signing the host several times over risk giving an impression which is opposed to the true nature of prayer that Jesus taught us in the Gospel, not praying vainly as the pagans, speaking to God and knowing He has heard us, and so forth? It need not, of course, but to what degree it does, or to what degree it may be misinterpreted to do so, is important.
Second, I also think its important to consider the meaning of the symbols. Symbols without meaning - or without an understood meaning - are not only rathe useless, but they can really be somewhat dangerous. Now most of the elements of the Tridentine Liturgy clearly had meaning, but many of those meanings had been lost to the laity, and indeed many of them to even the clergy. When there is so much symbolism involved that nobody really knows what most of it is, then perhaps some of it ought be removed. Also, I have read of particular elements of the "TLM" (unfortunately none of which I can recall now) which nobody seemed to be able to figure out, even after research.
Again, these are all just thoughts - musings, as it were. The point is that I think a rather healthy discussion could indeed be had over the wisdom of having removed many of these actions. I honestly do not have a firm opinion on it, but I do think that it is a valid discussion.

Father Cipriano Vagaggini...He was very orthodox and was not a modernist at all.
http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html
I'm not so sure about this assessment. I must be cautious to not slander the late Fr. Vagaggini, but I see there are indications that many would not consider orthodox. He seems to be the author of 2 of the newly created Eucharistic prayers, and seems to be popular among the womynpriest crowd, based on conclusions he made that there were, historically, ordained deaconesses involved in the Christian liturgy, including the distribution of communion.
In any event, Fr. Vagaggini's objections seem principally to the lack of literary continuity. I won't even address this, not being a literary critic myself. The other significant objection is his personal emphasis on the action of the Holy Spirit in the miracle of the Eucharist. He seems to consider himself able to resolve these problems in his crafting of the new prayers which were introduced.
I haven't the time to review the rather long article in detail, but I would say a couple of things. Firstly, the biggest objection, I and many traditionalists have is not against the Mass envisioned by the liturgical texts of the Ordinary Form, but in their English translations, and customary executions. If every mass was as reverent as they ought to be, I doubt there would be much debate at all. I for one would never have found the Extraordinary Form had it not been for abuses in the OF as practiced. Finally, there is a biblical expression "by their fruits ye shall know them". It is clear that, on the whole, the reforms which occurred after Vatican II have devastated the Church in many respects, without resulting in any of it's objectives. I think most of the problems are due to misinterpretations of the council rather than an authentic understanding. As you can see, the OF goes well beyond the requirements of SC, the English translators presented a vastly more "progressive" solution, and the customary execution goes even beyond that. The current re-translations, continuously pressed for by the Holy See, and mostly resisted by the USCCB are an indication that things are not rite (pun intented) with the world.
A good reading would be Redemptionis Sacramentum, it gives clear direction that the typical OF Mass is not celebrated as the Holy See and thus the Church would expect.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. it's possible that the EF could have been improved in some areas, I do not believe that the OF accomplished that without becoming seriously problematic in other areas.

Just a random thought inspired by aslo's post. If the desire is more "actual" participation as properly understood and not some attempt to horizontalize Christian worship, why is it that genuflections, and sign's of the cross have been suppressed or made optional? Why do we reduce the reverences that the people make actively?
To be specific, if more physical activity is a good thing, why not restore the genuflection during the credo? This is wonderfully active and includes the whole celebration. What about kneeling for communion? That is certainly a good way to not only add a physical manifestation, but a profoundly symbolic one.
God Bless,
Matt

Matt,
Because I have really enjoyed the discussions we have had in the past I wanted to ask for your thoughts on this article.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan, do you deny that you copied and pasted for ex.:
"In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, De musica sacra, which distinguished several qualities of participation"
It seems implausible that you would coincidentally write exactly so. Perhaps you don't deny so but instead:
A. Neglected or forgot to attribute your source.
B. Thought it unimportant to as the copied material was insignificant in your view.
C. Are the true author and the website referred to unjustly copied you.
D. Are identical with the author on the website.
E. Come from a cultural tradition as purported to be true by some in defense of MLK Jr's plagiarism in which things judged as plagiarism by white America are not so judged in your tradition.
F. Some combination of the above.
G. Something else obtains which would justify your continued expression of innocence.
FWIW, though this is not too critical, "due diligence" does not really apply here. Considered morally (i.e. not say, legally) "due diligence" would refer to diligence as regards some duty; the person who uncovered this alleged malfeasance did not have a moral duty to do so. (So "due diligence" would not be a proper attribution in much the same way that "ignorance" would not be a proper attribution when only nescience is involved)
FWIW, I hope no one had difficulty figuring out atslos=aslos or atslos=atsols ... "atsols" was just a type ... "aslos" was my contraction of "atslos" ... an omission of "this" in the acronymic shade within which lies the catholicity of love ... for those who are obsessive about such things, I'm sure that will leave you puzzled ;)

Your quotations from Pius XII and the Congregation are all well and good, but they do not say anything with which I would disagree. In fact, they support my point. Clearly, participation in anything having to do with God must primarily be interior, for God Himself is not matter. However, as both SDG points out and the Congregation's letter explicitly states, this participation becomes more complete when joined to external forms of participation. Indeed, this must be so, for we are not merely spiritual beings trapped in flesh, but beings composed of the union of spirit and matter. Any form of worship which failed to incoporate our bodies would be incapable of manifesting worship of God in our entire nature.
Shane
All the more reason why the effusuvely sensual Gregorian Rite or Tridentine Mass is needed in this day and age.
It is refulgent with overtly physical participation, ie: 4 times the amount of signs of the cross than the NO.
5 times the amount of genuflections than the NO.
We have to eat supper now, but I shall get back to you later on the lushness and sensitivity of the actuosa participatio of the Gregorian Rite after manja.
God bless.

