In article <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes: >Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually >on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking >the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say >"Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it >again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit >during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation",      On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of Jesus in the Passion.  I declined to participate.  Last year at the liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but to no avail.  >musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the >liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be >explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just >sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about >to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay >"experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a >bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of >bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for >people to be aware of the Lord's presence.     As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of innovations.  The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any decisions of their own in many cases.  I guess it's easier to "try something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.     At our parish on Holy Thursday, instead of the priests washing feet ("Who wants to get around people's feet," according to one of our priests) the congregation was "invited" to come up and help wash one another's hands.     The symbolism of this action distressed me, and again I refused to participate.  I thought that if we were to have to come up with rubrics for this liturgical action (i.e. "Body of Christ" -- "Amen" for receiving Communion), that they could be "I am not responsible for the blood of this man."     Also for part of the Eucharistic Prayer ("Blessed are You, God of all creation...") was substituted some text read by a lay couple.  The priest certainly should not have given this part of the Mass over to others, and I was so disturbed that I declined to receive Communion that night (we aren't required to anyway -- I instead offered up prayers for our priests and parish).  >So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass >going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or >Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware  >of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should  >just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational >participation in Catholic Masses lately?     The quality of the Mass has not changed.  Again, if it were to be celebrated according to the rubrics set down by the Church, it would still be "liturgically" beautiful.  The problem comes about from people trying to be "creative" who are not.     I think the answer to your question on participation could be that given by Father Peter Stravinskas in answer to the question posed by the title of Thomas Day's _Why Catholics Can't Sing_.  "They don't want to" because of all this nonsense.     By the way, for any non-Catholics reading this, the problem does not reflect bad liturgy by the Catholic Church, but by those who are disobedient to the Church in changing it on their own "authority."