The same chapel has just uploaded a video showing the new postures for Mass, which can be seen here:

Both of these were true popes, but they were NOT solid.  The last good pope we had was Pope St Pius X; that's over 100 years ago.  Since his death, modernism came out from underground, blossomed and spread its errors everywhere, especially while Pius XI and XII were popes.  Neither of them consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart.  They failed in this and in other ways.

Yep.
Pius XI betrayed the Cristeros in Mexico, suppressed Action Francaise, introduced "active participation," and expanded the experimental dialogue Mass of Benedict XV (to name just a few of his shortcomings).
Pius XII went even further and butchered the Holy Week rites (and along with the dialogue Mass which prepared the way for this tampering, itself prepared the way for the Novus Ordo). 

Why?  The person obviously didn't want to be identified at their chapel, which is exactly why we have an anonymous sub-forum.  If not for that, this info may never have come to public light.

Absolutely right.  There could be numerous reasons/scenarios for being extra vigilant about one's identity.

Did you just get hatched out of an egg?  The link above shows it was Pius XI and the modernist liturgists like Dom Lanbert Beauduin and Cardinal Mercier who considered "active participation" as "standing and singing and responding, like the choir and the altar servers," not me.  You are not condemning me (who rejects those innovations), but Pius XI who introduced them at the behest of the modernists who lobbied him to do so.

So, active participation means to you standing up and singing and responding, just as I thought. That was exactly the mindset of all the priests that went with the Novus Ordo. The French went along with your "active" participation in the 1930's and on big time, and today less than 4% of French go to mass, so that's no solution. There is nothing wrong with standing and singing, however, the responding (Dialogue Mass)is a novelty, invented in the late 1920's. Moreover, no English speaking country went along with the Dialogue mass, it was completely rejected, and this is the most important point, you are wanting to change the customs of other countries to a French liturgical movement. We do not know, nor do we need to know the customs of other countries, so there is no way we could know if the priest making all these changes is winging it, inventing his own mass, or if it really is a custom in his country. We know what has been done in America for 400+years, and what was done at that mass in Sanford is a novelty. I hope the prior has eyes to see that, and ditches the practice. 
Do you also think having a conductor in front of the congregation waving his limp wrist is a good thing? 

So, active participation means to you standing up and singing and responding, just as I thought. That was exactly the mindset of all the priests that went with the Novus Ordo. The French went along with your "active" participation in the 1930's and on big time, and today less than 4% of French go to mass, so that's no solution. There is nothing wrong with standing and singing, however, the responding (Dialogue Mass)is a novelty, invented in the late 1920's. Moreover, no English speaking country went along with the Dialogue mass, it was completely rejected, and this is the most important point, you are wanting to change the customs of other countries to a French liturgical movement. We do not know, nor do we need to know the customs of other countries, so there is no way we could know if the priest making all these changes is winging it, inventing his own mass, or if it really is a custom in his country. We know what has been done in America for 400+years, and what was done at that mass in Sanford is a novelty. I hope the prior has eyes to see that, and ditches the practice.
Do you also think having a conductor in front of the congregation waving his limp wrist is a good thing?

You obviously lack reading comprehension 

Presumably this is directed to me, but you are too stupid to see that I am agreeing with everything you are saying.  You must be a very hard person to get along with if that is typical of you.

So you say you agree with everything I said? I never saw you say you did anywhere:

So, active participation means to you standing up and singing and responding, just as I thought. That was exactly the mindset of all the priests that went with the Novus Ordo.
 
The French went along with your "active" participation in the 1930's and on big time, and today less than 4% of French go to mass, so that's no solution.
 
There is nothing wrong with standing and singing, however, the responding (Dialogue Mass)is a novelty, invented in the late 1920's.
 
Moreover, no English speaking country went along with the Dialogue mass, it was completely rejected, and this is the most important point, you are wanting to change the customs of other countries to a French liturgical movement. We do not know, nor do we need to know the customs of other countries, so there is no way we could know if the priest making all these changes is winging it, inventing his own mass, or if it really is a custom in his country.
 
We know what has been done in America for 400+years, and what was done at that mass in Sanford is a novelty. I hope the prior has eyes to see that, and ditches the practice.
 
 
 
 
 
You agree that having a conductor in front of the congregation waving his limp wrist is a novelty.
 

The new Society is preparing you for”active” participation.

They are implementing the changes to the missal now so when it comes, it looks like "nothing has changed". The water keeps warming and the frogs are content.

If you agree with everything I've said then I guess you also agree with this, since it is just expounding further on everything I said:


Don’t get me wrong, one should participate in the mass, however, the problem is the mindset that the only way to participate is to show it by standing, singing and responding out loud as if one were the chorus and the altar server. As I said before, real participation is internal, and someone singing and responding may not be participating in the mass internally at all, while someone who is silent during the whole mass may be really participating internally. You can have a congregation that stands, sings and  responds and yet are not participating at all in the mass and their mind is on the outfit they are wearing and whether the men are paying attention to their short dresses and tight tops and a million other things. This I call the punch your card in on Sunday Catholics, where they go and sing stand/ sit in military order like sheep and never really participate internally, and then they go to live the other 166 hours of the week wearing short shorts, fornicating, adultery, cheating others in business, lying……  No, there is nothing wrong with real participation however, whenever anyone talks of active participation let it be a big red flag, you are dealing with a lover of novelty, a person who thinks they invented the end all be all to save the Church.

 

The proponents of this active participation and communism have much in common.

 

Communism has resulted in  = Stalin and the USSR, the Iron Curtain, Siberia, Mao and China , Vietnam, North Korea, Pol Pot Cambodia, Castro Cuba, Hugo Chavez and Maduro Venezuela…… but all the communist idealist say that those are not real communists that that is not real communism and then go on to speak of a communist Utopia.

 

Active participation has resulted in = the Holy Week mass changes of 1954, the mass changes practically every year thereafter, and eventually the Novus Ordo mass, conga masses, Black Gospel masses, Hindu masses…. And ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy. But all the proponents of stand/sing/respond (active participation) say that the Novus  Ordo is not real active participation, that it is theological error that is to blame. They say that had active participation been done right, the world would have been changed.

 

Communist and proponents of active participation are both dreamers living in unreality.

Yes, I have agreed with all of this for decades.
Somewhere in my description of Pius XI’s liberal idea of active participation, you misunderstood me, and took me to mean that true active participation was singing, standing, etc.  In reality I was ascribing that to Pius XI, but I do not agree with him (or Mercier, Beauduin, etc) at all.
I thought you were deliberately misconstruing what I was saying as a debate tactic, and allowed myself to get frustrated, but I can see now that was not the case (and even if it was, it would still not justify uncharitable pejorative, for which I now apologize).