SDG, at the begining of my post I cited the Papal documents in question:
"In his encyclicals, "Mystici Corporus" in 1943, and "Mediator Dei" in 1947, Pope Pius XII used the term "Actuosa Participatio" but carefully insisted that true participation was not merely external but consisted in a baptismal union with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church."
Does this suffice for non-plagirism?
I most certainly do not want to steal or bear false witness!

SDG,
Since the subject is the congregation physically sharing in the kiss of peace as as it is practiced, and no objection is raised to appropriate posture, and responses, I can only conclude that you are saying that if that option is removed, you would not consider the congregation to have participated.
Really, Matt? Is that really the only conclusion you can reach about what Shane is saying?
Yes.
No one questions that actual participation is not identical to physical participation. Shane's point, if I read him correctly, is that it is equally true that actual participation is not simply independent of physical participation.
Rather, actual participation and physical participation are conceptually distinct, but interrelated. The example of the congregation sitting in the pew for an hour and a half is a clear and compelling reductio ad absurdum to a false dichotomy of actual participation versus physical participation.
What you said does not agree witht he above quoted statement of Shane. I do agree with your statement though, it is precisely this interrelationship that makes physical participation of value.
Because actual participation and physical participation are conceptually distinct, it would be false to say, "Of course the laity must participate bodily in the kiss of peace, otherwise they aren't actually participating!" But because they are interrelated, it would also be false to say, "Actual participation is what really matters, so there is no value in the laity physically participating in the kiss of peace."
That Shane rebuts the false dichotomy of actual participation versus physical participation is no reason to accuse him of affirming the opposing dichotomy of either physical participation in a specific action or else total non-participation. Yet you seem to say that you can only conclude that he is affirming the latter. Perhaps Shane is right to question the care with which you read his posts.
Shane's statement is not a rebuttal of the false dichotomy, but an expression of it.
But the concept that participation need not be physical at all reflects a no less damaging error in the direction of another major heresy, gnosticism.
Certainly nobody here is saying that, a completely non-physical participation would perhaps only be possible for someone in a vegetative state. It has ALWAYS been customary for the faithful to assume various postures, as well as providing verbal responses to a lesser or greater extent at various times. THis is mentioned in Dan Hunter's quotes from the Holy Father, Pius XII.
re Dan Hunter's post:
Pope Pius XII used the term "Actuosa Participatio"
it is pertinent to note that the commonly used translation of this expression in the Vatican II documents of "active participation" is in fact erroneous. A more accurate English expression would be "actual participation", which does not imply that any change of physical participation is really being called for, while not excluding that. It's well known that the English translators of the era are modernist, as evidenced by their translations of the Novus Ordo missae of 1970. This may be part of the reason some are having such difficulty.
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
365. The choice among the Eucharistic Prayers found in the Order of Mass is suitably guided by the following norms:
1. Eucharistic Prayer I, that is, the Roman Canon, which may always be used, is especially suited to be sung or said on days when there is a proper text for the Communicantes (In union with the whole Church) or in Masses endowed with a proper form of the Hanc igitur (Father, accept this offering) and also in the celebrations of the Apostles and of the Saints mentioned in the Prayer itself; it is likewise especially appropriate for Sundays, unless for pastoral considerations Eucharistic Prayer III is preferred.
2. Eucharistic Prayer II, on account of its particular features, is more appropriately used on weekdays or in special circumstances. Although it has been provided with its own Preface, it may also be used with other Prefaces, especially those that summarize the mystery of salvation, such as the common Prefaces. When Mass is celebrated for a particular dead person, the special formula may be inserted in the place indicated, namely, before the Memento etiam (Remember our brothers and sisters).
...

So, the most common usage in the US, EP II, is contrary to the norms, and the disuse of EP 1 (Roman Canon) is contrary to the norms, unless you believe "pastoral considerations" apply universally.
As regards "novelty", every change could be considered a "novelty", but the sense I'm referring to is something "unprecedented". Adjustments to liturgical practice to enhance the reverence and dignity, modifications to texts, etc. are not by nature "unprecedented". Priestly options on the appropriate Eucharistic Prayer is unprecedented, and furthermore the canon is virtually untouched for 1500 years, so it's clear that many popes have been willing to make changes to the Mass, but not to that most central element. Even SC declares that novelties must be absolutely necessary.
Matt

