One of the primary concerns of the the Liturgical Movement was the demand for participatio actuosa, active (or actual) participation of the congregation in the liturgy. An early expression of this concern can be found in Romano Guardini’s 1918 book The Spirit of the Liturgy. Guardini writes:
It is of paramount importance that the whole gathering should take an active share in the proceedings. If those composing the gathering merely listen, while one of the number acts as spokesman, the interior movement soon stagnates. All present, therefore, are obliged to take part. It is not even sufficient for the gathering to do so by repeating the words of their leader.
Guardini goes on to contrast the form of prayer found in a Litany, with that of the antiphonal singing of the Psalms. While the former has its uses, he argues, the later is the normative form of liturgical prayer:
The liturgy adapts the dramatic form by choice to the fundamental requirements of prayer in common. It divides those present into two choirs, and causes prayer to progress by means of dialogue. In this way all present join the proceedings, and are obliged to follow with a certain amount of attention at least, knowing as they do that the continuation of their combined action depends upon each one personally. Here the liturgy lays down one of the fundamental principles of prayer, which cannot be neglected with impunity. However justified the purely responsive forms of prayer may be, the primary form of prayer in common is the actively progressive–that much we learn from the lex orandi. And the question, intensely important today, as to the right method to employ in again winning people to the life of the Church is most closely connected with the question under discussion. For it is modern people precisely who insist upon vital and progressive movement, and an active share in things.
I have highlighted the words “people” and “modern people” which represent a strange error, or perhaps correction, in Ada Lane’s translation of Guardini. In the translation the passage clearly anticipates later stages of the Liturgical Movement; it is modern people who insist on active participation, as opposed to passive looking and listening. People have stopped going to church, and in order to draw them back, they must be allowed to take a more active part, as monastic choirs chanting the divine office do. In the original of the passage, however, there is no equivalent to the words “people” or “modern”. Here is the original:
Continue reading →
Sancrucensis 