HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE DOES "FULLY CONSCIENCE" OR FULL AND CONSCIENCE ACTIVE OR IS IT ACTUAL PARTICIPATION MAKE? LITURGICAL MINDS WHO LIKE TO COUNT ANGELS DANCING ON THE HEAD OF NEEDLE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW!

WHO CARES ABOUT ACTUAL OR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF FULLY CONSCIOUS OR FULL, CONSCIENCE PARTICIPATION--LET'S JUST HAVE ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS AND REJOICE IN THAT!

And could it be that whatever scribe put the various documents of Vatican II into Latin did not do it accurately? Maybe the scribe had his own agenda? 

But Paul Inwood thinks there's some hanky panky going on at the English Vatican website at is concerns Sacrosanctum Concilium:

"The most common translation of that oh-so-familiar first paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium 14 runs as follows:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

I wonder how many have noticed that the version which has been on the Vatican website in recent years has a subtle difference:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

The bold type indicates the change, from “full, conscious and” to “fully conscious..."

 My comment:Who knows and who cares at this point in the so-called liturgical renewal. I'd be happy simply with actual participants at Mass even if they aren't actively participating. Do they have to be fully conscious? I doubt it some seem quite asleep to me!