Thank you, SDG, for your defense of my points in my absence.
Matt and Dan, unfortunately you continue to misunderstand me. SDG has done a fine job clarifying, but allow me to add the further point that in the statements of mine you have critiqued, I was clearly (at least as far as I can tell) referring not specifically to the Kiss of Peace, but to the concept of what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for in general, beause through the course of the discussion the poibt moved from being one specifically focused upon one part of the Liturgy to Liturgy in general.
Your quotations from Pius XII and the Congregation are all well and good, but they do not say anything with which I would disagree. In fact, they support my point. Clearly, participation in anything having to do with God must primarily be interior, for God Himself is not matter. However, as both SDG points out and the Congregation's letter explicitly states, this participation becomes more complete when joined to external forms of participation. Indeed, this must be so, for we are not merely spiritual beings trapped in flesh, but beings composed of the union of spirit and matter. Any form of worship which failed to incoporate our bodies would be incapable of manifesting worship of God in our entire nature.
So, given that we all hopefully agree on these basic points, let me try to restate my original point on this subject. SC called for a reform of the Liturgy - there is no arguing about this or the Latin word used to say so. It also called for, as a component of this reform, more active/actual (however you prefer it) participation. So far, I believe all parties are in agreement. The sticking point is over what this means. Those in the "traditionalist" camp often assert that the document's request amounted simply to better catechesis of the clergy and laity as to how they ought to be participating in the Mass as it then was - that is, how to engage in an interior participation, and perhaps some of the external pforms of participation, in ways in which the laity was not doing to the most desirable degree. This also included the external forms of participation in which the laity ought to have been, but often did not, engaging even in the "old" missal. For example, Pius XII called for the laity to be instructed in the basics of Gregorian chant so as that they would be able to join in in certain parts of the Mass, such as the Sanctus and the Gloria. This sort of opinion was advanced here: the participation called for in SC was already possible in the missal in use in the 50s and 60s, or required at most minor tweaking - somebody mentioned the "Dialogue Mass," for example.
In opposition to this, I quoted SC's assertion that to achieve the participation it sought, that Liturgical texts would have to be drawn up, and it's note of the importance of exterior forms of participation. As I said, many have taken it too far, and of course the practice as it is in many, or perhaps even most, places is often abominable. However, something beyond mere catechesis and minor tweaking was called for, as is made plain by even a coarse reading, and more so by a fine one, of the document. Specific mention of drawing up new or updated Liturgical texts to bring this external participation about are present in it. In short, SC makes clear that to bring about the external participation it called for, things which were not then in the Liturgy were required, and so the "traditionalist" view of what external participation was intended is manifestly too narrow - regardless of how execessively broad many liberals and other groups misinterpret it to be.
That is my point: not that boisterous or in any other way unreasonable external actions are necessary, nor that external participation is primary in the Mass, nor that the external participation need keep the congregation constantly doing things with their bodies.
Matt, as regards the Holy Father's view of the Eucharistic canons, you say,
"As to the Holy Father's previous statements, it's clear that he is not opposed to the additional options used appropriately, but that doesn't reflect in current practice. Most parishes will NEVER hear the Roman Canon, it is not a legitimate option to ignore it. Regardless, it is an utter innovation allow this option."
I would ask that you re-read the quotation. Cardinal Ratzinger said that he was pleased with the new missal, referring not to some general idea of having different options, but rather to the specific missal and to it's specific various options. He was pleased with what we have, not with the general concept. Furthermore, I would assert that the claim that it is not a legitimate option to ignore the first Eucharistic Prayer is a statement out of line with obedience to the Church. My memory may be failing me, but I believe that the Church offers priests the options of these various Eucharistic prayers and makes no stipulation as to the necessity to pay attention to any one of them. I would willingly welcome correction if I am in need of it.
So far as it being an innovation is concerned, that is irellevant. What is relevant is that the Church deems it appropriate and has allowed it. What is further relevant is that one of the most orthodox and sound Liturgical minds of our times, and one who has fought for the "reform of the reform," as it were, Cardinal Ratzinger, has approved of them. Without the desire to begin a different discussion, I would also point out some aspects of the "TLM" were, when first used, either utterly or largely unheard of innovations. I have read, for example, some rather lengthy pieces demonstrating that the silent canon was quite possibly an innovation. I would also put forth that Communion on the tongue, while possibly a good innovation, was nevertheless an innovation (brought about, of course, originall by various local practices, so it is, as you ma point out, not exactly the same thing).

Thank you, SDG, for your defense of my points in my absence.
Matt and Dan, unfortunately you continue to misunderstand me. SDG has done a fine job clarifying, but allow me to add the further point that in the statements of mine you have critiqued, I was clearly (at least as far as I can tell) referring not specifically to the Kiss of Peace, but to the concept of what Sacrosanctum Concilium called for in general, beause through the course of the discussion the poibt moved from being one specifically focused upon one part of the Liturgy to Liturgy in general.
Your quotations from Pius XII and the Congregation are all well and good, but they do not say anything with which I would disagree. In fact, they support my point. Clearly, participation in anything having to do with God must primarily be interior, for God Himself is not matter. However, as both SDG points out and the Congregation's letter explicitly states, this participation becomes more complete when joined to external forms of participation. Indeed, this must be so, for we are not merely spiritual beings trapped in flesh, but beings composed of the union of spirit and matter. Any form of worship which failed to incoporate our bodies would be incapable of manifesting worship of God in our entire nature.
So, given that we all hopefully agree on these basic points, let me try to restate my original point on this subject. SC called for a reform of the Liturgy - there is no arguing about this or the Latin word used to say so. It also called for, as a component of this reform, more active/actual (however you prefer it) participation. So far, I believe all parties are in agreement. The sticking point is over what this means. Those in the "traditionalist" camp often assert that the document's request amounted simply to better catechesis of the clergy and laity as to how they ought to be participating in the Mass as it then was - that is, how to engage in an interior participation, and perhaps some of the external pforms of participation, in ways in which the laity was not doing to the most desirable degree. This also included the external forms of participation in which the laity ought to have been, but often did not, engaging even in the "old" missal. For example, Pius XII called for the laity to be instructed in the basics of Gregorian chant so as that they would be able to join in in certain parts of the Mass, such as the Sanctus and the Gloria. This sort of opinion was advanced here: the participation called for in SC was already possible in the missal in use in the 50s and 60s, or required at most minor tweaking - somebody mentioned the "Dialogue Mass," for example.
In opposition to this, I quoted SC's assertion that to achieve the participation it sought, that Liturgical texts would have to be drawn up, and it's note of the importance of exterior forms of participation. As I said, many have taken it too far, and of course the practice as it is in many, or perhaps even most, places is often abominable. However, something beyond mere catechesis and minor tweaking was called for, as is made plain by even a coarse reading, and more so by a fine one, of the document. Specific mention of drawing up new or updated Liturgical texts to bring this external participation about are present in it. In short, SC makes clear that to bring about the external participation it called for, things which were not then in the Liturgy were required, and so the "traditionalist" view of what external participation was intended is manifestly too narrow - regardless of how execessively broad many liberals and other groups misinterpret it to be.
That is my point: not that boisterous or in any other way unreasonable external actions are necessary, nor that external participation is primary in the Mass, nor that the external participation need keep the congregation constantly doing things with their bodies.
Matt, as regards the Holy Father's view of the Eucharistic canons, you say,
"As to the Holy Father's previous statements, it's clear that he is not opposed to the additional options used appropriately, but that doesn't reflect in current practice. Most parishes will NEVER hear the Roman Canon, it is not a legitimate option to ignore it. Regardless, it is an utter innovation allow this option."
I would ask that you re-read the quotation. Cardinal Ratzinger said that he was pleased with the new missal, referring not to some general idea of having different options, but rather to the specific missal and to it's specific various options. He was pleased with what we have, not with the general concept. Furthermore, I would assert that the claim that it is not a legitimate option to ignore the first Eucharistic Prayer is a statement out of line with obedience to the Church. My memory may be failing me, but I believe that the Church offers priests the options of these various Eucharistic prayers and makes no stipulation as to the necessity to pay attention to any one of them. I would willingly welcome correction if I am in need of it.
So far as it being an innovation is concerned, that is irellevant. What is relevant is that the Church deems it appropriate and has allowed it. What is further relevant is that one of the most orthodox and sound Liturgical minds of our times, and one who has fought for the "reform of the reform," as it were, Cardinal Ratzinger, has approved of them. Without the desire to begin a different discussion, I would also point out some aspects of the "TLM" were, when first used, either utterly or largely unheard of innovations. I have read, for example, some rather lengthy pieces demonstrating that the silent canon was quite possibly an innovation. I would also put forth that Communion on the tongue, while possibly a good innovation, was nevertheless an innovation (brought about, of course, originall by various local practices, so it is, as you ma point out, not exactly the same thing).

I cited the author and the source that I used for the quotes I gave.

Where did you do that? Your entire post here is copied verbatim and without attribution from copyrighted material. Msgr. Schuler's name does not appear anywhere that I can find prior to Inocencio's reference. Please clarify.

SDG
I cited the author and the source that I used for the quotes I gave. You yourself have repeatedly quoted the Holy Father when making a point.
This is not plagiarism.
Please stick to the topic being discussed and do not change the subject.
God bless

May I ask that when you cut and paste from another website you provide a link so the whole article can be read and proper credit can be given, as in this case to Msgr. Richard Schuler.

Thanks for the due diligence, Inocencio.
Dan Hunter,
You have already been warned, repeatedly IIRC, about plagiarism on this blog. Plagiarism is a violation of the seventh and eighth commandments; it is wrong and against the law. In posting plagiarized material on someone else's website, you involve your host in your offense, in spite of repeated exhortations to avoid this behavior, which is an offense against hospitality.
Follow fair use and due credit in the future. If you do not, I will have to disinvite you from participation on the blog.

SDG
"Like Matt, you seem to me to be committing the fallacy of pitting one false dichotomy against another"
SDG: Actually you seem to have a problem with the Holy Father Pope Pius XII committing a "false dichotomy", for I merely quoted the Holy Father when he said:
"This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him)."
I never said that participation not include external movement, but rather that it is primarily interior. Again I quote the Holy Father:
"But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the immemorial responses, prayers and singing . . ."
SDG. I cannot fall off the "Left or the Right side of the horse", because by the Grace of Almighty God, in te visible Church He established, there is no "Left or right side" to fall off of.
There is only being faithful to His Church or being unfaithful to His Church.
I can however become unfaithful to Holy Mother Church, or be faithful to Her.
God bless.

Dan Hunter,
May I ask that when you cut and paste from another website you provide a link so the whole article can be read and proper credit can be given, as in this case to Msgr. Richard Schuler.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan Hunter,
See my comments above. Like Matt, you seem to me to be committing the fallacy of pitting one false dichotomy against another — and more particularly of wrongly implicating Shane in one false dichotomy because he argues against the other.
Just because "true participation is not merely external" does not mean that externals are irrelevant to true participation. The real relationship of inner and outer is more complicated than that — as much so as body and soul, and for precisely the same reason.
Matt says "The concept that participation must be physical is part of the modernism that has deeply affected the Church." I don't disagree. But the concept that participation need not be physical at all reflects a no less damaging error in the direction of another major heresy, gnosticism.
Let's not be like Martin Luther's drunken horseman, who is so concerned about not falling off the left side of his horse that he promptly falls off the right side.

Shane,
In his encyclicals, "Mystici Corporus" in 1943, and "Mediator Dei" in 1947, Pope Pius XII used the term "Actuosa Participatio" but carefully insisted that true participation was not merely external but consisted in a baptismal union with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church.
In 1958, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued the instruction, De musica Sacra, which distinguished several qualities of participation:
"The Mass of its nature requires that all those present participate in it, in the fashion that is proper to th Liturgy.
This participation must primarily be interior (i.e., union with Christ the Priest; offering with and through Him).
b) But the participation of those present becomes fuller (plenior) if to internal attention is joined external participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the immemorial responses, prayers and singing . . .
It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation (participatio actuosa), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.
c) Perfect participatio actuosa of the faithful, finally, is obtained when there is added sacramental participation (by communion).
d) Deliberate participatio actuosa of the faithful is not possible without their adequate instruction.
It is made clear that it is baptismal character that forms the foundation of active participation."
So, the Holy Father is telling us, to sum up,Actuosa Participatio is primarily INTERNAL
and the external participation of the layman should be the physical participation of standing, kneeling and sitting and the IMMEMORIAL responses and prayers.
Perfect actuosa participatio, our Holy Father goes on to say is recieving the Blessed Sacrament.
God bless.

Since the subject is the congregation physically sharing in the kiss of peace as as it is practiced, and no objection is raised to appropriate posture, and responses, I can only conclude that you are saying that if that option is removed, you would not consider the congregation to have participated.

Really, Matt? Is that really the only conclusion you can reach about what Shane is saying?
To me it seems that Shane is not posing an absolute dichotomy (either physical participation in a specific action or else total non-participation, i.e., physical participation and actual participation are identical). Rather, he is pointing out the falsity of an opposing dichotomy: actual participation over against physical participation, i.e., actual participation is unrelated to physical participation.
No one questions that actual participation is not identical to physical participation. Shane's point, if I read him correctly, is that it is equally true that actual participation is not simply independent of physical participation.
Rather, actual participation and physical participation are conceptually distinct, but interrelated. The example of the congregation sitting in the pew for an hour and a half is a clear and compelling reductio ad absurdum to a false dichotomy of actual participation versus physical participation.
Because actual participation and physical participation are conceptually distinct, it would be false to say, "Of course the laity must participate bodily in the kiss of peace, otherwise they aren't actually participating!" But because they are interrelated, it would also be false to say, "Actual participation is what really matters, so there is no value in the laity physically participating in the kiss of peace."
That Shane rebuts the false dichotomy of actual participation versus physical participation is no reason to accuse him of affirming the opposing dichotomy of either physical participation in a specific action or else total non-participation. Yet you seem to say that you can only conclude that he is affirming the latter. Perhaps Shane is right to question the care with which you read his posts.

Shane,
, it is no more desirable that the Mass be an event in which the laymen play no part aside from receiving Communion....To have the congregation sit in the pews for an hour to an hour and a half without being really involved in what is going on is not the ideal situation.
Since the subject is the congregation physically sharing in the kiss of peace as as it is practiced, and no objection is raised to appropriate posture, and responses, I can only conclude that you are saying that if that option is removed, you would not consider the congregation to have participated. The bottom line is, that your statement here on it's face contradicts and authentic understanding of participation as it's intended in the Catholic Mass. We don't need to hold hands, shake hands, or clap our hands to participate, we do it principally in uniting our prayers, and additionally in assuming the appropriate postures, and gestures, as well as in our responses. The concept that participation must be physical is part of the modernism that has deeply affected the Church, the belief that the mass is about the physiological result, and not a supernatural one.
As to the Holy Father's previous statements, it's clear that he is not opposed to the additional options used appropriately, but that doesn't reflect in current practice. Most parishes will NEVER hear the Roman Canon, it is not a legitimate option to ignore it. Regardless, it is an utter innovation allow this option.
Matt

I did not suggest this. My point was only that your claim that boisterous handshaking was necessary to accomplish "actual participation" was incorrect.
I must admit to feeling a bit taken aback, insofar as that I did not suggest anything of the sort. In fact, I would strongly oppose any who suggested such a thing. I apologize for any misunderstanding due to my part, but I also encourage you to re-read my posts if you are able, given that my comments have been so far from this mark that this assertion calls into question the care with which you read them.
So far as Cardinal Ratzinger's approval of the options for the Eucharistic prayers, it is from The Feast of Fatih: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy, in which Ratzinger wrote: "I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays..."
God bless

Shane,
responding to what is a common "traditionalist" argument against many of the Pauline litugrical texts and their having the congregation itself offer those responses and prayers which were at times previously offered only by the acolyte on their behalf.
I did not suggest this. My point was only that your claim that boisterous handshaking was necessary to accomplish "actual participation" was incorrect.
The question arose in the discussion about the sign of peace as to the need for the congregation to do this, with some saying that because in the Extraordinary Form the acolyte does so on their behalf, it is not necessary that the congregation does so. Somewhere along the line, the discussion got into the more broad topic of whether or not the sort of participation called for in the Ordinary Form is either necessary or in fact good
The problem as the Holy Father and most posters here have said is not that the congregation participates as is called for in the texts but that they do so in a manner that is not reverent. The proposal to suppress this OPTIONAL element of the Ordinary Form is based on it's near universal abuse, not on a principled objection to it's presence at all. Realistically it would be very difficult to fix it, so it's suggested to suppress it, or at least move it to a less solemn period of the mass.
So this broader discussion came up, and what is usually said, and was said here, was that Sacrosanctum Concilium's call for participation need not have implied anything beyond properly participating internally - that is, singing along, offering Psalm responses and the like, are not what SC had in mind. My point was to show in SC why this could not be, and why the document in fact called for substantial changes to the then current missal so as to involve the congregation in this sort of participation.
Such changes were already in fact quite well along without a "substantial change" to the 1962 missal. It is called a "dialog" mass and there are various levels of participation applied. The dialog mass is pretty much universal in the Extraordinary Form. In any event, the results of the "reform" do not resemble anything that is proposed by SC, and that's just the texts, the actual practice in most places would shock the Saints and even the Council Fathers.
Ultimately, we now have two forms of the Roman Rite which afford those present different sorts of participation. We ought to be thinking with the mind of the Church and recognizing that each is free to attend that form of Mass which he finds most fruitful for his spiritual life.
Kind of like a "choose your own religion" sort of deal? There IS a legitimate range of solemnity within either rite, the problem comes when these bounds are exceeded. Although it may "feel" fruitful, an irreverent mass is not fruitful.
On an somewhat unrelated note, you mention that having various options for the Eucharistic prayer is an unheard of innovation. I would respond simply that the Holy Father, as Cardinal Ratzinger, expressed his approval of this.

Citation? My recollection of Spirit of the Liturgy was that he decried the wholesale abandonment of the Roman Canon in favor of the choices. Having certain options for certain circumstances is one thing, what occurred is another. In any event, you do not agree that this is decidedly out of line with the Church's practice from the beginning. While there have been different canon's in various times and places, there has never been an "option" about which one to use. The Roman Canon is virtually unchanged for 1500 years.
God Bless,
Matt

My reference to be me being on the "griddle" was a mock allusion to St Lawrence, not St Anthony.

Right, of course, thanks. I do know the story of St. Lawrence and his in extremis bon mot (I think I first encountered while reading The Divine Comedy, presumably in an editorial note).
I got confused here by my own Mark of Zorro allusion, where a reference to "putting St. Anthony on the griddle" has nothing to do with St. Lawrence's martyrdom, though I must have mentally cross-referenced that curious phrase with the story of St. Lawrence.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll be quiet now.

The end of my above sentence has been cut short for some reason.
The line should read: Who when asked at a convocation of priests and laymen in Rome, actually, who were meeting to clarify questions on the Extraordinary Form and its implementation, responded that: "the Holy Father does not want the Gregorian Rite offered in some parishes, but rather in every parish."

Shane,
It is not I that originally use the expression "Gregorian Rite", rather I am just echoing the words of the President of the Pontifical Commision Ecclesia Dei: His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who when asked, at a convocation of priests and layman in England last year to clarify questions on the Extraordinary Rite, "with what kind of frequency the Holy Father wants the TLM offered", responded: "The Holy Father wants the Gregorian Rite offered not in some parishes, but in every parish."
SDG
My reference to be me being on the "griddle" was a mock allusion to St Lawrence, not St Anthony.
St Lawrence as you know was martyred by being burned alive on a griddle.
Apparently the good saint had quite a sense of humour, for at one point during his dolours he commented to his executioners:
"You can turn me over, I'm done on this side.

Matt,
I think you have greatly misunderstand me, and I apologize if it has been in any way my fault. I was responding to what is a common "traditionalist" argument against many of the Pauline litugrical texts and their having the congregation itself offer those responses and prayers which were at times previously offered only by the acolyte on their behalf.
The question arose in the discussion about the sign of peace as to the need for the congregation to do this, with some saying that because in the Extraordinary Form the acolyte does so on their behalf, it is not necessary that the congregation does so. Somewhere along the line, the discussion got into the more broad topic of whether or not the sort of participation called for in the Ordinary Form is either necessary or in fact good. Some, for example IIRC SDG, said or suggested that they preferred this sort of participation to that in the Extraordinary form.
So this broader discussion came up, and what is usually said, and was said here, was that Sacrosanctum Concilium's call for participation need not have implied anything beyond properly participating internally - that is, singing along, offering Psalm responses and the like, are not what SC had in mind. My point was to show in SC why this could not be, and why the document in fact called for substantial changes to the then current missal so as to involve the congregation in this sort of participation.
Ultimately, we now have two forms of the Roman Rite which afford those present different sorts of participation. We ought to be thinking with the mind of the Church and recognizing that each is free to attend that form of Mass which he finds most fruitful for his spiritual life.
On an somewhat unrelated note, you mention that having various options for the Eucharistic prayer is an unheard of innovation. I would respond simply that the Holy Father, as Cardinal Ratzinger, expressed his approval of this.

"Giovanni, The TLM as we know it now [Missal of 1962] was for the most part codified by Pope St Gregory the Great in the 5th century, the 400's, so for others to call the Traditional Latin Mass the "Pian Rite" is not totally accurate.
Pope St Pius V merely made mandatory an already 1000 year old Catholic Rite of Holy Mass, when he issued the Papal Bull,"Quo Primum" in 1570."
I have to disagree with the implication made here. I will repeat my quotation of then-Cardinal Ratzinger to set up my point:
"...the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
If the Extraordinary form is to be referred to as the "Gregorian rite," then the Ordinary form must also be granted the same title. Allow me to explain.
Summorum Pontificum's instruction that the 1962 Missal would be from henceforth known as the "Extraordinary Form" and the newer missal as the "Ordinary Form" is representative of a large strain in Pope Benedict's thought, expressed in the quotation I provided above (and more thoroughly in the longer version several posts up), that the "TLM" and the "Novus Ordo" are not in fact two different rites, but two forms of the same rite. There is one, single Roman Rite which has grown and developed since the earliest days of the Church.
Gregory codified much of the Roman rite as it came to be known, but that rite developed over the centuries, being altered in various ways first by any number of folks in different parts of Europe (to develop a rather wide variety of "local rites" that were in use until the Council of Trent), then by Pius V, then again by (as Ratzinger pointed out) Urban VIII, Pius V, Pius XII, and others. After Sacrosanctum Concilium, yet another, though more complete, rivision was made, producing what came to be called in some circles the Novus Ordo.
Since his time as Cardinal, Pope Benedict viewed the introduction of this Missal as problematic insofar as that it was done in such a way so as to give the impression that this was a deviation from the Roman Rite which had been in use unbroken for centuries, rather than a renewal of that same rite. It was, in part, this error that he sought to rectify with Summorum Pontificum. He did this by identifying the two "rites" as what they truly are: two different forms of the same Rite, similar to how the 1962 Missal is a different form of the same rite as the missal promulgated by Pius V with Quo Primum.
So then, what of the use of terms such as "Paulin rite," "Pian rite," and "Gregorian rite?" If we are speaking strictly of the rite, then all of these are the same: they are the Roman Rite, having been in development since the earliest days of the Church. On the other hand, if we are speaking of something more specific, say, the form, then they are different.
So when I, or some other person, refers to the "Pian rite," it's totally accurate: we're trying to identify what is commonly known these days as the "TLM," but with more professional terminology. In fact, the most accurate thing to call it would be the Extraordinary form, but the use of the term "Pian rite" helps to indicate that we're referring to the missal and its usage pre-1970, as opposed to today.
The reality is that the Gregorian Missal and that promulgated by Pius V were not entirely the same, and so to refer to Pius' Missal with the term "Gregorian rite," unless one is simply referring to the Roman Rite (of which the Pauline Missal is one form) is, intentioanlly or not, misleading or inaccurate. All three are really different forms of the ancient Roman rite, while each is distinct from the others in any number of ways.
God bless

Dan Hunter:
It was an allusion to another discussion we had awhile back, in which you lamented a near constant state of difficulty. No direct allusion to St. Anthony was intended (although St. Anthony's final mortal condition was metaphorically and facetiously connected to the difficulty in question in the 1940 The Mark of Zorro).

Shane,
I think the point you're missing is what the Holy Father is concerned about. The key issue here is not with the liturgical texts themselves, but with the current practice that is not called for and is completely inconsistent with any sense of reverence that is the tradition of the Church.
You're also misreading all of the posts of us "traditionalists". We're not arguing that there should be NO participation but spiritual, only that it should be appropriate.
The occasional use of vernacular called for in SC bears no resemblance to current practice either, and was decried by Paul VI when it occurred. Frankly there is even large difference between the English texts you are used to and the words in Latin. As far as multiplication of Eucharistic prayers, this is a completely unprecedented innovation.
God Bless,
Matt

Giovanni,
Agreed.

Re introduction of the Latin, I can not say that enough is one of the keys to safe the NO liturgy.

,SDG,
I honestly thank the Holy Ghost, daily, for the gift of fortitude, or the gift of being "relentless", as you put it.
SDG, Just curious as to how I am at times on the "griddle"?
Am I being compared to St Lawrence in some veiled manner?
God bless you.

"The early Church did this, it wasnt until the reforms of the 700's (Ithink) in which the faithful took a less active role in the Mass"
Giovanni, The TLM as we know it now [Missal of 1962] was for the most part codified by Pope St Gregory the Great in the 5th century, the 400's, so for others to call the Traditional Latin Mass the "Pian Rite" is not totally accurate.
Pope St Pius V merely made mandatory an already 1000 year old Catholic Rite of Holy Mass, when he issued the Papal Bull,"Quo Primum" in 1570.
At Mass, in the fifth century we already see, as had been the rule of the Church since St Ambrose, over a century earler, communion on the toungue and kneeling, the traditional oblations and Offertory prayers, the Roman Canon [the oldest part of the Mass] and of course the propers.
It goes without saying that the Apostles offered the Mass Ad Orientem in the first century, as we read in the studies of Father Alcuin Reed and others.

I agree with Giovanni. I also would point out to those who cry of the "unorganicness" of the Pauline rite that Cardinal Ratzinger did not seem to share this view:
"Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the “Tridentines” that the Church’s liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself. Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing. Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer."

I believe that Novus Ordo can be saved from the misrepresentation that has been given to it by those who implemented it.
I my self attend a TLM parish I used to attend a NO for the past 3 years in fact it was the Priest (a most orthodox one) that was there to precide my wedding.
I absolutly understand what you are talking about when referring the TLM as organic, the first time I went to it, I fell in love. The majesty, the music, the reverence, the smells, everything about the TLM connects me with every Christian of the last 2000 years.
To think of the NO as defective simply because it wants to encourage the participation of the faithful is flawed.
The early Church did this, it wasnt until the reforms of the 700's (Ithink) in which the faithful took a less active role in the Mass.
Also to think that the NO in its current form can not be rescued from the abuse of the last 40 years is also flawed. Obviesly the Holy Father thinks that we can do so, there are many positive steps being taken.
1. Ad Orientem
2. Music Chant being re-entroduced.
3. Less social more reverent.
These are all good signs.

Yes indeed SDG, the picture is quite "relentlessly rosy".

One way or another, your experiences do seem relentless, don't they? It seems that you are perpetually either on the griddle or caught up into the third heaven. Perhaps the latter is your consolation for the former. For those of us whose experience of life is messier and more complicated, the simple extremes you describe are hard to imagine.

SDG said:
Preventing abuses by removing their context is an antiseptic, scorched earth strategy. We need catechesis and reverence, not minimalism.

Would a temporary removal of the context be appropriate? I'm thinking of what was done with the confusion surrounding receiving the Body and Blood under both species, and the "incompleteness" of not receiving both species.

Why not just create another, 'novus ordo missea' as for me I will remain with the TLM, it sure has been around more then 45 years, and was not 'created' by a committee, but grew organically, formulated by Pope Gregory the Great and codified at the council of Trent.

Atslos,
You have returned. As I posted above, we will have to agree to disagree on basic points. But I am curious how you respond to other posters who cite multiple documents indicating that the time before the reception of Communion should be marked by solemnity, sobriety and "proper" demeanor?

Astlos,
I didn't intend to suggest that the call for active/actual participation indicates that it was altogether lacking prior to the Council. Sorry to all if I wasn't clear. My point was really that the fact that the Council called for it and indicated that the drawing up of new/updated texts and rites was a means by which this participation would be brought about indicates that what they were looking for wasn't present in the then-current texts. (FWIW, I was also pointing out that Sacrosanctum Concilium's indication that external participation needed to be brought about indicates that one's internal prayer and disposition was not all they had in mind).
Now, Astlos, what in particular are you referring to about Dr. Hahn and the heresies? I always enjoy reading what he has to say and am curious about what you're specifically referring to but don't have enough information to go looking it up).
God bless

Vox,
Hmm... I'll have to look into that. A few years ago I did a lot of work putting together a pamphplet and short film to explain the Liturgy to Protestants and non-Christians, and I thought that in doing that I saw the term "Great Amen" in Liturgical books and rubrics. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. I'll investigate!
God bless

Much of what SDG wrote echoes what I had written already above.
To clarify though, I would add that for any bodily expressive activity to be authentic it must be grounded in the spirit. So a mere "going through the motions" has no authentic human value.
In addition, even the infirm individual who is not able to engage in any liturgical or any other gesture, is still actually praying not only with his spirit but with his body. This is because per Catholic doctrine, the soul is the form of the body and thus any operation of the soul would in some manner ISTM engage the body or inhere in the body. So while it might not be so dazzling to the eyes, the mere fact, ontological, that a person's brain, materially, is praising God as a person's soul praises God is of value and is a way of being in both body and soul -- humans cannot not properly speaking act authentically -- however disabled they may be -- in the wayfaring state apart from body or apart from soul. Likewise even the mere act of breathing can, in union with one's heart, be a bodily form in which prayer, spiritual and bodily, inheres. So I wouldn't present paralyzed individuals for example as incapable of prayer, bodily as strictly speaking from a perspective not only philosophical but of spiritual fruitfulness, bodily prayer is the only kind of prayer wayfarers are capable of (and once united to resurrected bodies, the same would be true; the intermediate state is something we need not go into but let's say, just, Thomas has some interesting things to say about).
I agree with Shane's reading of the text as regards active participation (btw guys, not everyone can read Latin or for that matter German ... for the benefit of your non-erudite readers, you might want to include the English translation -- however you would prefer to it translated). But I wouldn't state it so strongly. It's certainly "possible" for a council to call for something that had already existed to some degree or extent or manner (an interiorized active participation) and to call for it to be more prevalent, more penetrative, or so forth. It's not a binary thing where you are either actively participating or not and if you are you can check that box off and escape mortal sin. Rather, the attraction -- or if you prefer, call -- is to journey ever more deeply into the sacred mysteries which belong to ("belong to" as in "are properly of") God and hopefully in doing so achieve the state of spiritual enlightenment which is proper to both our soul and body.
Just a word on Gnostics ... one should keep in mind that the fact that one or several ideas they had may have been wrong, should not lead one to place under a cloud of suspicion all their (distinctive/characteristic) ideas. It might be helpful to consider FWIW, what Scott Hahn says of heresies and their nature as well.

Shane,
You said above: " At this point, the sacrifice has really just been offered, concluding with the Great Amen."
Just a quibble, but the so-called "Great Amen" is just one possible musical setting, albeit one that has come to dominate the liturgical landscape. I prefer a simple, spoken "Amen" to the usual Marty Haugen Ben-Huresque "Great Amen"

Dan, I'll agree with you on some points. You're right to say that you ought to be permitted the Pian rite of Mass if you wish to attend it. The motu proprio expresses that.
This is a very important fact for those who would like to deny you your choice of rite, or to question it in any sort of deep way. As faithful Catholics, we must think with the mind of the Church, and me must submit to Her judgments. Thus, whatever Summorum Pontificum puts forth, we must accept. Thus, those who would question you must accept this.
What you must accept is what Sacrosanctum Concilium put forth about the possible limitations of the Pian rite, or those ways in which the Church deemed it needful to be reformed. That is also a component of thinking with the Church.
As Summorum Pontificum puts forth for the faithful, the Pian rite of Mass is full of great riches, and is a valid, legitimate, and acceptable rite to celebrate. On the other hand, as Sacrosanctum Concilium puts forth for the faithful, there were reforms to the Liturgy which were desirable, some including the drawing up of new texts and/or an updated rite. Both of these things are true, and no faithful Catholic can deny either of them.
The "old" rite is not perfect, and neither is the "new" one. Were it so that either were, the Church either would not have called for reform, or She would not have decreed an increase in the use of the now-termed Extraordinary form. Each has its advantages, and each has its disadvantages.
Now I want to address one final point. You seemed to suggest that your appreciation of the Mass and knowledge of the faith are a factor of the form of Mass you have been involved with, saying,
"I was a miserable wretch, who lived in mortal when I regularly assisted at the Novus Ordo.
The catechesis I recieved from priests and layman during my formative years and beyond took place in and around the Novus Ordo Mass's I heard, including sermons where I was never taught the truths of our faith. eg. Communion is a symbol, Christ never performed natural miracles, etc.
Not until embracing, exclusively, our holy patronage in the Usus Antiquor was I properly instructed in the Precepts and truths of Holy Mother Church.
Coming to the TLM was like waking up one day and realizing that I am part of a royal family."
The problem with this is that you're conflating the rites themselves with the atmosphere under which they have been celebrated. When you were involved with the Pauline Mass, it was celebrated perhaps without some level of reverance and your catechesis was lacking, while when involved with the Extraordinary form you received solid catechesis.
I've heard from people who have expressed somewhat opposite experiences. For example, I have heard from people who were close to abandoning the faith due to the outright nastiness of the people and priests involved with the celebration of the Tridentine rite, but now love the Ordinary form and received not only good catechesis at their Ordinary form parish (or Novus Ordo parish, as some folks used to refer to them as), but also found kind, loving, and Christlike communities and priests.
And of course, we must add to this the plain fact that prior to the Council, more and more people were coming not to know their faith or to lose interest in the Liturgy despite the celebration everywhere of the then-current rite of Mass. In fact, one of the largest complaints about the Pauline Mass - that it prevents people from understanding that the Mass is a sacrifice - is very ironic given that it was considered by some to be common knowledge that Catholics of the 1950s era had lost sight of the fact that the Mass was in fact a sacrifice.
In other words, things were beginning to go downhill even with the Pian rite of Mass being celebrated. The problem was that priests stopped catechising, and many became liberal themselves or bought into the spirit of the age. Neither rite of Mass is really responsible for this - it was going on due to various other factors. (I am one of those who believes that without the introduction of the Pauline rite, things would actually have gotten far worse than they did - that the Holy Spirit did indeed guide the Church as He always has into the actions of the Second Vatican Council and in fact through things like the Pauline Mass helped to damper the blow that the 1960s and 70s would bring to the Church - but that is a different discussion!) The point is simply that you can have bad catechesis, irreverant Liturgy, and nasty people associated with either form, and you can have solid teaching, reverent, solemn worship, and Christlike figures with either. The Pauline Mass is not responsible for any of these various maladies, nor is the Pian rite an antidote to them.
Dan, your experience may be great with the Extraordinary form, and for that I am very happy for you. However, there are many others whose experience was not so "rosy," and who are now living as more faithful, more orthodox Catholics in an ordinary form parish. I believe that God has provided for them with the Pauline Missal, just as He provided for you with Summorum Pontificum.
God bless!